most id/creationist theorists say macro evolution is impossible. there are really two definitions of macro evolution. macro evolution and therefore speciation can be achieved through many many cycles of microevolution, which HAS been observed and proved. microevolution is accepted by scientists and creationists and IDers alike.
if we accept that microevolution is a fact, then why do some creationists say macroevolution is not possible?
Chicken, this is the same kind of tripe that you've accused ushome of recently. It could easily go in about 3-4 different threads that are already open. And, well, it's only passingly defended. So good luck...both in keeping this open and in having enough data to defend your stance (which is fine in and of itself, but too brief to be thorough).
Heh. No worries. It's just that this could be dealt with in the topics we already have for evolution and/or ID. And beyond that, I actually defer to a few of the others when it comes to enunciating macroevolutionary theory and data. I forget if it was inamilist, xmarksthespot, bardock, or someone else but I was never terribly good at getting the point across.
Problem there is that we could in theory make a whole substrate of evolution or ID nuance-threads for specific topics like this. But collectively it would spam the forums with needless threads, so it's not a good precedent to set.
Maybe whatever mod sees the report will differ, though, so who knows.
macroevolution is quite simply 2 or more occurances of microevolution. If one admits that micro is true, which it is, one must then explain why it is possible for this to happen only 1 time in any species and impossible for it to happen 2 or more times to negate macro (which ofcourse is futile as we've already bred 2 or more micro-evolved traits we've desired into animals).
"species" is a human idea. It is a category we made up to classify living things that closely resemble other living things. At the end of the day, we're all just animals.
example:
we have been using micro-evolution for years in breeding of animals. There are more than 150 breeds of canine we have created. Human selection is the process in which we have achieved this evolution. We, however, do not breed mutations we deem to be harmful and without warrant. What if we started to?
Canines by definition are quadropeds. What if we take multiple dogs with genetic mutations causing them to be born with 2 legs and breed them? After several generations of breeding this group strictly within this group, the mutation will breed true so as all the offspring produced will have this mutation. Now we have a dog that only has two legs, causing it to hop on it's hind legs or pull itself along with it's front legs to move.
We take the members of this population of newly created 2 legged dogs and only breed those with the largest leg muscles. Once this trait breeds true we decide to only breed the dogs with the least amount of hair. As generation after generation passes, breeding for little hair as possible, we arrive at a hairless animal. Next, say, we only breed for the shortest ears possible.....then we breed for no tails.....then for no legs at all.
what we now have is a no legged, hairless, tailess mammal with short pointy cat looking ears. A mongrel of an animal indeed. What is it? It's not a dog.......all of these traits have been bred true. The offspring of these animals could never have tails, floppy ears or legs. It would no more resemble a dog than it would a cat, hyena or deer. Genetically, it would not be a dog......we had bred mutation on top of mutation on top of mutation, all true. It's a new species, how 'bout that.
we humans can create a living thing in any image we want aswell as a god can, we don't because it's cruel to create such a useless waste of time.
The thread, "The Case for a Creator," may provide answers regarding micro/macroevolution and Intelligent Design; the thread is a video blog. I highly recommend that you watch it! Whether you agree (or disagree) with the presentation, it will serve as an educational tool.
There are 2 ways to address this question. The first is from the scientific, which I'll hit briefly at the end, as it is even a little complex scientifically.
However, more important to this topic, is how "macroevolution" is used by creationists.
To a creationist, the term "macroevolution" is a meme extraordinaire. It is used specifically as something that cannot be proven a priori, and then whenever any research shows mechanisms of evolution, they just say "oh thats not macroevolution"
So, for instance, when species are bred into new species in a lab, where they are entirely unable to reproduce with the previous "species", a creationist will say "that is only small change, and microevolution is not macroevolution", clearly ignoring the scientific uses of the terms, and blanket dismissing the research because it doesn't approach a goalpost they continue to move.
I don't even really like the term scientifically, however, I look at evolution from a more 'gene's-eye-view'. To me, small and incremental variation builds up over time, and thus, the appearance of macroevolution, even though it is only an illusion caused by LOTS of microevolution.
From an archeological perspective, things like speciation plays a much more important roll, so someone more versed in that perspective on evolution might be able to flesh this out more, but as far as I know, macroevolution refers to what is know as "punctuated equilibrium". Basically, if all that drove evolution was minor genetic variability, then all animals should be clear transitions, and should be constantly changing. What is seen in the fossil record, are periods of rapid change followed by periods of a plateau of change, where animals become definable species with very similar behaviours and qualities.
This question is exemplified in the debate between Richard Dawkins and Stephen J Gould, and I have no answer to it, aside from saying rapid changes in evolution are probably driven by massive changes in the environment, and punctuated equilibriums are probably driven by stable environments, which could also be a warning to the 'gene's-eye-view' perspective, to warn against ignoring that which affects the genes
__________________ Kalash Ibn Al Fewdawiiah Bin Noor
"Most books about science that are said to be written for the layman seek more to impress the reader . . . than to explain to him clearly and lucidly the elementary aims and methods"
Simply said, if Darwinian (macro) evolution were true, the fossil record would be the only requirement necessary to validate the theory; that would be seemingly impossible to refute, even with advancements in molecular biology. If transitional fossils were present in the fossil record, biologist would be forced to conclude that much work lies ahead to address the apparent contradiction.
But the fossil record is void of transitions. "Punctuated Equilibrium," proposed by Stephen J. Gould, confirms this, and it only serves as an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution.
And further more, to claim, "whenever any research shows mechanisms of [macro] evolution, they [Creationists] just say 'oh thats not macroevolution,'" is completely ignorant.
"...it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed. --Jeffrey H. Schwartz, evolutionist
Hey ushome, Gould was a Darwinian. He didn't refute that evolution happened (he was one of its biggest champions) only HOW it happened. At least stick to your religious sources rather than taking legitimate scientists out of context.
on a side note, the prof I work for told me about taking a class with Gould while getting her degree. He would show up with all of these fossils to pick up and look at, and would stress in minuta how they demonstrated the progression of life forms.
Simply put, I don't think Gould would support his name being associated with creationism.
genetic engineering?
the lab rat is a specific species of rat...
__________________ Kalash Ibn Al Fewdawiiah Bin Noor
"Most books about science that are said to be written for the layman seek more to impress the reader . . . than to explain to him clearly and lucidly the elementary aims and methods"
You missed the point; I was arguing, since Gould developed "Punctuated Equilibrium" theory, it confirms that the fossil record contains zero transitions. Otherwise, the theory would not exist.
KMC Community Forums
Jan 27th, 2008 01:46 AM
i was hoping you'd explain the definition of macroevolution in a clear definite stance, and this could be the official thread on the theory...
mind if when u go on a creationist killing spree i bring my machete?
