In this topic, I will be going over the alleged instances of macroevolution. As per request, I have accomodated
Chiroptera in starting the
"29 evidences for macroevolution" hosted by the popular pro-evolution usernet, TalkOrigins, by beginning with Nested Hierarchies.
quote:
"As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes. "
-Theobald Theobald
Here, the writer describes that the predictable pattern for any organisms that
'groups within groups' will emerge all on their own. I happen to agree with this as it is perfectly compatible with micro-adaptations and we are able to witness these events quite clearly. He also goes on to say that its the known process within the evolutionary model. I happen to agree because the rest is based on interpretation.
quote:
"Mere similarity between organisms is not enough to support macroevolution; the nested classification pattern produced by a branching evolutionary process, such as common descent, is much more specific than simple similarity. Real world examples that cannot be objectively classified in nested hierarchies..."
I happen to agree with this as well, but most unfortunately, this is an all to common way for many evolutionists to determine lineage.
"
quote:
Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between "subjective" and "objective" is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically ”perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc."
Theobald gives a great example on how interpretation can lead some of us to draw unempiricle conclusions that are based more on our predelictions rather than simply making an objective claim.
quote:
"cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees."
Here, I feel that Theobald is being honest, but I get the feeling that he is beginning to lean toward punctuated equilibrium in that if the phylogenic data represented does not show a clear and concise stepwise trend, instead of question whether or not such a broad evolution took place, they make an appeal that we just might not be able to see it as clearly as one would desire.
"
quote:
There is one caveat to consider with this prediction: if rates of evolution are fast, then cladistic information can be lost over time since it would be essentially randomized. The faster the rate, the less time needed to obliterate information about the historical branching pattern of evolution. Slowly evolving characters let us see farther back into time; faster evolving characters restrict that view to more recent events. If the rate of evolution for a certain character is extremely slow, a nested hierarchy will be observed for that character only for very distantly related taxa. However, "rate of evolution" vs. "time since divergence" is relative; if common descent is true, then in some time frame we will always be able to observe a nested hierarchy for any given character. Furthermore, we know empirically that different characters evolve at different rates (e.g. some genes have higher background mutation rates than others). Thus, if common descent is true, we should observe nested hierarchies over a broad range of time at various biological levels."
And here, I feel my suspicions are confirmed. While he does not outright mention PE, his description spells it out quite nicely. In other words, he is giving us abstract reasons for why macroevolution should be actual rather than present some actual evidence.
Here, AiG gives us a trait matrix as a mock chart that describes how similarities within any given specie can often share similarities that mean very little as far as it would relate in a biological sense. In this chart, the writer uses a simliar diagram that Theobald uses in his description of cars.
Heavy truck---Light truck---Automobile---3-wheel motorcycle--- 2-wheel motorcycle---Bicycle---Unicycle
Horn 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Manual steering 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
Multiple wheels 1 1 1 1 1 1 0
3 ln number wheels 9 7 4 3 2 2 0
Thick tires 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
Motorization 1 1 1 1 1 0 0
Self stability 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Backrest seating 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Ln cargo capacity 5 3 1 0 0 0 0
Enclosed cabin 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Steering wheel 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
Upward exhaust 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Double wheels 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Interior partition 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Detachable units 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 1. Mock character-trait matrix of wheeled vehicles. Most traits are polarized: 0-Absent and 1-Present. The number of wheels is indicated by three times the natural logarithm of the actual number of wheels, rounded off to the nearest whole number. The cargo space is denoted by the ratios of natural logarithms of the cargo volume relative to that of the automobile, based on a guesstimate.
Walking Whales, Nested Hierarchies, and Chimeras: Do They Exist?
| Answers in Genesis
Back to the issue at hand, Theobald goes on to write:
"
quote:
If it were impossible, or very problematic, to place species in an objective nested classification scheme (as it is for the car, chair, book, atomic element, and elementary particle examples mentioned above), macroevolution would be effectively disproven. More precisely, if the phylogenetic tree of all life gave statistically significant low values of phylogenetic signal (hierarchical structure), common descent would be resolutely falsified."
Since we can break things down to its simplest elements, there is always a level of similarity. For instance, all things material, living and non-living are composed of atoms, but to arrive at the conclusion that since we all share similarities on the atomic level, somehow justifies lineage, is suspect.
"
quote:
Keep in mind that about 1.5 million species are known currently, and that the majority of these species has been discovered since Darwin first stated his hypothesis of common ancestry. Even so, they all have fit the correct hierarchical pattern within the error of our methods. Furthermore, it is estimated that only 1 to 10% of all living species has even been catalogued, let alone studied in detail. New species discoveries pour in daily, and each one is a test of the theory of common descent."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Lastly, Theobald provides no actual evidence for anything, about anything, and simply retreates into the hazy cloud that is ToE with its inability to clearly define the theory or even its subtheories and retreats into the plea that moast organisms have yet to be studied thoroughly. This, of course, should make us wonder why he clings to theory so strongly if its basis is on theoretical biology.
All in all, the opening segment of '29 evidences' failed to report even one evidence of a macroevolutionary process. Instead, it simply rehashes on certain microadaptations that we already know about and then gives us some abstract reasons for why it theoretically is possible.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Forgot to add sources
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Trying to reconfigure a chart.... To no avail. Eh, whatever, you get the idea
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
™ Version 4.2