Macro and Micro Evolution

Sonic, I am inplying that you moved the goalposts after your standard was met. If there is any confusion, you have to accept responsibility for not saying what you meant. "Ability" does not equal "organ".Mark

Sonic, The fossil record IS evidence of evolution because phylogenies match it to a much higher degree than would be expected than chance. This is a FACT. See below.That you won’t see that this is evidence is your blindness, not sciences. You are conflating evidence with hypothesis. A hypothesis is based upon evidence, it is still speculation until it has been deductively tested, ie. has other evidence brought to support it.It is a FACT that 75% of cladograms tested by Benton et al match evolutionary expectations, & not expectations of non-evolution. It is a FACT that 75% of cladograms tested by Benton et al match evolutionary expectations, & not expectations of non-evolution. Au contraire.You said you wouldn’t accept cladistics because it was based on a theory that wasn’t proven, a theoretical idea. All of the examples I gave were in exactly the same boat at one stage, yet you accept them. This is hypocritical. I expect you to withdraw your objection on the grounds cited, or reject the five well established scientific theories.It is a FACT that 75% of cladograms tested by Benton et al match evolutionary expectations, & not expectations of non-evolution.FACTS are evidence, right? So why when the test supports evolution won’t you accept it? I’ll bet my bottom dollar you would be crowing over a negative result. Ah, this is my favourite bit. It isn't 75% evidence at all. It is 0.75 correlation across 300 evidences.From memory the average taxa number was six, giving you the benefit of the doubt let’s say only 66% of nodes match, for ease of calculation. This means that four cladogram nodes match the stratigraphic order of appearance. What are the chances of this occurring if evolution were not indicative of reality?You have four slots left, pick a taxa & there is a 4:1 chance of getting it right. There is then a 3:1 chance of getting it right for the next, & so on. This means that the average odds of getting a cladogram right by chance to the tune of a 0.66 correlation is 1*2*3*4:1, or 36:1. Already strong evidence of evolution. But hang on, aren’t there 300 cladograms?That becomes 36*10^300:1 (corrected by edit to add *10)7.77*10^466 : 1 (corrected by edit to add *10) odds that the samples tested match evolutionary expectations by chance the way that they do! Do you want to write that number in full? 7.77 with 466 zero’s tagged on behind it?Such is the multiplicative power of corroboration.So, tell me, what is more likely, macroevolution occurred, or the statistical evidence occurred by chance? It is a FACT that 75% of cladograms tested by Benton et al match evolutionary expectations, & not expectations of non-evolution.Statistical evidence IS accepted by courtrooms. A nonsense objection. Methinks you are not competent to proceed. And wrong again, statistical evidence is accepted that is less well supported than this (relatively speaking). DNA paternity evidence, for example. Furthermore, phylogenetic analyses have been used in the courtroom to secure convictions. If the court accepts it, why not you?And you expose another inconsistency in your reasoning, this apparently IS evidence if microevolution is involved, but not if macroevolution is involved? So is it garbage, or not? It seems you are rejecting evidence based upon your preconceived notions, rather than honestly & critically examining it. If the evidence supports microevolution, fine accept it. If it supports macroevolution, reject it as garbage. Not very honest, Sonic? It is evidence or it isn't. You can't just reject it because you don't want macroevolution to have evidence. There really is little point discussing science with you, then, is there? If 7.77^466:1 isn’t rock solid statistical evidence, then nothing will convince you, especially as you see it as some kind of virtue to accept something with no evidence whatsoever. Bizarre. There is a 0.75% correlation between cladograms & stratigraphy. Explain how that FACT occurred despite a global flood.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-28-2003]

Sonic, Evolution in no way precludes an afterlife. It does falsify a literal reading of the bible, however. Evidence is supposed to. Who has the stronger argument, the man who claims there are discrete charge carrying entities called electrons, & cites a wealth of evidence. Or the man who denies the other mans claim on the strength that it contradicts religion? I already did. But I've noticed an error. In a six taxa phylogeny there are 5 nodes, not 6. So, again for ease of calculation, we'll asume an average correlation of 0.60. Three out of five nodes correlate. Meaning 1*2*3:1 = 6:1 odds of getting a 60% correlation in one cladogram. For 300 cladograms it becomes 6^300:1, or 2.79*10^233:1 odds of getting the correlation with stratigraphy by chance.Of course the actual correlation is 0.75, which is closer to 4 out of 5 nodes correlating, in which case 1*2*3*4 = 24:1 = 1.16*10^433:1In a cladogram with 5 nodes we might expect a 20% chance per node of it being "right" by chance. This adds up to a one node "got right" by chance alone. In other words, there is a 1:1 chance that one of the nodes is "correct", & it's just "noise". So even if we go back to the most favourable calculation for you (the 5 node 0.60 correlation) & subtract the "noise", instead of 1*2*3, it becomes 1*2 = 2:1 chance of a "pure signal", which becomes 2^300 : 1 = 2.04*10^90 : 1 of there being the impression of a statistical signal due to chance alone. Is that all? Don't you mean, "I accept the amazingly powerful corroborative evidence in favour of macroevolution?"There are now over a thousand cladograms tested, but I'll let you do the sums!Given the quality of evidence supporting my argument, I put it to you that it is unreasonable on an evidential basis to deny the occurrence of macroevolution.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-28-2003]

Sonic, The same respose as WILLOWTREE got.Based on what maths do you arrive at the conclusion that there should be a lot more transitional fossils? Clearly, to arrive at an informed opinion you will have taken into account biogeography, (species ranges, dispersal patterns etc), local taphonomic considerations based upon the organisms natural environment, & the subsequent chance of such a fossil being exposed at the surface in the Holocene.Show your working.If you can't do that, then I put it to you that your subjective opinion (when opposed by high quality evidence that macroevolution occurred) isn't any great danger to palaeontology, & evolutionary theory in general.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Sonic,It can't be easy to even accept the possibility of something that was originally such an anathema to you. So well done on your honesty thus far. Why 1%? It seems an artificial barrier to me. However, given that most taxa slip comfortably into a cladogram which sorts organisms based upon relationships (& therefore sorts into intermediate stages), I would say your claim has been more than met. The taxa that "jump" clades are relatively few when different data sets are used to derive cladograms. Certainly not the 99% you require for your challenge to be unmet.Creationists make such a fuss about taxa appearing "fully formed", or that intermediate XYZ is missing. The truth is that taxa appear, when they do appear abruptly, appear basally, with very basic characters, & specialise & become more diverse & complex as time goes by. A corollary of this is that the fossils within that clade are themselves all intermediates. Pretty much any member of any clade falls into this pattern. Even the more basal members of clades show eerily similar characters to organisms that came before, early equines relative to condylarths, for example. Ungulates to cetaceans, therapods to avians & so on.I think you are looking at the question backwards, the question you should be asking is why there are transitional & intermediate fossils at all, & not be placing artificial barriers (which I put to you has long been surpassed, anyway) on what you will & won't accept, it smacks of dodging the issue.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Sonic, Um, no.1/ Inbreeding would reduce variation by introducing homozygosity, you would thwen have to wait for new variation to arise. It would take longer to "macroevolve".2/ Drift is non-adaptive anyway. IT is NOTHING like natural selection.Mark

Sonic, Genetic drift is a mathematical FACT. But it doesn't fill the gap. Genetic drift is a statistical artifact that basically states that allele X will occasionally find itself in the next generation in a higher frequency than the typically expected ratio due to chance alone. Alleles can be fixed & eliminated in populations in this way. It is random by definition, & is non-adaptive.Genetic drift occurs at the micro-level, & pretty obviously at the macro-level too, since macro = lot's of micro. It isn't sandwiched between levels.I think it's time to drop your personal definition of macroevolution & adopt the word in the way science does. After all, science coined & defined the term in the first place.Macroevolution is the sum of those processes that explain the character-state transitions that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank (Levinton 1983).Or more simply, but potentially more confusingly, macroevolution is evolution above the species levelNote that organ changes aren't diagnostic of macroevolution in either case, because the signifier is change in taxonomic rank. To be sure, the character changes will often include organ changes, but given that most species are unicellular, & that they are ranked taxonomically too means that macroevolution doesn't = organ changes. You have already seen the fantastic statistics that support the notion that macroevolution occurred. If you wish to present evidence that overturns such evidence, please do so. Otherwise please refrain from arguments from ignorance [an argument of the form, it hasn't been proven so it must be false, or vice versa], or arguments from personal incredulity. The evidence that macroevolution occurred is incredible & requires greater evidence to overturn it. Arguments of the above two forms do not qualify.Quotes like the one above show a profound misunderstanding of terms & mechanisms. But even so, your argument is of the form, "because genetic drift hasn't been proven, it is false, & therefore macroevolution cannot occur". Logically flawed - argument from ignorance. Even if genetic drift were required for macroevolution, which it isn't, & it hadn't been "proven", it wouldn't in any way detract from evidence that actually did exist.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Sonic, Ditto, I've asked for an explanation of this in a previous post of my own.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Sonic, &, So why when I said this, Did you say, ?Darwin didn’t use the fossil record to infer evolution, but he did make predictions based upon it. So when those predictions are borne out they are evidence of evolution, non?If you answer in the negative then you are just being inconsistent at best, a hypocrite at worst.It’s not mine, PaulK’s, or Ned’s fault there are transitional & intermediate taxa in the fossil record. Not accepting their significance is simply putting your hands over your ears & closing your eyes to it.Furthermore, you completely skipped the points I made about the 1% transitional claim. It has been surpassed long ago. Every fossil taxa is a transitiona/intermediatel except the terminal ones. That’s why consistent cladograms are possible. Why else, do you think? For the second time, show your working as to how you arrive at how many transitionals we should have. A purely arbitrary figure is not good enough.We both know you can't do this, & this reduces your argument to subjective opinion, whereas ours is evidence based.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-29-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 11-29-2003]

Sonic,"I think it's time to drop your personal definition of macroevolution & adopt the word in the way science does. After all, science coined & defined the term in the first place.Macroevolution is the sum of those processes that explain the character-state transitions that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank (Levinton 1983).Or more simply, but potentially more confusingly, macroevolution is evolution above the species level.Note that organ changes aren't diagnostic of macroevolution in either case, because the signifier is change in taxonomic rank. To be sure, the character changes will often include organ changes, but given that most species are unicellular, & that they are ranked taxonomically too means that macroevolution doesn't = organ changes."If you don't feel able to drop your definition, then at least call it something else, the word "macroevolution" is taken.Mark

Sonic, I've given you two textbook definitions. Do you really need them knocking on your door? A definition doesn't need to be observed. A definition needs to be agreed upon in order to achieve commonality. What's the point arguing with someone who describes X as white, & someone else as X as black?Terms need to be agreed, & you & Messr Brown are making your own up.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Sonic,Thank you, it's a lot easier if we agree terms. Of course there's nothing to stop you basing an objection on the inability to evolve new organs, of course. It's just that we now all agree that it's not necessarily macroevolution. But as you have seen, the evidence of evolution is bladder weakeningly good.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall