When does microevolution turn into macroevolution?

Nuggin wrote: OK. Biological evolution is an indisputable scientific fact. However, the mechanics and processes of biological evolution are not yet fully understood or agreed upon, which by no means disqualifies biological evolution itself as a scientific fact.”HM

But do all the Fundies agree on what "God's eternnal love" means? On what "free will" means? On what Jesus's "resurrection" means? I have no idea what they mean, but I'll bet they are regarded as crucial conecpts ("truths") in your religion. So who's a "Fundy"? Does the Pope walk in lock step Jerry Falwell? Which Fundy is more Fundy than another Fundy?”HM

In regards to this debate - Fundies are supporters of YEC and ID (and no there really isn't any difference between the two theories).Is the Pope a fundy? Nope. Pope supports evolution.

quote:

---

OK. Biological evolution is an indisputable scientific fact. However, the mechanics and processes of biological evolution are not yet fully understood or agreed upon, which by no means disqualifies biological evolution itself as a scientific fact.

---

It may be possible that the Tennis Match can appear LOVE-LOVE. I would need others to see things my way however.If creos decide that "Macro"evolution is the first non-observable divergence then it is obvious that a new subset of creationists could arise who insist on disjunctions orthogenetically but if creationists prefer to allow the history before Jesus and the historicims beyond Darwin to remain split (as seems a better "foul" line) a letted ball can continue to go both ways if one tries to refine Dobshanky's middle term "meso" evolution. This would require however that technological/culture evolution and Lamarkianism be unbraided rathe then upbrained and braided as it continues to be.If this was to happen the mechanics and processes of "biological evolution"(Hoot) may indeed divide among the notions of atomic, molecular and general facts of Russell where you happen to insist on a "scientific fact" that creos may disparge given the extent of the explanation I am having to make(Nuggin).I have always been curious just what it means when evos, Mayr among them, say 'evolution is a fact'. YECS at ICR noticed this change among evolutionists as to where evolutionary evidence was no longer needed because of the "fact of evolution." It may have become no longer needed in the secular environments, but for what reason? Could it be that there is not strict difference of molecular and general facts?Hoot could it not also be that your disagreement with Mod (by the way I like very much what Mod and Ned said here even though I pretty much rabidly in disagreement with both them generally, you I am particularly in disagreemenbt with( that is not as good)) is over Mod's understanding that disjunctions need not be discontinuties and perhaps his vernacular English is better able to circulate the minor points that Russell was making to the Harvard post-Jamesians. I find that I only NEED Russell's distinctions to take account of Gladyshev's RUSSIAN science (before I just had thoughts that mostly went for other's thinking I was crazy etc).So I dont really know what it means to say "scientific fact".+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++The reason that I personally need to go beyond the simplistic idea of a scientific fact is that statistical biogeography relates to autoapomorhies with figures that I can only think being homogenous to Russell notions of streches of seriial relations else the diversity of scientific facts can not be unified by me in my own idea of a university. I fear I may have complicated the information exactly beyond the point that Nuggin was making but just about every time your avatar blinks and I read your posts I have to restrain myself from responding because despite your clear interest in bioLOGOS your use of language to express this interest grates me in ways not even the French Quater in New Orleans does to me. I would like to keep it simple stupid, but we can not if I am right about the fact of it all.
------------------------------------
If you think it will help, I can gather some of Russell's work on factssee here for a start:

quote:

---

In addition to atomic and molecular facts, Russell also held that general facts (facts about "all" of something) were needed to complete the picture of the ...
Bertrand Russell (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

---

Edited by Brad McFall, : link

Observation: As embrogenesis progresses in animals with complete digestive tracts, the embryo forms around a hollow cavity, the "blastocoel," and it produces a" vegetal plate" where an opening, a tiny hole, develops. This hole is called the "blastopore." In "protostomes" animals (nematodes, arthropods, annelids, mollusks, et al.) the blastopore eventually becomes the animal's mouth. In "deuterostomes" animals (echinoderms, hemichordates, and cordates) the blastopore becomes the animal's anus. Questions:How could any protostomes animal population evolve gradually into a deuterostomes animal population? How could a blastopore gradually evolve from generating an animal's mouth to generating its anus?Why wouldn't that be a case for very sharply punctuated equilibrium, since there are no in-betweens?”HM

Maybe, I don't know enough to say.However, that is NOT the point I was trying to make. You don't seem to be answering my post.Additionally you are using punctuated equilibrium incorrectly. It does not apply to what you are trying to talk about here.

As I explicitly said, I thought the OP was being dealt with admirably and I decided not to join in with that. Do you need me to simplify this? You seem to be labouring under the misunderstanding that I was responding to the OP, and not an entirely different poster. Let me clear this up. I was responding to a statement by Hoot Mon. I know what you are saying Nuggin, and I responded to it. Do you want me to repeat why I do not agree with you? I do not think it is boasting, or showing off. I think it is clearing up an important point. Letting inaccurate statements slide - just to 'benefit the cause' is stupidity. My 'cause' is for better understanding of science.If converting fundamentalists is your cause, I won't apologize for stepping on your toes. I believe that kick starting people into thinking that evolution isn't a Fisher Price science that can be refuted with Fisher Price arguments is far more important than putting on a masquerade of simplicitly to fool them.Neutralmind's questions were being answered - Hoot Mon's statement needed to be answered. So? Do you think fundamentalists are so stupid that they cannot see that scientific debate occurs? What they need to be aware of is what that debate looks like. It doesn't involve patronising and dumbing down. Are you contending that scientific debates don't happen? Are you trying to pretend they don't? Shall we gloss over one of the greatest things about science just so the fundamentalists don't go "See! You guys can't agree on anything.'The point is right there! The difference between scientists and antiscientists should not be hidden away. Scientists do not make absolute incontrovertable statements - there are exceptions and howevers abound in science. Hiding this from fundamentalists hurts important causes more than it helps. Exactly! Does that frighten you? Scientists don't have consensus and aren't afraid of it, and the fundies band together despite their differences?I'm married to the truth, Nuggin, and I won't pretend something isn't true when it is. If you are happy to whistle and look the other way when somebody makes statements you believe to be false just so the fundamentalists don't realize that not all scientists agree with one another about all things - then go ahead. I won't. More to the point - when somebody, anybody, makes a statement that the consensus of scientists disagree with - I'm damn well going to point it out.If Ned had said, 'The reason the sky is blue is because the blue frequencies are polarized by electron-positron interaction at the quantum level which deexcites the rest of the spectrum temporarily.', would you happily ignore that statement to preserve soem futile masquerade? To ensure that the fundamentalists realize the crushing consensus of science and how it has come to a firm conclusion about the sky? Agreed. And when 99 people are all shouting one thing, and 1 person shouts something different, something wrong - I make it a point to try and correct the 1 person so that he may join in with the 99 to make it a 100. Do you have a problem with that?

a better understanding for you of for others? Because what you are doing is causing a greater lack of understanding among the people who we most need the knowledge. Of course it isn't. Just like trig is more complicated than addition. By this thinking, we should start with trig in pre-school so as to prevent the kids from thinking that math is based on simply understood concepts. Mod! You've been here for 2 years! How can you not know this?! YES! The fundamentalists DO NOT SEE that scientific debate occurs. They hear that there is a debate between "steady state" and "punctuated equilibrium" and conclude that scientists disagree that evolution exists. ABSOLUTELY!Why? Because I KNOW that the fundies don't get past "polarized" - the rest of the sentence is Spanish to them.So when a fundy asks "Is the sky blue" and we reply "yes", it allows us to start from a foundation. We have the fundy agreeing that there is a "sky" and that it is "blue".From there we can build.Instead, if you respond with: 'The reason the sky is blue is because the blue frequencies are polarized by electron-positron interaction at the quantum level which deexcites the rest of the spectrum temporarily.'The Fundy stops reading and says - even the scientists don't believe the sky is blue.Game over.

I haven't studied this all real closely (ADS you know), but you seem to be having a side debate on "How to teach science to non-science type people", or something like that.Maybe a little "Great Debate" topic between you two would be a good thing? It might well make for a good topic, but it doesn't belong in this topic.AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Change ID yet once again.

---

To be honest Hoot this basically lies in the realms of the same problem you get when creationists complain that we can't show them a cat giving birth to a dog. There is no reason to assume that the latest common ancestor of the protostomes and deuterostome had a specific modern protostome body plan with an anus and mouth of any particular embryonic origin.In fact many modern protostomes may only have a mouth or only an anus. So the latest common ancestor of both may well have not had a discrete mouth and anus (Neilsen, 1994). There is a similar argument that rather than an inversion of the protostome body plan seen in annelids and arthropods, leading to deuterostomes having a dorsal nerve chord and ventral heart, the differences can be explained by "a common ancestor with diffuse dorsoventral organization, followed by oppositely directed condensation of the nerve cord and relocation of the heart in the two lines" (Gerhart, 2000).TTFN,WK

Could you clarify this? Are you talking about changes in allele frequencies or gross morphological change? I appreciate that the latter necessitates the former, but we may see sweeping genetic change not reflected in radically different morphology.TTFN,WK

My point is that 'Ned's explanation' is a load of crap. Its Greek to everyone. Pointing out that scientists don't agree with Ned's explanation should be done.Anyway - this is an interesting debate in its own right - as per Moose do you want a Great Debate, or perhaps a general new discussion on it? I'm happy to do the PNT.

WK wrote: How do they manage to do that if they have complete digestive tracts? Are you saying that these "modern protostomes" have devolved back into mesozoans?”HM

From what I have read, this isn't proposed to have happened. One did not evolve from the other: they share a common ancestor with a species with a more primitive gut system. Just like we did not evolve gradually from chimpanzees. Because a lack of inbetweens is basically not relevant to punctated equilibrium. Gould tried his best to put this forward, but people insisted on ignoring him. emphasis mineA position, incidentally, that Darwin put forward 100 years before Gould/Eldredge. Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory that rejects gradualism.Edited by Modulous, : Cleaning up the Gould quotes

Is that a requirement for being a protostome?I'm saying that all modern protostomes are likely to have had a common ancestor which had a blind gut and that some modern protostomes still show this feature. If you want to argue that blind guts are a derived feature or that there are no protostomes which have a blind gut then feel free, but please try and make some sort of argument.*ABE* There is a compelling case to be made, based on gene expression (Arendt, 2001) and other developmental considerations (Erwin and Davidson, 2002), that the most recent common ancestor did have a through gut. But that doesn't make your original contention better, it just means I was wrong about the nature of the most recent common ancestor.TTFN,WKEdited by Wounded King, : No reason given.