Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,271 Year: 5,528/9,624 Month: 553/323 Week: 50/143 Day: 12/11 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   No Witnesses
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 215 (656004)
03-15-2012 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by NoNukes
03-15-2012 11:19 AM


I agree with the sentiment that we can't really witness macroevolution, but I disagree with it not having any real meaning. When I took a course on human evolution in college, our biology textbook distinguished between micro and macro evolution. Too, Biology Online has this to say:
quote:
Macroevolution
Evolution happening on a large scale, e.g. at or above the level of species, over geologic time resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
I don't think that a speciation event in some bacteria is a good representation of what we should be using macroevolution to describe.
And don't bother with Rrhain; he's really only interested in gainsaying and you'll end up finding out that he wasn't worth your time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2012 11:19 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NoNukes, posted 03-15-2012 6:54 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 98 of 215 (657137)
03-26-2012 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by NoNukes
03-25-2012 12:08 PM


Let's assume that crashfrog is exactly correct about the sloppiness of the English language, and that "seeing" atoms perfectly well describes watching the visual display of a STM.
The word "seeing" can be used that way, but the topic of this thread is "witnessing" in the context of whether or not anyone has witnessed macroevolution.
In that sense, I would think witnessing implies 1) the thing actually exists (so Mickey Mouse is out) and 2) that you're seeing it "with your own eyes"
If not, then bam:
...we've all witnessed macroevolution and this thread can be closed.
Somehow, I don't think that's going to work for the creationists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by NoNukes, posted 03-25-2012 12:08 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:53 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 215 (657275)
03-27-2012 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by crashfrog
03-27-2012 8:53 AM


Well, sure, but that's because when they say that "macroevolution is fish turning into rabbits", or whatever, their mental notion is that this all happens to a single organism; that there was actually one fish that suddenly grew hair and long ears.
Yup, and if they had a more proper image of macroevolution (like the one I linked to above from Biology Online), I still think there'd be a point that people haven't really witnessed macroevolution. As something that takes place over long periods of time, you can't point to it and say: "there, there it is, that's macroevolution". Now, I realize you might wanna count the arrival of a new species of bacteria as technically being macroevolution, and you could argue that we could point to that and witness it, but I don't really think that's what people are talking about. Its more about gross morphological change. Something that undeniably evolution in a loose sense. As you say:
quote:
as populations change and grow - as described statistically, stoichometrically - over long periods of time.
I don't think you can witness that happening, do you?
You guys are getting hung up on what "seeing" means, when the topic is witnessing. I don't think its right to say that you've witnessed Mickey Mouse, although you can use the verb 'to see', to say that you've seen him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 8:53 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 11:51 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2012 2:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 109 of 215 (657304)
03-27-2012 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
03-27-2012 11:51 AM


I don't think you can witness that happening, do you?
Yeah, I think you can, particularly when generational times are fairly low (like 40 minutes or so.)
From the message you replied to:
quote:
Now, I realize you might wanna count the arrival of a new species of bacteria as technically being macroevolution, and you could argue that we could point to that and witness it, but I don't really think that's what people are talking about. Its more about gross morphological change. Something that undeniably evolution in a loose sense. As you say:
quote:
as populations change and grow - as described statistically, stoichometrically - over long periods of time.

ABE:
From Message 105
Similarly, people talking about 9/11 reminisce about what they were thinking when they "saw the twin towers fall", irrespective of whether they were actually at Ground Zero when that happened.
And if someone would have said that they "witnessed the twin towers fall", then we'd be under the inpression that they were there.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 03-27-2012 11:51 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 118 of 215 (658104)
04-02-2012 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Rrhain
04-02-2012 2:41 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:
quote:
As you say:
as populations change and grow - as described statistically, stoichometrically - over long periods of time.
I don't think you can witness that happening, do you?
Yes.
Because we have.
Multiple times.
In the lab and in the wild.
On plenty of organisms.
Why would you have us deny that?
In the message you replied to, just before where you started quoting, I explained my reasoning:
quote:
Yup, and if they had a more proper image of macroevolution (like the one I linked to above from Biology Online), I still think there'd be a point that people haven't really witnessed macroevolution. As something that takes place over long periods of time, you can't point to it and say: "there, there it is, that's macroevolution". Now, I realize you might wanna count the arrival of a new species of bacteria as technically being macroevolution, and you could argue that we could point to that and witness it, but I don't really think that's what people are talking about. Its more about gross morphological change. Something that undeniably evolution in a loose sense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 04-02-2012 2:41 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2012 9:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 120 of 215 (658350)
04-04-2012 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rrhain
04-03-2012 9:17 PM


quote:
In the message you replied to, just before where you started quoting, I explained my reasoning:
Yup, and if they had a more proper image of macroevolution (like the one I linked to above from Biology Online), I still think there'd be a point that people haven't really witnessed macroevolution. As something that takes place over long periods of time, you can't point to it and say: "there, there it is, that's macroevolution".

But we have. Multiple times. In the lab and in the wild. On plenty of organisms. I've posted the references. Why would you have us deny that?
You're not talking about the same thing I'm talking about: it takes place over periods of time that are too long to witness in the lab.
quote:
Now, I realize you might wanna count the arrival of a new species of bacteria as technically being macroevolution
What do you mean "technically"? It either is or it isn't.
There isn't only one definition of "macroevolution". Some people consider a speciation event to be it, some people consider reproductive isolation to be it, and others think it should be descibing events above the species level. I linked to the definition from Biology Online and their's seems to be even higher than that.
So, since the word "macroevolution" can be used to describe a speciation event, then its technically correct to say that a speciation event is macroevolution. But if other people are talking about how we haven't really witnessed things above the species level, then its beside the point to say that this here speciation event that we've witnessed counts. And its disingenuous to charge people with having you deny that it even happened when they're trying to tell you that they're talking about something else.
And then we saw new genera appear right before our eyes.
Which genera?
quote:
Its more about gross morphological change.
Yep, that, too.
What kind of gross morphological changes?
If you're not going to spend any time actually discussing the evidence other than providing a bare link, asserting it supports your position, and then telling people to go look it up themselves, then I'm not really going to see any point in continuing this conversation with you. I still think you're only interested in gainsaying. And stop being disingenuous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 04-03-2012 9:17 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 04-07-2012 6:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 122 of 215 (658949)
04-11-2012 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Rrhain
04-07-2012 6:07 PM


Why do you insist we lie about that?
Why are you lying about me?
Is it because you're just an asshole who's only interested in gainsaying? or are you just trolling?
That's too bad because there could have been an interesting conversation here about the kinds of gross morpholical changes we've observed and how they mean that we've witnessed macroevolution.
Thus, it is clear to all but the most obstinate observer that the "geologic time" is more of an indicator of the typical rather than an insistent part of the definition. That is, it is rare for macroevolutionary events to happen quickly (especially for taxonomic changes high up the clade diagram), but not impossible. The defining characteristic of macroevolution is not the amount of time it took but rather the effect: Did you get a new species? Great...you've got macroevolution. Did you only get variations or a sub-species? Then that's microevolution.
I've already explained to you what I'm talking about: When people are talking about witnessing macroevolution, they're not talking about a speciation event in a lab.
I've posted the links to the original papers before. Here's a chance for you to do some homework. Go to PubMed and look them up. Here's a start:
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e32198. Epub 2012 Mar 19.
Meloneis gen. Nov., a new epipsammic genus of rhaphoneidaceae (bacillariophyceae).
Louvrou I, Danielidis DB, Economou-Amilli A.
Source
Department of Ecology and Systematics, University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Abstract
The diatom family Rhaphoneidaceae is characterized by high generic diversity and low species diversity with most genera known to have long stratigraphic ranges. The genera within this family are neritic marine, and mostly epipsammic. A new modern and epipsammic genus, Meloneis gen. nov., is described herein and is compared to all genera within Rhaphoneidaceae and especially to Rhaphoneis Ehrenberg s.l. Within Meloneis three new species and one variety are distinguished and described herein: M. mimallis sp. nov., M. mimallis var. zephyria var. nov., M. akytos sp. nov., and M. gorgis sp. nov.
PMID: 22442663 [PubMed - in process] PMCID: PMC3307707
Rule 6: Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 04-07-2012 6:07 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2012 1:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 215 (660406)
04-25-2012 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Rrhain
04-25-2012 1:42 AM


Then they're moving the goalposts.
More like: they've had the goalpost in the wrong place.
But you can't shoot the ball over there and claim a point because that's where you think the goalpost should have been. That's not going to work.
A speciation event is "macroevolution" by definition.
Not necessarily. The word "macroevolution" is also used to describe things that aren't speciation events.
I give you the reference, the title, the author, the source, the abstract, and the PMID so that you can go look it up yourself and ensure that you have no reason to complain about the source being insufficient, and you have gall to complain that it's "lengthy"?
Intentionally wrong again
You're supposed to be offering points in your own words. We don't just throw around links, or non-links in this case. This is supposed to be a discussion.
Too, we need to be sure that you understand the sources you're claiming support your position. As Dr A points out in Message 126:
quote:
Meloneis gen. Nov., a new epipsammic genus of rhaphoneidaceae (bacillariophyceae).
They don't mean that it's "new" in the sense that it's just evolved and they know this because they've watched it happen, they mean that it's "new" in the sense that no-one had previously discovered it.
So it wasn't even a case of witnessing macroevolution in the first place.
What you should do is describe a scenario, in your own words, where and how macroevolution has been witnessed and then provide a link to back up your claims. But you'd have to be more interested in discussing than gainsaying to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Rrhain, posted 04-25-2012 1:42 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 04-27-2012 9:23 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 204 of 215 (660930)
04-30-2012 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Rrhain
04-27-2012 9:23 PM


quote:
The word "macroevolution" is also used to describe things that aren't speciation events.
Logical error. You've got the implication backwards. Not all rectangles are squares but all squares are rectangles.
Actually, this analogy will work well in making my point:
Let say a creationist asks to see a rectangle, and then you show them a picture of a square, and then they go: "No, I meant one of those things with four courners where its wider than it is tall".
You're better off finding a rectangle that looks like what they want rather than just continuing to insist that a square is technically a rectangle.
When a creationist asks to see macroevolution, you're not helping by simply insisting that a speciation event, say a bacteria in a lab, is technically what they're asking for by definition. That's not really what they're looking for.
Whether or not this is moving the goalposts is beside the point, and differs on a case by case basis.
Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary processes at or above the species level. Thus, there are plenty of macroevolutionary events that aren't necessarily speciation since they occur higher up the taxonomic tree, but that doesn't change the fact that speciation, by definition, is macroevolution.
I'm not disputing that speciation is technically macroevolution, I'm saying that, instead, you should offer those "macroevolutionary events that aren't necessarily speciation since they occur higher up the taxonomic tree". That is, if you actually wanted to contribute to a discussion rather than just gainsay.
quote:
You're supposed to be offering points in your own words.
Oh, so I'm supposed to show you original research that I've done in my own bio lab. Unless I personally wrote up the abstract, then you've got a problem?
and you chide people for playing dumb
If you ain't playin', then you've got to be incredibly stupid.
Here's rule 6 again:
quote:
6.Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.
Even I don't believe you to be so stupid as to think that means that you should be showing abstracts that you personally wrote up from your own original reseach that you've done in your own lab.
If you are having trouble understanding Rule 6, then I'm sure Percy could explain it to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Rrhain, posted 04-27-2012 9:23 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Rrhain, posted 05-21-2012 2:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 208 of 215 (663151)
05-21-2012 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Rrhain
05-21-2012 2:44 AM


First you complain that there isn't enough information. Then you complain that a couple paragraphs is too much.
You're a liar. I complained that it wasn't in your own words, and then you played dumb and acted like I was saying that means you should be presenting your own research from your own lab.
Its all still there for everyone to see. That you think you can lie to me about my own position on a public forum is incredibly stupid.
quote:
You're better off finding a rectangle that looks like what they want rather than just continuing to insist that a square is technically a rectangle.
Incorrect. This will only continue the false statement by the creationist that squares are not rectangles. Instead, it is much better to point out the error of their claim and insist upon accurate terminology, defined strongly, and used consistently.
Yeah, if you're an asshole who's only interested in gainsaying.
But not if you care for them to actually learn something. For that I disagree with your opinion on the matter. I don't find your methods to be helpful or useful at all. I haven't learned a single thing from you in this thread (other than your an asshole who's only interested in gainsaying to the point that you'll lie to a person about their own position).
A square is a rectangle. Not "technically." But precisely and specifically. All squares are rectangles without exception. If what was meant was an equiangular, non-equilateral quadrilateral, then that's what should have been asked for in the first place.
Assuming they already knew those words... but we're talking about a position that stems from ignorance.
Its like chiding a kindergartener for writing their 'S' too squiggly. You're just an asshole gainsayer and your method of teaching is unhelpful and cruel.
Why would we coddle such a person?
Because they don't know what they're talking about and you're trying to help them understand something. Because you're not just interested in scoring debate points. Because your not an asshole who's only interested in gainsaying. But obviously, none of those apply to you.
And please stop lying about me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Rrhain, posted 05-21-2012 2:44 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 05-23-2012 3:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 210 of 215 (663559)
05-25-2012 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Rrhain
05-23-2012 3:18 AM


I can't believe that you're too stupid to understand Rule 6. I'll leave Percy to explain it to you.
Now, if you want to complain that this isn't an example of witnessing a new genus, that's fine. Let's have at it.
If you were actually interested in discussing it, then you would have replied to Dr. A's Message 126:
quote:
Meloneis gen. Nov., a new epipsammic genus of rhaphoneidaceae (bacillariophyceae).
They don't mean that it's "new" in the sense that it's just evolved and they know this because they've watched it happen, they mean that it's "new" in the sense that no-one had previously discovered it.
But without your explanation of the research in your own words, I can't even be sure that you understand it, so there's no point in even having at it yet. If you could do that, then the discussion could move forward. But again, that's not what you're interested in. You'd rather just gainsay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 05-23-2012 3:18 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024