|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Macro and Micro Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
sfs Member (Idle past 2534 days) Posts: 464 From: Cambridge, MA USA Joined: |
quote:You can define words however you want, but these definitions don't correspond to anything used by biologists -- there's no focus on new organs in the definitions they use. The M-W definition of macroevolution is incoherent to start with, since it mixes two different meanings in a single definition. You can define macroevolution as including any species formation, or you can define it as large or complex changes, but they're not the same definition -- sometimes species formation involves large changes, but often it doesn't. Your additions make the situation even more confusing, since species formation pretty much never results in the formation of a new organ. Also, by your definition, apes, monkeys and humans are all connected by microevolution, since we all have the same organs. Are you really comfortable with that position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2170 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Why does it have to be increasing complexity? The ancestors of modern horses had multiple toes, but they are only vestigial now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Who knows, Schaf. No one here or Brown himself knows that he means by complexity anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonic Inactive Member |
Ok,
paulk writes: The anatomical similarities - as documented - are evidence that an evolutionary transition took place. The anatomy is truly intermediate. And it does show small changes adding up.That is *evidence* of macroevolution. Paul, can you show me what you mean, is there a webpage someplace?
paulk writes: So your answer is that you (implicitly) accept that evidence of macroevolution exists however you refuse to accept that macroevolution happened. No, you are missunderstanding me. I need proof that the word "macro-evolution" is a factual reality. If you can provide evidence (i.e. not just a indication), then I will accept that most of the fossils which are missing are a form of micro-e. To me, regardless if it is scientific or not the word theoretical in any context cannot mean anymore then a guess at worst, and a educated guess at best. Which means I WONT depend on it at all or support it. Here is what I said in the last post maybe you can take this understanding above and apply it to this quote and maybe understand what I ment.
quote: next
paulk writes: That the missing fossils are "microevolutionary" is based on your own demand for fine-grained transitions. The difference in human skin colour which you used as an example is microevolution (all humans are of a single species - and I doubt that you could find many creationists who would insist that that is macroevolution) and you wanted a full 25 intermediates for an equivalent change. If the entire change is microevolution then every step of it is likewise microevolution. These are the "missing" fossils that *you* were talking about - so there is no need for me to even point to Eldredge and Gould and punctuated equilibria. First, the demand for fine grained fossils is not just my need, it should be yours, it should be everyones but that is not up to me to make the mind up of others, all though I feel it is ignorant to base evolution from the fossil record if in fact we dont have those fine grained transitions. Now you also missunderstood me about the skin color, it was a metaphore not reality, that is if you were to LOOK at the transition in skin color you will see a fine grained reality from black to white. This "idea" should also be applied to the fossil record. NOTE: that I did not ever say that the skin color transition was MACRO it is indeed Micro.
paulk writes: And your comment on the DNA evidence likewise seems to be the product of a closed mind, since you provide no basis whatsoever for it. What I said about DNA is a fact. -quote from last time-
quote: When a scientist looks at the dna between ape and man, they only find similarites that is all. These similarites do not mean in FACT that we are related to apes. When a scientist speaks of the DNA being related between ape and man, it is built around his educated guess or "theory" which means it is not in FACT true. The indication is built because he FEELS that the similarites show relatedness. I don't need proof for this, this is commonsince. ------------------Enlightend One Sonic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonic Inactive Member |
You can define words however you want, but these definitions don't correspond to anything used by biologists.-- there's no focus on new organs in the definitions they use. The M-W definition of macroevolution is incoherent to start with, since it mixes two different meanings in a single definition. Really. That webpage has never been wrong so I wont assume it is wrong now. What are the definitions used by biologist?
You can define macroevolution as including any species formation, or you can define it as large or complex changes, but they're not the same definition -- sometimes species formation involves large changes, but often it doesn't. Your additions make the situation even more confusing, since species formation pretty much never results in the formation of a new organ. I understand it does not always cause a formation of new organs but it does almost always involve the development of new organs which means that these new organs may not take on pheonotypic changes but they will remain silent and eventually they will take on phenotypic changes, as such we must indeed say those definitions I posted are correct.(in fact that webpage has not been wrong with definitions)
Also, by your definition, apes, monkeys and humans are all connected by microevolution, since we all have the same organs. Are you really comfortable with that position? Yes they are similar, this does not actually mean we are connected by evolution. ------------------Enlightend One Sonic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I have already given you the example of the evolution of the mammalian jaw.
That is one of the peices of evidence FOR macroevolution from the fossil record. You certainly can't offer any real explanation for why we find anatomically intermediate fossils in the right strata. The fact that most of the fossils "missing" are micro-evolution FOLLOWS from your own argument - you want a transition that you AGREE to be microevolution to be documented by *25* intermediate fossils. That's a LOT of microevolution. And when estimates of the fossil record say that we only have 10% of all past *species*, it's a quite impossible demand, even beofre we get to the fact that speciation events often happen to small isolated groups over a *geologically* short period of time (thousands of years). So no, I'm NOT worried that the fossil record is not as fine grained as you want. It is impossible that it could be. And to suggest that it is "ignorant" to draw conclusions from the evidence that we have is silly. Indeed it would be ignorant to insist that the evidence cannot be strong just because it lacks fine detail. But then again you insist that I "misunderstand" you when I point out that you demanded detailed fossil evidence for a microevolutionary change - but you AGREE with everything I said ! You agree that your example is microevolution and that you wanted multiple steps within THAT. So how can it be a misunderstanding ? And do you REALLY think that calling your opinion a fact makes it one ? It doesn't. Just because you don't look at the evidence or don't like where it points makes no difference to the facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonic Inactive Member |
I think that Macro-e and micro and their defintions are confused, and in order for anyone to really know what they mean we need a bio.
Somebody who could explain each different part of it and its process and how they are observed, etc. I bet if we had one it would match the definitions I have given to a "T" (that is, the definition at creationscience.com or m-w. ------------------Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonic Inactive Member |
Too better understand what that means try reading post 284 and 291
------------------Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Sonic,
I think that Macro-e and micro and their defintions are confused, and in order for anyone to really know what they mean we need a bio. I've given you two textbook definitions. Do you really need them knocking on your door?
Somebody who could explain each different part of it and its process and how they are observed, etc. 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 Inactive Member |
I think you are right. I guess I'll agree.
Micro-e:Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. Macro-e:Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. So then the question in the begining was that Micro and Macro are of little importance but it appears that if we agree to a terms, that is those above, then they are importent. ------------------Enlightend One Sonic [This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5195 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
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.
So then the question in the begining was that Micro and Macro are of little importance but it appears that if we agree to a terms, that is those above, then they are importent. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Sonic Inactive Member |
mark24 writes: But as you have seen, the evidence of evolution is bladder weakeningly good. Untill next time, perhaps ------------------Enlightend One Sonic
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4550 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:I'd like to refer you to this site, recently linked by Rhain:quote:Yes they are similar, this does not actually mean we are connected by evolution. http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html I know, I know, a common designer could produce similar designs. But would he/she/it intentionally create chromosomes that show obvious evidence of a mutation in the past? That is exactly what is shown on that page: at some point, a human ancestor was born with its 2nd and 3rd chromosomes fused together, and the end pieces of each still present in the middle of the new 2nd chromosome. This was after our line diverged from the other apes. The chromosome we have looks just like their 2nd and 3rd ones. For a discussion of other genetic evidence for common ancestry of humans and apes, look at these: http://EvC Forum: Pseudogene, relic or functional? -->EvC Forum: Pseudogene, relic or functional?http://EvC Forum: Apes vs. Man What are your thoughts?? -->EvC Forum: Apes vs. Man What are your thoughts?? and ask yourself why God would give us and several other species of apes the same gene for vitamin C synthesis, but then break it via the same exact mutation in all of us, depriving us of its extremely useful function (and killing a whole lot of medieval sailors with scurvy).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7013 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
Sonic,
First off, I would like to commend you for being patient and open-minded; I hope everyone here will do the same as well. One comment, though: Seing as your definition of microevolution (based on the cutoff to macroevolution being the development of new organs) would mean that diversification of primates, including ourselves, is microevolution - I think you should probably redefine it to be more specific. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024