Re: the TRUTH, continued...


John Harshman wrote:
> Grace Haliburton wrote:
>
> > John Harshman wrote:
> >
> >>Skeets wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Name one scientific reference from a reputable publication (Science,
> >>>
> >>>Nature et.al) that distinguishes between micro- and macroevolution.
> >>>I'll bet you can't.<<
> >>
> >>I can if he can't. How about, for example, Gould, S. J. 1982. Darwinism
> >>and the expansion of evolutionary theory. Science 216:380-387?
> >
> > Hm, will have to look at that. I found an abstract via PubMed but
> > couldn't find the full text of the article anywhere. Did Gould actually
> > formulate a clear definition of micro- and macro-? If so, what did he
> > conclude from such distinction? Do you think the folks here who make
> > the distinction would accept his definition, and if so would they
> > accept evidence of macroevolution as per that definition?
>
> There is a clear distinction between micro and macro, as used in
> evolutionary biology: micro is below the species level, macro is
> speciation and anything above the species level. There are other less
> clear definitions also in use in evolutionary biology, i.e. macro
> involves large changes over long periods, with "large" and "long
> periods" not being rigorously defined. Creationists usually mean the
> latter, but they cite the literature concerning the former as if the two
> definitions are identical.
>

Really? I was under the mistaken impression that the terms were
invented by creationists. Maybe I should have another chat with my dad.
So you're saying that there actually *is* a clear definition, and when
they ask for examples of "macroevolution" I can pull out said
definition (the first one you listed), throw any example of speciation
at them, and say "Case closed?" That makes things soo much easier. Of
course, when we close that case they'll move the goalposts again. But
at least it's another step.

As far as the second definition, it doesn't seem very useful. What is
it used for?

> However, you should know that there is indeed a current debate among
> evolutionary biologists about whether the mechanisms of micro are
> sufficient to account for everything we see in evolution, or whether
> some special macro mechanisms are also required. Creationists didn't
> invent this, they just misunderstand it.
>

If said special mechanisms existed, what would they look like? How
would we recognize one if we saw it? How often would we expect them to
occur and what would be the mechanism for prefenting them from
occurring with every generation (like "micro" changes do)? Why haven't
we seen one yet? (assuming we haven't, or there wouldn't be a debate on
whether or not they exist) Might they be environmentally triggered?
Say, by major climate change? Is there a way we might be able to induce
them to occur? And would this discussion be related to the
creationists' standard line about "adding new genetic information?"

(honest questions, this isn't a line of argument I've seen before)

> If you want to read a major (and unfortunately biased) account of the
> controversy, pick up S. J. Gould's last, huge book, The Structure of
> Evolutionary Theory. If you can lift it.
>

Will try. Gould's writing is hard to stomach.

> >>>so you admit there is NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE of macro-evolution and now
> >>>you want to quibble with definitions.
> >>>
> >>>you just re-affirmed my current belief system. ;-)
> >>
> >>This is the real problem: your belief system is easily re-affirmed.
> >>There is plenty of concrete evidence. I'm not sure you would accept it
> >>because what you seem to require is a real-time video of a fish turning
> >>into a mammal. That won't be forthcoming, but we have other evidence
> >>that's just as good, though you won't think so.
> >>
> > Nah, give it a few million years. Start the cameras now, with a century
> > or so time-lapse.
>
> The problem is that the little buggers won't hold still, and successive
> generations can't be induced to stand in front of the camera, all in the
> same pose, at appropriate times.
>

No, but if you ran the tape for a few million years you'd most likely
see the original population of little buggers gradually giving way to a
different sort of little buggers.

> >>The best evidence is the nested hierarchy of genetic similarities among
> >>living species. The next best is the various transitional fossils.
> >
> > Maybe that's the trouble; Skeets is asking for fossil evidence, and he
> > already knows he doesn't like what we've got. Maybe you could do an
> > explanation of the genetic nested hierarchy? I'd try, but it's hardly
> > my forte.
>
> If he asks, I would. But fossils are fine evidence. It would be just as
> useful to discuss with him why he doesn't understand the fossil evidence.

I think Carlson is trying to work with him on that. Seems to be making
a little progress, too :)

-Grace
"Never trust anything that thinks for itself if you can't see where it
keeps its brain." - J.K. Rowling

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the TRUTH, continued...
    ... micro is below the species level, macro is ... clear definitions also in use in evolutionary biology, ... >>There is plenty of concrete evidence. ... useful to discuss with him why he doesn't understand the fossil evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Music
    ... With scientific methodology and no other ... Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early, ... What's sad is that your knowledge of "ancient texts", ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: You dont have to be an expert to disprove Evolution...
    ... evolutionary biology is not based on faith but on physical evidence. ... common origin in Hebrew the language of the Israelites and Cannanites. ... And it does not disprove that we share a common ancestor with modern ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolutionism Religion
    ... Like any science, it only requires the "faith" that comes from ... Fossil evidence sorted by time, corresponding to progression of early, ... they are to both understand and accept evolutionary science. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Monsoon/mosaic
    ... >>>Surely you're not so deluded as to suggest to me that fossil evidence ... >> at best and often no more than supposition ... I'm not saying that the current observable habitat chimps inhabit ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
Loading