Question Evolution! 15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[Ziggy Stardust]

The strange thing with you is, I don't think you're a troll, but I do think you're trolling.

 

[civ2]

Ziggy
I'd explain it as a result of me being a bit impulsive, especially when I hear some weird (to me) opinions.
I have a personal urge to "make everybody know the right way" which started way back when I was just a child and has nothing to do with religion: I used to terrorize my mom with infos from biology encyclopedias.
And, btw, one point you all are wrong about, I'm very interested in biology ever since, just that I consider part of it obvious sci-fi.
Which means, I could remember 30 names of dinos, including their looks and infos, and yet consider them not more real, than, I don't know, dragons..?
(Just thought of, HoMM3+??? You know, stats, changing units one into another???)

Leoreth
Huh???
That's a "myth" for YOU, for ME it's reality.
And that is exactly one of the ideas of Sabbath, to remind that Jews kept it 3000 years ago, almost the same way Jews do today.
It's the "missing link" of generations, though not "evolving" but rather keeping steady and fit.


SOME TEXTS on "Science and Religion":
Theories of evoluton
On science and its truths
The scientific method
The age of the universe
Harnessing science to Torah
A strong advice: before dismissing it as "religious texts", READ it first!!!

 

[Arakhor]

I read a Jewish theologian's theory (just today) about how the Seven Days of Creation actually relate to the 13.75 Ga age of the universe. Day 1 lasted for 8 billion years, Day 2 for 4, Day 3 for 2, Day 4 for 1, Day 5 for 0.5 billion and Day 6 for a "mere" 0.25 billion years.

Since you're insisting on sidetracking this thread with Jewish theology, Civ2, feel free to pour scorn on your own religious allies now, instead.

 

[civ2]

Arakhor
There are different views.
Mine is literal.
And is based on Torah views.
So, yeah, that's my opinion.

Feel free to answer these questions, btw.

So that's what I'm doing, in a detailed way.

 

[sanabas]

Leoreth
Huh???
That's a "myth" for YOU, for ME it's reality.
And that is exactly one of the ideas of Sabbath, to remind that Jews kept it 3000 years ago, almost the same way Jews do today.
It's the "missing link" of generations, though not "evolving" but rather keeping steady and fit.

So does the sabbath ritual have meaning because it has been practiced for 3000 years, or does the sabbath ritual only have meaning because it was practiced in creation week? If, hypothetically, there was no creation week, do those 3000 years of continuous ritual lose all meaning?

SOME TEXTS on "Science and Religion":
Theories of evoluton
On science and its truths
The scientific method
The age of the universe
Harnessing science to Torah
A strong advice: before dismissing it as "religious texts", READ it first!!!

I read them, and now I'll dismiss them as religious gibberish. It uses one popular tactic of pointing out the weaknesses of one thing, and then saying they apply to other things. In this case, it correctly talks about theories of exactly what happened in the big bang being weaker than other stuff, and then incorrectly expands that to conclude all the evidence for the age of the universe is equally weak. It's like a doctor examining a 100 year old person, and concluding that because they're not sure exactly what day they were born & who did the delivery, that they can't actually be 100 years old.

It repeatedly says that even if these various bits of science appear to be true, that's irrelevant because god could have set things up to look like that. Which is a spectacularly weak argument for anything, but perfectly suited for ignoring anything that contradicts the conclusions you've already come to. If you accept the bits of evidence you like (such as that for gravity) and ignore the bits of evidence you don't like because 'god made it to look that way' (such as evolution, fossils, plate tectonics, and all sorts of other interesting stuff), then what's the point of doing science at all?

It includes quotes such as "If you are still troubled by the theory of evolution, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that it has not a shred of evidence to support it." followed a paragraph later by "Needless to say, it is not my intent to cast aspersions on science or to discredit the scientific method."

It even mentions Heisenberg, in reference to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, in order to make the point that Heisenberg says that all of science is just guessing, it's not certain about anything.

The person who wrote the stuff at those links is a wilfully ignorant idiot. I'd be amazed if those arguments convinced anyone, I can only see them being used by those who are already wilfully ignorant to help reinforce why their ignorance is a good thing.

 

[civ2]

sanabas
Sabbath is a 3000-year-old reminder of the events of the first week.

About science:

Basically the problem has its roots in a misconception of the scientific method or, simply, of what science is. We must distinguish between empirical or experimental science dealing with, and confined to, describing and classifying observable phenomena, and speculative science, dealing with unknown phenomena, sometimes phenomena that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory. Scientific speculation is actually a terminological incongruity; for science, strictly speaking, means knowledge, while no speculation can be called knowledge in the strict sense of the word. At best, science can only speak in terms of theories inferred from certain known facts and applied in the realm of the unknown. Here science has two general methods of inference;
(a) The method of interpolation (as distinguished from extrapolation), whereby, knowing the reaction under two extremes, we attempt to infer what the reaction might be at any point between the two.
(b) The method of extrapolation, whereby inferences are made beyond a known range, on the basis of certain variables within the known range. For example, suppose we know the variables of a certain element within a temperature range of 0 to 100, and on the basis of this we estimate what the reaction might be at 101, 200, or 2000.

Of the two methods, the second (extrapolation) is clearly the more uncertain. Moreover, the uncertainty increases with the distance away from the known range and with the decrease of this range. Thus, if the known range is between 0 and 100, our inference at 101 has a greater probability than at 1001.

Let us note at once, that all speculation regarding the origin and age of the world comes within the second and weaker method, that of extrapolation. The weakness becomes more apparent if we bear in mind that a generalization inferred from a known consequent to an unknown antecedent is more speculative than an inference from an antecedent to consequent.

That an inference from consequent to antecedent is more speculative than an inference from antecedent to consequent can be demonstrated very simply:

Four divided by two equals two. Here the antecedent is represented by the divided and divisor, and the consequent - by the quotient. Knowing the antecedent in this case, gives us one possible result - the quotient (the number 2).

However, if we know only the end result, namely, the number 2, and we ask ourselves, how can we arrive at the number 2, The answer permits several possibilities, arrived at by means of different methods: (a) 1 plus 1 equals 2; (b) 4-2 equals 2; (c) 1 x 2 equals 2; (d) 4 2 equals 2. Note that if other numbers are to come into play, the number of possibilities giving us the same result is infinite (since 5 - 3 also equals 2; 6 3 equals 2 etc. ad infinitum).

Add to this another difficulty, which is prevalent in all methods of induction. Conclusions based on certain known data, when they are ampliative in nature, i.e. when they are extended to unknown areas, can have any validity at all on the assumption of everything else being equal, that is to say on an identity of prevailing conditions, and their action and counter-action upon each other. If we cannot be sure that the variations or changes would bear at least a close relationship to the existing variables in degree; if we cannot be sure that the changes would bear any resemblance in kind; if, furthermore, we cannot be sure that there were not other factors involved - such conclusions of inferences are absolutely valueless!

For further illustration, I will refer to one of the points which I believe I mentioned during our conversation. In a chemical reaction, whether fissional or fusional, the introduction of a new catalyzer into the process, however minute the quantity of this new catalyzer may be, may change the whole tempo and form of the chemical process, or start an entirely new process.

We are not yet through with the difficulties inherent in all so-called scientific theories concerning the origin of the world. Let us remember that the whole structure of science is based on observances of reactions and processes in the behavior of atoms in their present state, as they now exist in nature. Scientists deal with conglomerations of billions of atoms as these are already bound together, and as these relate to other existing conglomerations of atoms. Scientists know very little of the atoms in their pristine state; of how one single atom may react on another single atom in a state of separateness; much less of how parts of a single atom may react on other parts of the same or other atoms. One thing science considers certain - to the extent that any science can be certain, namely that the reactions of single atoms upon each other is totally different from the reactions of one conglomeration of atoms to another.

We may now summarize the weaknesses, nay, hopelessness, of all so-called scientific theories regarding the origin and age of our universe:

(a) These theories have been advanced on the basis of observable data during a relatively short period of time, of only a number of decades, and at any rate not more than a couple of centuries.

(b) On the basis of such a relatively small range of known (though by no means perfectly) data, scientists venture to build theories by the weak method of extrapolation, and from the consequent to the antecedent, extending to many thousands (according to them, to millions and billions) of years!

(c) In advancing such theories, they blithely disregard factors universally admitted by all scientists, namely, that in the initial period of the birth of the universe, conditions of temperature, atmospheric pressure, radioactivity, and a host of other cataclystic factors, were totally different from those existing in the present state of the universe.

(d) The consensus of scientific opinion is that there must have been many radioactive elements in the initial stage which now no longer exist, or exist only in minimal quantities; some of them - elements that cataclystic potency of which is known even in minimal doses.

(e) The formation of the world, if we are to accept these theories, began with a process of colligation (of binding together) of single atoms or the components of the atom and their conglomeration and consolidation, involving totally unknown processes and variables.

In short, of all the weak scientific theories, those which deal with the origin of the cosmos and with its dating are (admittedly by the scientists themselves) the weakest of the weak.

It is small wonder (and this, incidentally, is one of the obvious refutations of these theories) that the various scientific theories concerning the age of the universe not only contradict each other, but some of them are quite incompatible and mutually exclusive, since the maximum date of one theory is less than the minimum date of another.

If anyone accepts such a theory uncritically, it can only lead him into fallacious and inconsequential reasoning. Consider, for example, the so-called evolutionary theory of the origin of the world, which is based on the assumption that the universe evolved out of existing atomic and subatomic particles which, by an evolutionary process, combined to form the physical universe and our planet, on which organic life somehow developed also by an evolutionary process, until homo-sapiens emerged. It is hard to understand why one should readily accept the creation of atomic and subatomic particles in a state which is admittedly unknowable and inconceivable, yet should be reluctant to accept the creation of planets, or organisms, or a human being, as we know these to exist.

The argument from the discovery of the fossils is by no means conclusive evidence of the great antiquity of the earth, for the following reasons:

(a) In view of the unknown conditions which existed in prehistoric" times, conditions of atmospheric pressures, temperatures, radioactivity, unknown catalyzers, etc., etc. as already mentioned, conditions that is, which could have caused reactions and changes of an entirely different nature and tempo from those known under the present-day orderly processes of nature, one cannot exclude the possibility that dinosaurs existed 5722 years ago, and became fossilized under terrific natural cataclysms in the course of a few years rather than in millions of years; since we have no conceivable measurements or criteria of calculations under those unknown conditions.

(b) Even assuming that the period of time which the Torah allows for the age of the world is definitely too short for fossilization (although I do not see how one can be so categorical), we can still readily accept the possibility that G-d created ready fossils, bones or skeletons (for reasons best known to him), just as he could create ready living organisms, a complete man, and such ready products as oil, coal or diamonds, without any evolutionary process.

As for the question, if it be true as above (b), why did G-d have to create fossils in the first place? The answer is simple: We cannot know the reason why G-d chose this manner of creation in preference to another, and whatever theory of creation is accepted, the question will remain unanswered. The question, Why create a fossil? is no more valid than the question, Why create an atom? Certainly, such a question cannot serve as a sound argument, much less as a logical basis, for the evolutionary theory.

 

[brennan]

The theory of evolution one also says that there are no observed examples of species evolving, which is either a lie or due to ignorance.

Edit: Civ2, why post a lengthy quote from something you already linked to?

We must distinguish between empirical or experimental science dealing with, and confined to, describing and classifying observable phenomena, and speculative science, dealing with unknown phenomena, sometimes phenomena that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory.

This is an interesting rhetorical device but if you don't accept it then the rest of the post falls apart. And no-one with an understanding of science will accept it, 'cos it's nonsense.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's not about science, it's about the author's misconceptions of science.

This however ...

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
by Laurence Moran
Copyright © 1993-2002
[Last Update: January 22, 1993]

When non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science--that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.

- Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

Gould is stating the prevailing view of the scientific community. In other words, the experts on evolution consider it to be a fact. This is not an idea that originated with Gould as the following quotations indicate:

Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification. There are no alternatives to evolution as history that can withstand critical examination. Yet we are constantly learning new and important facts about evolutionary mechanisms.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

Also:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:

Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Also:

Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time. Since the publication of The Origin of Species, the important question, scientifically speaking, about evolution has not been whether it has taken place. That is no longer an issue among the vast majority of modern biologists. Today, the central and still fascinating questions for biologists concern the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

There are readers of these newsgroups who reject evolution for religious reasons. In general these readers oppose both the fact of evolution and theories of mechanisms, although some anti-evolutionists have come to realize that there is a difference between the two concepts. That is why we see some leading anti-evolutionists admitting to the fact of "microevolution"--they know that evolution can be demonstrated. These readers will not be convinced of the "facthood" of (macro)evolution by any logical argument and it is a waste of time to make the attempt. The best that we can hope for is that they understand the argument that they oppose. Even this simple hope is rarely fulfilled.

There are some readers who are not anti-evolutionist but still claim that evolution is "only" a theory which can't be proven. This group needs to distinguish between the fact that evolution occurs and the theory of the mechanism of evolution.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

Finally, there is an epistemological argument against evolution as fact. Some readers of these newsgroups point out that nothing in science can ever be "proven" and this includes evolution. According to this argument, the probability that evolution is the correct explanation of life as we know it may approach 99.9999...9% but it will never be 100%. Thus evolution cannot be a fact. This kind of argument might be appropriate in a philosophy class (it is essentially correct) but it won't do in the real world. A "fact," as Stephen J. Gould pointed out (see above), means something that is so highly probable that it would be silly not to accept it. This point has also been made by others who contest the nit-picking epistemologists.

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. Thus there is no sharp line between speculation, hypothesis, theory, principle, and fact, but only a difference along a sliding scale, in the degree of probability of the idea. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Now in this use of the term fact, the only proper one, evolution is a fact. For the evidence in favor of it is as voluminous, diverse, and convincing as in the case of any other well established fact of science concerning the existence of things that cannot be directly seen, such as atoms, neutrons, or solar gravitation ....

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

- H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism op cit.

In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.

I can post articles me.

 

[civ2]

brennan
There's a huge misconception of IMPORTANCE of that term (not to mention, WHAT exactly is called species - it actually VARIES quite a bit).
Who said evolution of species proves evolution of orders or classes???
Wiki: Species.

A usable definition of the word "species" and reliable methods of identifying particular species is essential for stating and testing biological theories and for measuring biodiversity. Traditionally, multiple examples of a proposed species must be studied for unifying characters before it can be regarded as a species. It is generally difficult to give precise taxonomic rankings to extinct species known only from fossils.

Some biologists may view species as statistical phenomena, as opposed to the traditional idea, with a species seen as a class of organisms. In that case, a species is defined as a separately evolving lineage that forms a single gene pool. Although properties such as DNA-sequences and morphology are used to help separate closely related lineages, this definition has fuzzy boundaries. However, the exact definition of the term "species" is still controversial, particularly in prokaryotes, and this is called the species problem. Biologists have proposed a range of more precise definitions, but the definition used is a pragmatic choice that depends on the particularities of the species of concern.

The commonly used names for plant and animal taxa sometimes correspond to species: for example, "lion", "walrus", and "Camphor tree" – each refers to a species. In other cases common names do not: for example, "deer" refers to a family of 34 species, including Eld's Deer, Red Deer and Elk (Wapiti). The last two species were once considered a single species, illustrating how species boundaries may change with increased scientific knowledge.

Difficulty of defining "species" and identifying particular species
The Greenish Warbler demonstrates the concept of a ring species.

It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem. Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists.

Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".

Various parts of this definition serve to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:
Those that occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.

Horizontal gene transfer makes it even more difficult to define the word "species". There is strong evidence of horizontal gene transfer between very dissimilar groups of prokaryotes, and at least occasionally between dissimilar groups of eukaryotes; and Williamson argues that there is evidence for it in some crustaceans and echinoderms. All definitions of the word "species" assume that an organism gets all its genes from one or two parents that are very like that organism, but horizontal gene transfer makes that assumption false.

Definitions of species
The question of how best to define "species" is one that has occupied biologists for centuries, and the debate itself has become known as the species problem.

Practically, biologists define species as populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. This may reflect an adaptation to the same niche, and the transfer of genetic material from one individual to others, through a variety of possible means. The exact level of similarity used in such a definition is arbitrary, but this is the most common definition used for organisms that reproduce asexually (asexual reproduction), such as some plants and microorganisms.

To sum up, scientists themselves are unsure what they're talking about.
HAHAHA!!!
Why?
That's why:
Wiki: Evolution.

Evolution may in the long term lead to speciation, whereby a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species.

Speciation is the process where a species diverges into two or more descendant species.
There are multiple ways to defining the species concept. The choice of which concept to use is dependent on the particularities of the species concerned. For example, some species concepts apply more readily toward sexually reproducing organisms while others lend themselves better toward asexual organisms. Despite the diversity of various species concepts, these various concepts can be placed into one of three broad philosophical approaches: interbreeding, ecological and phylogenetic.

Even though... they aren't even sure WHAT a species actually are!!!
So, what they do is, make a half-dozen of "definitions" to say "look, it's a new species", even though that very definition was made up specifically for THAT species to be "described".
VERY SCIENTIFIC, rrriiiggghhhttt...

 

[PeteAtoms]

brennan
There's a huge misconception of IMPORTANCE of that term (not to mention, WHAT exactly is called species - it actually VARIES quite a bit).
Who said evolution of species proves evolution of orders or classes???
Wiki: Species.

To sum up, scientists themselves are unsure what they're talking about.
HAHAHA!!!
Why?
That's why:
Wiki: Evolution.

Even though... they aren't even sure WHAT a species actually are!!!
So, what they do is, make a half-dozen of "definitions" to say "look, it's a new species", even though that very definition was made up specifically for THAT species to be "described".
VERY SCIENTIFIC, rrriiiggghhhttt...

Please stop posting more and more walls of texts without reading the posts of others. This is going nowhere.

 

[civ2]

Pete
It takes me too long to write such long posts, and make it throughly.
I usually just edit the ones already there.
Oh, and I do read posts of others', just can't answer ALL of them.

Ziggy
The problem lies in the turning of assumptions into facts, as I said before.
FACT: There are fishes, frogs, lizards and mammals.
FACT: There are some bones in earth.
FACT: Those bones look like some known species.
ASSUMPTION: The bones represent HEALTHY individuals of certain species. (How do you know that they weren't sick and deformed skeletons? And if they lived in radioactive areas, there could be thousands of similar victims. Yet none representing any new species.)
ASSUMPTION: We know the times when those bones were crawling around. (Geochronology is very buggy, don't deny it. And anyways it gives us +/- 100 generations time wise.)
ASSUMPTION: We know exactly which bones evolved into which. (Within high taxonomy ranks, how can you be certain, who is whose ancestor? Maybe evolution went in circles?)
Etc...
Answer this first, please.

 

[Arakhor]

Civ2, this is not Ask a Jew and this is not Perfection's KO Creationism thread, with which I know you're well acquainted. That said, the Jewish theologian said that his views were both theologically and scientifically justified, so even in your own highly-specific field, you're being outclassed.

 

[civ2]

Arakhor
1. The thread doesn't have a very defined topic - basically discussing evolution.
2. My last 2 posts were totally in the general area. And on topic of evolution.
3. I see no problem to mention Jewish sources as long as they are connected to the topic, here it's evolution.

Speaking of "outclassed":
Wiki: Evolution and Judaism
Also, a quote from there of a very famous Rabbi, R. Moshe Feinshtein.

There is simply no philosophically sound way of holding simultaneously in one’s head both the conviction that we are mere evolved animals and the conviction that we are something qualitatively different. And no way to avoid the fact that when schoolchildren are taught biology, if they are taught to embrace the one, they are being taught to shun the other."

Again, boiling down to science and morality subjects.

 

[warpus]

warpus
Look, the problem is, it's not the question of religion only.
The subjectiveness of morality is affecting the crime rates as well.
No jokes.
The religious people could be wrong on many personal topics, but when coming to a crime action, if we're talking about true believers, they will always remember "the eye that sees and the ear that hears", which stops a true believer from sinning/criming.
I'm NOT saying it works 100% (not even 50%) - but at least there's chance.
For a non-believer, all what matters is, how shrew must he be to not get caught.
And, please, don't bring that "a good man would never do it" point.
Cause I'm not talking about such "good men", I'm talking about criminally inclined people.
For them, if there's no Higher Authority that can't be bribed or evaded, it's only a matter of time until they end up doing crimes.
I know for sure that close-to-none of "non-believers" (aka atheists of all sorts and levels, or rather "scienteists") will agree with me, but the point is valid, just compare the crime rates of ANY religion and that of the secular.
If you don't know that there's G-d, nothing stops you from ignoring other people.
And your consciousness is not less fond of bribes than any typical advocate...

So now this isn't an issue with evolution, it's an issue with morality?

First of all, you are all over the place. Are we talking about evolution or morality? Pick one and stick with it.

Secondly, all that you just said is a bunch of crap. I'm not religious so I don't have morals.. Really?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Civ2

I'll be happy to answer you:

Theory, Law and Fact in Science

One often hears the naive critic of science say "it's only a theory", meaning that it is "unproven" and once "proven" will become a law or a fact. This is not surprising, because such a notion is consistent with what is sometimes erroneously taught in Junior High General Science classes. The statement is, nonetheless, completely false and demonstrates two common misunderstandings about science.

The first misunderstanding is that science "proves" theories. Theories are never "proven" in the absolute sense of mathematics. (Indeed, often mathematical theorems are not proven absolutely, but that's another discussion.) Theories are only confirmed by observation; but such confirmation is always tentative. No matter how well or how long a scientific theory has been confirmed, it is always subject to falsification or correction by new observations.

Consider the Theory of Newtonian Mechanics. For 200 years, it was the uncontested standard of scientific "truth". Its success was so total that some philosophers (Kant) asserted it was not just an empirically confirmed theory, but an "a priori truth". We now know better. At very high speeds and at very small distances, the Theory of Newtonian Mechanics has been conclusively falsified. It has been replaced by the combined Theories of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Yet, Newtonian Mechanics remains an excellent approximation to these more correct theories under what might be called normal conditions - thus, even when falsified, a scientific theory may remain useful.

The second misunderstanding is that a theory is an "unproven" law or fact, or, in light of the preceding discussion, an unconfirmed law or fact. Scientific theories, laws and facts are three very different types of statements. A few historical examples will illustrate the differences.

Boyle's Law (V = kT/P) relates three facts about a gas - Volume, Temperature, and Pressure - and is familiar to all SCUBA divers. The Kinetic Theory of Gases (Maxwell and Boltzmann) not only explains why Boyle's Law is approximately true, but also why and when it is demonstrably false.

The Law of Fixed Proportions states that chemical elements combine with each other in simple integer ratios by weight. It is based upon such facts as: carbon dioxide is made from 3 parts carbon and 8 parts oxygen. The Atomic Theory of Matter (Dalton) attempted to explain why this is true. The Quantum Mechanical Theory of Atomic Structure (Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Pauling, et al) explains why it is only approximately true, and also why and when it is demonstrably false.

Mendel's Laws state that inherited characteristics are propagated to subsequent generations in frequencies expressible as certain simple integer ratios. It is based upon various facts Mendel observed in growing peas. The Theory of Molecular Genetics (Sutton, Morgan, Dobzhansky, McClintock, Watson, Crick, et al) not only explains why Mendel's Laws are approximately true, but also why and when they are demonstrably false.

Hubbell's Law states that the speed at which a distant galaxy is receding from Earth is directly proportional to its distance from Earth. It is based upon certain facts, including the red shifts in spectrographic analysis of light from a certain type of star. Big Bang Theory (Friedmann, LeMaitre, Gamov, et al), based upon The Theory of General Relativity (Einstein), explains why Hubbell's law is approximately true.

Before attempting any explicit definitions, let's return to that old Junior High fallacy which states that: "Hypothesis becomes theory becomes law, as degree of proof increases". A hypothesis is indeed an idea requiring further research. When sufficiently confirmed, a hypothesis may become a theory, a law, or a fact. "A fact", one might ask? "Aren't facts so certain they require no confirmation?" This is another common misconception. A very brief history of Newtonian Mechanics will hopefully illustrate the nature of scientific facts.

Galileo, arguably the first modern scientist, supposedly dropped balls from the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It probably did not happen, but Galileo did experiment with rolling balls on inclined planes and did formulate perhaps the first rigorous laws for kinetics and freefall motion (s = 16t^2). He made various observations - a ball rolling down a 30 degree inclined plane travels X inches after one second, 4X inches after two, 9X inches after three ... - which became the facts summarized by his laws. These precise observations are how science replaces everyday facts, such as "things fall when dropped", with scientific facts. But some everyday facts, such as "heavy objects like rocks fall faster than light ones like feathers", must be rejected when scientifically examined. Notice also that Galileo's facts depended upon a new concept (or theory?) of time as a regular and measurable parameter (Galileo supposedly used his pulse).

Newton generalized Galileo's work with his Theory of Mechanics (including the law F = ma) and his Law of Universal Gravitation (F = GMm/r^2), both presented in the monumental work, "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy". These subsumed Galileo's Laws as approximate special cases. Newton's Law of Gravitation was based upon a mysterious attractive force between any two masses. The force is "mysterious" because it was, at least to Newton. He tried but never did succeed in formulating a theory of gravity, which would explain "why" his universal law was true or "how" it worked. Using his Law of Gravitation and his Theory of Mechanics, Newton was able to explain numerous facts (the motion of the planets in the sky, the movement of the tides, etc.) and laws (Kepler's and Galileo's).

Einstein did develop a theory of gravity, called General Relativity, which does explain "how" gravity works and "why" Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is approximately true. The Theory of Relativity (Special and General) also predicted that Newton's Theory of Mechanics would be wrong at very high energies - that measurements of mass, time and distance would vary depending upon the velocity of the observer. This prediction has been verified in millions of experimental observations in particle accelerators. But under normal conditions - those encountered in everyday life - Newtonian Mechanics is an excellent approximation to these more correct theories; and it remains the basis of the science underlying most engineering applications.

Notice how the terms "fact", "law" and "theory" are used in the above examples. This is consistent with the way they are generally used and understood in science. Scientific facts, laws and theories are three very different types of statements. One sometimes hears the word "theory" used in place of the word "hypothesis" - as in "I have this theory that ..." - but this is an abuse of the word, possibly motivated to avoid the pretentious sounding word "hypothesis". If formal definitions of the terms are requested, one might offer:

A scientific fact is a controlled, repeatable and/or rigorously verified observation.

A scientific law is a statement of an observed regularity among facts, often expressible as a simple mathematical relationship.

A scientific theory is an integrated conceptual framework for reasoning about a class of phenomena, which is able to coordinate existing facts and laws and sometimes provide predictions of new ones.

Theories often explain "why" laws and facts are "true" or "how they work". In the above discussion, notice that theories often have multiple names associated with them. This is not surprising, because theories are much more complex. Notice that not only theories and laws, but also facts may be falsified by new observations. The pre-Galileo "fact" that heavy objects fall faster than light ones was falsified. The Newtonian "fact" that mass, time and distance do not vary with velocity was falsified. The chemical "fact" that there are only three elemental forms of carbon - diamond, coal and graphite - was falsified.

This last falsified fact is another example of the interplay between hypothesis, fact and theory. Consider those Rice University chemists who formed the "hypothesis" that there was another elemental form of carbon in which the atoms would "wrap" into spherical "soccer balls". Quantum Mechanical Theory didn't seem to say it could not happen. So they experimented, and they discovered Carbon-60, "BuckminsterFullerine". It's not a theory or a law; it's a Fact! Yet, it's a fact that can only be stated and understood in terms of the Atomic Theory of Matter. This is also not unusual. Many scientific facts are "theory-laden", meaning they can only be stated in terms provided by a scientific theory. The spectrographic facts supporting Hubbell's Law are similarly "theory-laden".

In normal usage, the word "Evolution" often refers to both a fact and a theory. Evolution is a fact. It has been directly observed. Evolution is the change over time of the distribution of genetic alleles ("genes") in a population. In that sense, it is populations that evolve and not individuals. Evolution has been observed in numerous situations. A population of a single species - individuals all able to mate and reproduce - may be separated and subjected to different environments. Over time, the distribution of alleles in the two populations will diverge. At some point, individuals from the two populations, all descended from the same original population, are no longer able to mate and reproduce. A single species has evolved into two species. Evolution is an observed fact.

Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, augmented by the Theory of Molecular Genetics, explains the fact of evolution, as well as the facts of the fossil record and much else in modern biology. Notice the word "augmented". The later theory did not falsify Darwin's concept of natural selection, but rather enriched and expanded it, providing explanations for phenomena that Darwin had merely observed. This is also not unusual in the development of a science. The Classical Theories of Heat, Energy and Thermodynamics similarly augmented The Theory of Newtonian Mechanics without falsifying it.

The word "Evolution" is sometimes used to refer to the combination of the fact of evolution, the two above mentioned theories and the hypothesis that all life on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor. While this last component is labeled a hypothesis, it is so well confirmed it might almost be called a fact. (An interesting historical aside is that Darwin never once used the word "evolution" in his monumental work, "The Origin of Species".) In either usage, Evolution is essential to modern biology. It has been said that nothing in biology makes sense except in light of Evolution.



©James S. Freeman, 2002

 

[civ2]

Ziggy
That's why I always differentiate between MICRO evolution (FACT, observable) and MACRO evolution (ASSUMPTION, never observed).
And when I say MACRO, I'm not talking about the taxonomy - I just posted from Wiki, that taxonomy can be juggled as you wish.
Rather, I speak about DRASTIC changes that become CONSTANT.
This is impossible to observe in bigger animals, but could be observed in smaller MULTICELLULAR ones.
I'm taking single cells out of the topic, cause it's nearly impossible to specify a drastic change in them, and also not to confuse adaptation with specification.
Yes, I know there are bacterias that start feeding on plastic etc.
As well as rats or roaches.
But their digestion system didn't actually change - they just were able to chemically affect these new things.
Who said, they couldn't before???
Also, such things as insects, that can be breed over few weeks if not days, could be FORCED to "evolve" drastically.
Yet they don't.
Any mutation they get, is LOST on their children, if they even have ones.
The prove I'm asking for is something like a 4/8 legged fly with 3 eyes and a tail.
Any of those traits would suffice.
Adaptation - for sure.
Mutation - for sure.
Acquisition of new traits - nope.

 

[Truronian]

That's why I always differentiate between MICRO evolution (FACT, observable) and MACRO evolution (ASSUMPTION, never observed).

1) Both macro-evolution and micro-evolution have been observed.
2) The teams don't quite mean what you think they do (look them up, they have specific scientific purposes for both existing).
3) The two words refer to the same process. Saying one exists and the other doesn't is as nonsensical as saying centimeters exist but kilometers are a myth.

See here for more info.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Civ2.

You are confused what Micro and Macro evolution is. Let me show you:

What is macroevolution?

First, we have to get the definitions right. The following terms are defined: macroevolution, microevolution, cladogenesis, anagenesis, punctuated equilibrium theory, phyletic gradualism

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species. It can also apply to changes within species that are not genetic.

Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution. Sometimes, macroevolution is called "supraspecific evolution" (Rensch 1959, see Hennig 1966: 223-225).

There are various views of the dynamics of macroevolution. Punctuated Equilibria are patterns of change that indicate stasis, or long periods of time where species exhibit very little change. There are several hypotheses that attempt to explain stasis. The current consensus among paleontologists is that large populations are buffered against evolutionary change by natural selection or genetic drift. Evolutionary change becomes easier when populations split into smaller demes. This change can be "locked in" if the subpopulations evolve reproductive isolation and become separate species. That's why change is associated with cladogenesis. Phyletic gradualism suggests that species continue to adapt to new challenges over the course of their history (see Fig. 1). Species selection and species sorting theories think that there are macroevolutionary processes going on that make it more or less likely that certain species will exist for very long before becoming extinct, in a kind of parallel to what happens to genes in microevolution.
The history of the concept of macroevolution

How did the terms enter into scientific use, and what has happened to them since?

In the "modern synthesis" of neo-Darwinism, which developed in the period from 1930 to 1950 with the reconciliation of evolution by natural selection and modern genetics, macroevolution is thought to be the combined effects of microevolutionary processes.

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first coined in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iuri'i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration), in his German-language work Variabilität und Variation, which was an early attempt to reconcile Mendelian genetics and evolution. Filipchenko was an evolutionist, but as he wrote during the period when Mendelism seemed to have made Darwinism redundant, the so-called "eclipse of Darwinism" (Bowler 1983), he was not a Darwinian, but an orthogeneticist (he believed evolution had a direction). Moreover, Russian biologists of the period had a history of rejecting Darwin's Malthusian mechanism of evolution by competition (Todes 1989).

In Dobzhansky's founding work of the Modern Synthesis, Genetics and the Origin of Species, he began by saying that "we are compelled at the present level of knowledge reluctantly to put a sign of equality between the mechanisms of macro- and microevolution" (1937: 12), thereby introducing the terms into the English-speaking biological community (Alexandrov 1994). Dobzhansky had been Filipchenko's student and regarded him as his mentor. In science as in all academic disciplines, it is difficult to deny a major tenet of one's teachers due to filial loyalty, and Dobzhansky, who effectively started the modern Darwinian synthesis with this book, found it disagreeable to have to deny his teacher's views (Burian 1994).

The term fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories. As a result, apart from Dobzhansky, Bernhardt Rensch and Ernst Mayr, very few neo-Darwinian writers used the term, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Those who did were generally working within the continental European traditions (as Dobzhansky, Mayr, Rensch, Goldschmidt, and Schindewolf are) and those who didn't were generally working within the Anglo-American tradition (such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins). Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not (Eldredge 1995: 126-127).

The term was revived by a number of mainly paleontological authors such as Steven Stanley (1979), Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, the authors of punctuated equilibrium theory (see Eldredge 1995), who argued that something other than within-species processes are causing macroevolution, although they disavow the view that evolution is progressive. Many paleontologists have held that what happens in evolution beyond the species level is due to processes that operate beyond the level of populations – for example, the notion of species selection (the idea that species themselves get selected similarly to the way alleles get selected within populations, see Grantham 1995, Rice 1995, and Stidd and Wade 1995 for reviews and discussions).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa such as genera requires something special is often based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new lineages arise. The two species that are the origin of canine and feline lineages probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were taxonomically isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared internally but that other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (e.g., Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.
Confusions

Ways in which the term "macroevolution" is used by scientists. Some are exact in the way they use it, while others are less exact. These usages are not all the same, and this causes some confusion. Why do scientists not agree on the meaning of their terms?

The meaning modern authors give to the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is often confusing, and varies according to what it is they are discussing. This is particularly the case when "large-scale" evolutionary processes are being discussed. For example, R. L. Carroll, in his undergraduate textbook (1997: 10) defines microevolution as "involving phenomena at the level of populations and species" and macroevolution as "evolutionary patterns expressed over millions and hundreds of millions of years". Eldredge says, "Macroevolution, however it is precisely defined, always connotes "large-scale evolutionary change" (1989: vii) and throughout his book speaks of macroevolution as roughly equivalent to the evolution of taxa that are of a higher rank than species, such as genera, orders, families and the like. In his book Evolution, Mark Ridley defines the terms thus (2004: 227):

Macroevolution means evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record. It is contrasted with microevolution, the study of evolution over short time periods, such as that of a human lifetime or less. Microevolution therefore refers to changes in gene frequency within a population .... Macroevolutionary events events are much more likely to take millions of years. Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution ... or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion .... Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution.

[..]
Hot news: philosophers of science like to argue about the reduction of one kind of science to another. Many have asked whether macroevolution reduces to microevolution. That is, whether or not larger changes in evolution are "just the sum of" small changes. We need to understand what "reduction" means in the philosophy of science before we can start accusing people of being "reductionists" or "holists".

From a philosophical perspective, one might say macroevolution is just a bunch of microevolution. It's also just a bunch of chemistry. And physics. These are unhelpful answers, so we might find it worthwhile to ask how scientific domains relate to each other. Whenever a scientist or philosopher asks if two theories are reducible one to the other, there are several answers that can be given. One is if the first theory being reduced A is adequately captured by the reducing theory B. Another is that A is not entirely captured by B. A third is that A and B each have overlapping areas, and areas only they capture. This is called the problem of theory reduction.

Reduction has been a philosophical problem with respect to science for about 60 years. It comes in three main varieties: methodological reduction, which is the notion that one ought to try to explain wholes in terms of the parts and their interactions; ontological reduction, which is the notion that all the units or entities of one theory are composed of units or entities of another; and metaphysical reduction, which is the claim that only one kind of thing exists (also called "monism"). Ontological reduction includes reducing all the laws and dynamic generalisations of the A theory to laws and dynamic generalisations of the B theory. In philosophy of science, the case is often put in just these terms, but increasingly philosophers are attending to the objects of scientific theories as well as the models.

Consider atoms, as an example. At the time Dalton proposed atoms, he was trying to explain larger things in terms of smaller things with properties that added up to the properties of the whole. He did this because he felt it was a good rule to follow, explaining wholes in terms of parts. So he was a methodological reductionist, explaining things in terms of ontological reduction. He wasn't a metaphysical reductionist, though, if he allowed that reality comprised stuff other than atoms – such as gravity or light (or God). A parallel case is genetic reductionism, in which behaviours are "reduced" to genes – it is both methodologically and ontologically reductionist in the domain of behaviour and biology. It doesn't assert that everything in biology is genetic, though, because we know that how genes are expressed is affected by non-genetic factors, such as the availability of food during crucial phases of development.

The reductive relation between microevolution and macroevolution is hotly debated. There are those who, with Dobzhansky, say that macroevolution reduces to microevolution. We can break this down to three claims: within the "universe" of biology, one might say that everything biological is best explained by microevolution (methodological), or that all entities and processes of macroevolution are microevolutionary (usually genetic – this is ontological), or that everything that happens (in biology) is genetic (metaphysical). In the metaphysical case, genes acquire an almost mystical significance, and no serious biologist makes this claim, although opponents accuse some (particularly Dawkins) of doing so.

The two reductive claims we will consider now are the methodological and the ontological.

The methodological claim that macroevolution (Ma) reduces to microevolution (Mi) is a claim that the optimal solution for investigating evolution is to apply modelling and testing by genetic techniques. And this has been very successful. However, it has not been an unqualified success – developmental biology is not easily reducible to genetics, nor is ecology. Cell division, specialisation and signalling explain development, and the relationship between genes and these processes is equivocal – that is, some genes play a role in many developmental processes, and many genes play a role in pretty well all processes. Moreover, there are many other things involved in development: epigenetic factors (para-genetic inheritance and environmental modulation of genetic effects), cytological inheritance (organelles, cell membranes, ribosomes and enzymes from parent cells, and parent organisms). So genes on their own are not enough to explain why evolution occurs along the pathways that it has. One reaction to methodological reductionism in biology has been to assert that genes are merely "bookkeeping" entities for evolutionary investigation (Gould 2002). The methodological reduction is not sufficient, even if genes turn out to be the only significant "players" in evolution.

It is this assumption that antireductionists challenge in the ontological reductionist case. There are entities and processes, they say, that affect macroevolutionary dynamics which are not in their nature microevolutionary. What could these be?

Well, a list that reductionists would accept includes climate change, geomorphological processes like mountain building, tectonic isolation and drift, vulcanism, extraterrestrial influences like bolide impacts, galactic wobble, precession of the earth's axial rotation, and possibly even local stars approaching and changing the impact on the earth of comets and other bolides in a cycle averaging around 13 million years. The point the reductionists would make, though, is that everything that these things affect is microevolutionary – only the frequencies of genes in populations, and so on. They serve as the environment in which genes change their frequency (or fail to, and the species goes extinct). What the "player" is in microevolution is the population, comprising organisms, traits and genes; in short, the gene pool. Nothing else is important.

Is macroevolution a testable hypothesis? Can it be falsified?

Antievolutionists try to make out that macroevolution is a tautology, the way they claim that natural selection is a tautology. The implication is that macroevolution cannot be tested and shown to be wrong, and therefore it is not science.

To clarify this, consider what it is that scientists test when they test a hypothesis. Let's suppose that we are testing the idea that global warming is caused by a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. There are two parts to this – one claim is that CO2 causes the retention of solar and other heat, and the second is that this has happened in the past and is actually happening now. If you show that in a particular case global warming didn't happen (say, in the period of the last interglacial), you haven't thereby shown that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, nor that it isn't doing so now. All you have tested is a particular case.

We can test a particular claim of macroevolution. We can test, for example, if weasels are more closely related to red pandas than bears are (Flynn and Nedbal 1998, Flynn et al. 2000). This is a test of a particular evolutionary tree or scenario. It tests a historical reconstruction. If shown, on the basis of the evidence and the best data, to be wrong, then that history has indeed been falsified. But can we test the idea of common descent? It is not possible to show that something never occurred, but it is very easy to show that where it ought to occur, it either has or it hasn't. Science will not retain a bad idea when it is shown repeatedly not to explain what we have a right to expect it to explain (this is one reason why creationism was dropped from science back in the 1850s). If macroevolution persistently were shown to run counter to the data, then science would drop it and look for another solution.

Moreover, science has to an extent falsified the initial conception of macroevolution. The original idea was that evolution formed only tree-like patterns – species split like branches. A growing consensus has argued that both hybridisation (species recombining) and lateral genetic transfer (genes crossing the taxonomic boundaries individually or as part of symbiotic organisms that are taken into the "host" taxon's cellular machinery) are more common than we had previously thought. Macroevolution of species is still regarded as the most common way that the diversity of life has developed, but the "tree" now has "vines" that hang across the branches of single celled organisms (Fig. 4).
'Vines'd
Figure 4. Evolutionary "vines" Lateral genetic transfer across the tree of life. Taken from Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom, based on work done by Victor Kunin, et al. This image covers only bacteria and archaea, but the same conclusions apply at the wider scale of other single celled organisms. [Full-sized image]

So the Common Descent Hypothesisas we might call the general idea, or the notion of Descent with modification as Darwin called it in his correspondence, is tested every time a particular hypothesis is tested. When there are problems in enough phylogenies, then Common Descent may be rejected. So far, though, it is a very good first approximation, and the fact that revisions can be and have been made show that it is neither dogma, nor insulated from data.

Conclusions

Is Microevolution distinct from Macroevolution and vice versa? We concluded that this depends very much on what is meant by "distinct" and so forth. All phenomena of microevolution – evolution below the species level – must necessarily have some effect above the species level. But whether this is an additive effect or not depends on the complexity of the relationships between the two levels in each case. At least some macroevolution is the result of microevolutionary processes. So we are only asking now if all is. This is open to debate: the E (environmental) factors that affect macroevolution are not within-species (Mi) forces, but do microevolutionary processes like gene frequency changes necessarily mediate them? And this question is still unresolved amongst specialists. One thing we can say now, though, is that we cannot draw a simple equals sign between the two domains. It is an open question, one much argued within evolutionary biology and related disciplines, whether Mi = Ma in any sense.

Ontologically, all the objects of Ma are accounted for by the objects of Mi plus the objects and processes of E. However, we can't just assume all the processes of Ma are just the aggregate sum of the processes of Mi – this needs to be shown. Methodologically, we can not predict the outcomes of Ma from a knowledge of the states of Mi plus E. This is not because the outcomes of Ma are not the result of Mi and so on, necessarily, but because we cannot compute in a reasonable time those outcomes – too many variables, conditions, and interconnections (Dupré 1993, Rosenberg 1994).

But this doesn't mean that we can say that it is impossible to evolve from one group to another because there is a barrier, as creationists claim. Genes and developmental sequences are extremely modifiable, and to date no barrier has been found, nor any reason to suspect one exists. All modern biology accepts that Ma is possible, through biological processes. The question is, in what ways? And that is a matter for empirical investigation, which is ongoing, and through which we are learning new things.

Macroevolution is at least evolution at or above the level of speciation, but it remains an open debate among scientists whether or not it is solely the end product of microevolutionary processes or there is some other set of processes that causes higher level trends and patterns. It is this writer's opinion that macroevolutionary processes are just the vector sum of microevolutionary processes in conjunction with large scale changes in geology and the environment, but this is only one of several opinions held by specialists.

The misuse of the terms by creationists is all their own work. It is not due to the ways scientists have used them. Basically when creationists use "macroevolution" they mean "evolution which we object to on theological grounds", and by "microevolution" they mean "evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds"

 

[emzie]

Like I said, you're not going to be able to teach him anything. He doesn't speak science in any fashion. You should really stop trying, as talking around in circles gives him credibility that he has not earned. Let me say that again: by continuing to engage people like civ2, you are hurting your own cause.

So please, unless he brings up something new, walk away. I beg all of you: walk away.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Who said I was trying?