Always talking about micro-evolution?

I declare a moratorium on using the term ‘microevolution’ or trying to define it as being distinct from ‘macroevolution’. Our creationist brethren here can’t deny that evolution takes place, so they’ve taken to limiting the extent of evolution to just what can be observed in a human lifetime. It reminds me of a bad lawyer claiming that his client’s fingerprints don’t prove he was at the crime scene, just that his fingers were.Observed evolutionary change, as Talkorigins makes clear, is enough to convince any rational person of the power of Darwin’s variation-selection machine. These speciation events often constitute significant morphological change, even the switch from unicellularity to multicellularity in green algae. These events are remarkably clear illustrations of the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution in action, and I’m sick of seeing them sold short.The ‘micro’ party’s over, creationists. You either accept evolution or you don’t.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

JonF,The creationist definition of 'microevolution': significant change in a population or species that both illustrates the capabilities of evolutionary mechanisms and expands our understanding of the DNA copying process in the context of natural selection. Could produce major change over time but doesn't.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Mike the Wiz writes:

quote:

---

I think I know a bit about evolution now, you're acting like we know nothing.

---

Then what about the observed speciation events, or the many observations of change among populations? Five speciation events for mice on Madeira, dozens in the case of leopard frogs? Green algae going from unicellular to multicellular? Don't these constitute evolution? Aren't these clear enough illustrations of the operation of the Darwinian variation/selection process, from which we can infer the common ancestry of species in general?Tell me if this level of adaptive change is evolution. If so, why can't we use what we learn from it to formulate hypotheses about the history of life on Earth?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

It's fairly well accepted that dogs are a subspecies of wolf. That is, dogs and wolves share a recent common ancestor. Is this evolution? The subpopulation that gave rise to dogs underwent genetic change over time due to geographical isolation, and gradually the descendents of this subpopulation became distinct enough from wolves that we designate them differently.In the case of humans, it seems that we share a recent ancestor with chimpanzees. We understand the mechanisms of this sort of divergence and change, and the genomes of humans and chimps have enough telltale similarities to convince any rational person that he shares ancestry with other primates. Is this evolution?There are plenty of fossils that detail the transitions that took place as a certain species of land mammals gave rise to families of aquatic mammals. Each step of the transition is gradual but significant. Do any of these transitions constitute evolution? Does the entire history linking sea mammals with their land-dwelling ancestors constitute evolution?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

I never thought of the Chicago-to-the-moon analogy before, but it strikes me as a very good parallel to the forensic evidence we use to establish patterns of ancestry.Let me put it this way. DNA analysis can establish paternity beyond any shadow of a doubt. I'm not sure who told you that this evidence is constantly changing, but in fact it's one of the most incontrovertible aspects of the evolution debate. Our understanding of mutation rates and DNA recombination also allows us to form family trees from analyzing the similarities and differences in the "letters" contained in certain spots of separate species' genomes. The funny thing is, that no matter what common molecule we use for our comparison, the ancestral trees that result agree within a very close margin.So it's like you're seeing human artifacts on the moon and denying that humans could have possibly traveled there from Earth. Maybe the exact route taken isn't yet known, but saying it's impossible goes against our available evidence.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Skeptick,I agree with Crash, the issue you have with DNA is the botched police jobs (whether due to using too few profile loci or just plain sloppy lab work) that have landed innocent people in trouble. I think you should check out this site with info on DNA profiling problems, because it at least explains the methodology that's supposed to be followed in using DNA profiles.Then you could check out the link I posted on molecular family trees, because that is a completely different issue. We understand the notion of heredity and how evolution accounts for the nested hierarchies in nature. How do you account for them?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Okay, what wise guy told Skeptick that evolution wrote Mein Kampf? Was it you, Ned?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Thanks for not responding to any of my posts which actually involve evolution. I guess you understand when you're a bit out of your depth. Hitler, abortion, and atheism have nothing to do with the theory of evolution by natural selection.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Skeptick asks:

quote:

---

Any idea WHY (or HOW, or what compelled) Stephen J. Gould came up with his ludicrous "punctuated equilibrium" idea?

---

I don't see what's so ludicrous about it. Gould and Lewontin combined the patterns of change paleontologists recognize in the fossil record with the results of population studies from people like R. A. Fisher. He demonstrated that the gaps in the fossil record are just where we would expect them.To use an analogy, think of the flip-movies you can draw on note pads. You draw a character on one side of the pad walking over to the other side by making each page a slight progression from the previous one. That was how we used to see the fossil record: species were each a slight progression from the last, in a smooth gradation from one to the other. The only reason the flip-movie of species wasn't gradual, people assumed, was that most of the pages were missing.Gould showed us a different flip-movie, where the character stays on the left side of the page for a long time, then suddenly he disappears when a new character appears in the middle of the page. Then he stays there for a long time, before suddenly he disappears when a third character appears on the right side of the page. The transitionals are still there, but the pages chronicling them are so few (and elapse so quickly) that we don't even notice them.The small populations where the real changes take place are not well represented in the fossil record because they weren't very numerous and weren't around for long. Fossils come instead from the large, stable species that don't show much change over time. And even recently extinct species like the passenger pigeon (which once numbered in the billions) don't seem to have left any fossils, so we can't assume there's paleontological record of every significant species.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

If there is evidence, your camp seems to be hiding it pretty well because they can't show us any.

---

This is typical creationist circular reasoning. Creationist says evidence doesn't exist. When he is presented with evidence, he claims it can't be evidence, because it exists. The development of life on Earth for the past three billion years can't be 'shown' any more than the fact that the American Civil War took place, or (believe it or not) that the Sun is the center of our solar system. Inference from a multitude of observations is the basis of empirical evidential inquiry. Short of being able to witness the past three billion years of history with your very eyes, what would you consider evidence to support common ancestry?What can be shown is the operation of the DNA system and how natural selection creates patterns of descent, predictions from which can be supported through examination of genomes in a wide array of organisms. We can show fossils and place them in chronological order, and test the reliability of these patterns of change against those proposed by other researchers. Ultimately, we can demonstrate how useful the theory of common ancestry has been in guiding further research in molecular biology and genetics.Not comfortable with inference? Then you're not comfortable with science.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

Instead of attacking the creationists who pressured the uncovering of the frauds and forgeries (in private), you sidestepped that and took the position that the evolutionists uncovered it. Which they didn't; they just took public credit for it to save face. Had the creationists not applied pressure, the evolutionists wouldn't have moved so quickly, if at all. The evolutionists certainly knew of the problem, but the creationist pressure is what did the trick.

---

I was right, you have an incredible imagination. Where all this came from is anybody's guess. It may astonish you to realize that Piltdown was exposed by examination through radiometric dating, which creationists claim is a fraudulent method. Creationists had absolutely zip to do with the exposure of the fraud.Crashfrog got you with that one, Skeptic my friend. You really should read up on these episodes, because they're prime examples of the predictions of evolutionary theory being borne out and confirmed for all but the most delusional observers.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Skeptick,I'm not sure how to characterize your position on evolution. You think that evolution couldn't have produced a digestive system? nice bird plumage? I asked you quite honestly what you would consider evidence of evolution, since the visible changes in populations and genetic links among organisms seem inadequate to you. In fact, I do see evidence of a common designer for horses, trees, eyes, flagella, and nice bird feathers: the variation and selection machine of evolution. Evidence from fossils, morphology, molecular biology, genetics, and other sources lead me to believe that all life shares ancestry. You claim that you're persuaded by inductive inference too, but you won't conclude that species evolve? You haven't shown that evolution is based on unfounded assumptions, just that you don't understand the basis of the theory of evolution by natural selection.There's discussion on this thread concerning differences in chromosome counts, another thing you're using to debunk evolution. Did you realize some species contain members with varying chromosome counts? Why do you think this somehow invalidates evolution? Now you think rib counts in horse fossils means that modern horses did not evolve from earlier species of horses?You keep talking about genes, but refuse to listen when Mammuthus argues his area of expertise. I think what we know about genetics is strong evidence in favor of common ancestry, and you seem to argue that what you don't know about DNA is evidence against evolution.You haven't answered any of my questions, but for what it's worth I don't depend on evolution for my livelihood. I'm just fascinated by natural history and I think evolution is a rational theory that explains the vast majority of available observations. It proposes testable mechanisms and has contributed to further research into the development of life on Earth.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Skeptick,I notice you never seem to answer any questions yourself, like the ones I posted here. And they're too important to ignore.No one here knows whether you accept any amount of evolution whatsoever in organisms, or whether you just think small changes won't add up to big ones over time. No one here knows what evidence you would consider persuasive concerning evolution by natural selection.When you were shown a diagram of ear-and-mouth structures in reptiles and humans that strongly suggest common descent, you dismissed the evidence as unintelligible. When you asked for statistics, you were answered but you claimed you couldn't understand the numbers. When you expounded upon DNA and genetics, you wouldn't listen when a geneticist tried to put the subject into context for you. When you claimed that certain fossils were frauds, we explained that the frauds were uncovered by peer review, radiometric dating, and the scientific process. You then made it sound like creationists were the ones who exposed the frauds, with nothing but your own assertions to back you up.Of late, you posted a quote by a creationist that was criticized for being wrong about the effect of mutations in the genome. You claimed that the fact that he is a creationist is the sole reason we don't accept his word. This only makes us more certain that you don't understand the subject and aren't making much of an effort to learn. You've asserted that

quote:

---

I've never found an evolutionist who could either provide any [evidence], just lots of verbiage, and references to many frauds, and forgeries. If there is evidence, your camp seems to be hiding it pretty well because they can't show us any.

---

Obviously that's a strong position, that there is no evidence whatsoever to support the theory of evolution by natural selection. What is your point, Skeptick? Would you please tell us what form of evidence you would find acceptable concerning common ancestry of organisms?[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 02-11-2004]

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Skeptick,I'm not trying to trap you by asking what you would consider persuasive evidence of common ancestry. I just want to know. If you're sincere in saying that we have presented you with such evidence, tell us what that is.Your last line makes me think that maybe this is another evasion tactic. I just asked you what your opinion is: do you think evolution happens at all? Do you think the proposed mechanisms of evolution are testable and verifiable? Do you think that Darwin's theory has any basis in fact?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

Skeptick,Sorry I missed your subtle irony. Your wit is just as sharp as your scientific acumen.So are we back to square one, then? Talk about bait-and-switch. You accept exactly the sort of change in populations that demonstrates the Darwinist variation-selection process in action, but you deny that this process could result in the sort of large-scale change that we'd expect to see it produce over time.So now the questions you so sarcastically avoided remain unanswered. Because no one can demonstrate to you the development of life on Earth during the last few billion years, you don't accept the theory of common ancestry. Because your personal incredulity is greater than your ability to assess scientific evidence, you don't even accept that variation and selection could account for colorful bird plumage. Because no one can give you precise odds of a certain evolutionary event, you remain unconvinced that the event was even possible.And that's fine. You're missing out on the wonders of Nature, but that's your choice. You're choosing ignorance over evidence and believing that it's a virtue to do so. You're ridiculing us for being fascinated by Nature and having the capacity for rational, objective assessment of facts. Some people's capacity for self-delusion is boundless, and there's nothing we can do to change that.So, Skeptick, there'll be no more questions from me and no more attempts to answer yours. I don't know whether any amount of evidence would convince you, or what this evidence would be. I don't know what you hope to achieve by acting the way you do. I only know you're a waste of time.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall