Posted on 10/27/2009 8:11:33 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
And you call yourself a surveyor.
A precise use of the language is required to answer the question. A theory, in the emperical scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. Once proven the structure ceases to be a theory and becomes a principle.
That being said, the theory of relativity (E=MC^2) is pretty well established by the explosion of the atomic bombs.
YOU “No, creationist alternate the terms in an attempt to blur the meaning.”
We do not alternate the terms. They are two seperate things as defined below.
Microevolution-evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies. (http://www.answers.com/topic/microevolution)
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
Neither are from a creationist website. (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml)
YOU “Macro evolution is the same thing as micro evolution, just micro evolution over long periods of time.”
That is not what the definitions above say. YOU are the one confusing the terms not me.
YOU “Creationists speak of micro and macro evolution, Biologists speak of evolution and common descent of species.”
No micro and macro are different things.
YOU “Otherwise it would just be an example of an expression of a recessive trait, which is NOT an example of microevolution.”
Bad example, the point was that the information is already there in the DNA for a trait to be selected.
“In order to refute something, or to even credibly reject something, it would help if you understood it.”
I understand the difference between micro and macro. You obviously think they are the same thing. That is because the terms have been misused and blurred.
I believe in mutations, natural selection and speciation. That is good observable science.
You believe that this is MACROevolution and it is not. Changes can occur within a species even creating a subspecies. No one is arguing that.
YOU “It is not a logical fallacy to observe a known and measurable process and extrapolate that over time in order to see if it can be a logical mechanism to explain historical processes.”
It is a logical fallacy to observe a known and measureable process (natural selection and speciation) and extrapolate that to an unknown and inmeasurable process (macroevolution).
YOU “For example, the known and measurable micro erosion that we see, is both necessary and sufficient to explain the macro features of canyons caused by river erosion over millions of years.”
I have to laugh at this. You are saying that because we can see erosion now and assume erosion in the past that we can see changes in dogs now and assume they evolved from something else in the past.
You are the one confusing the terms and trying to blur the data not me.
It is not a logical fallacy to take a known and observable process and extrapolate that into explaining what happened in the past - it is the scientific method to do so.
Is the observed and measured motion of the continents both necessary and sufficient to explain why South America used to be joined with Africa and now are so far apart? Why yes, yes it is.
Is the observed and measured selective pressure on genetic variation among dogs necessary and sufficient to explaining the many varieties that humans have developed over the years? Why yes, yes it is.
Is the observed and measured mutation rate in DNA sequences not subject to selective pressure both necessary and sufficient to explain the measured difference in the same DNA sequences between species of assumed common ancestry? Why yes, yes it is.
You also said “The reason I mentioned PE is because PE is an old answer to the problem of non random findings in the fossil record. It is becoming more obvious that the none random fossil record is attributed to the non random mutation observations.”
Please give a cite for this (or “site” if you prefer). I fail to see how a deconstruction of the idea of gradualism would in any way be an explanation for or around or consequence of the fact that some DNA sequences are more likely to be mutated than others.
Thanks for the ping!
You are saying wolves changed into domesticated dogs so therefore apes and people evolved from a common ansector. You are taking something that is observed and extrapolating it to something that isn’t observed. IOW, you are comparing apples to oranges as it were. Again you are confusing micro and macro.
Wolves, coyotes, and domesticated dogs have common anscestors, just like apes and humans do.
Man was the selective pressure for the wolf/coyote/dog lineage. Starving wolves overcame their fear of man, and accepted food from them.,eventually becoming tame. Then man bred the ones with traits they wanted. Most dog breeds are from the last 500 years or so.
Coyotes probably evolved from wolves without man’s intervention.
What is so hard in understanding that?
Are you denying that domestic dogs (canis lupus familiaris) is not a separate species and did not descend from the wolf (canis lupus)?
I find it interesting that you demand an answer to your questions but you do not answer my questions. I believe you misunderstood my quote so I will attempt to add to your understanding. Eldredge and Gould observed that sampling the fossil record was inconsistent with gradualism. Some authors also refer to uniform gradualism. Rather then throw gradualism under the bus they decided to modify the concept of gradualism to be non uniform and comply with their findings of the fossil record. The fact that the fossil record is non random and therefore does not support uniform gradualism. The authors have written may articles on PE and have amended it over time. About two years ago geneticist also observed that mutations occur in non random clusters that appear to help explain the non random occurrence in the fossil record. These findings do not help the old definition off gradualism. Although we still find gradualism in text books it was readily apparent to Nile and Jay that gradualism needed a face lift. With more recent findings it is becoming apparent gradualism needs to be buried six feet under. Unfortunately the early paleontologist such as Darwin never saw a gene and lacked an understanding how gradualism could be so negatively impacted by modern genetics. Now you need to answer my questions.
As other have said. What is the stop button between micro and macro? Maybe it looks like the “easy” button from Staples?
THERE IS NONE. There is evolution. Over a short time, small traits may be changed, these accumulate and over a long time, a new species arises.
Creationists use more twists of logic than any democrat.
“Wolves, coyotes, and domesticated dogs have common anscestors”
Agreed. There common ancestor was a dog. And they are all dogs.
“just like apes and humans do.”
There is your leap.
“Are you denying that domestic dogs (canis lupus familiaris) is not a separate species and did not descend from the wolf (canis lupus)?”
No I am not denying that. I believe that. However, I don’t believe that it proves that apes and people evolved from a common ancestor. Let me clarify what I said “You are saying THAT BECAUSE wolves changed into domesticated dogs (true) that it can be extrapolated that apes and people evolved from a common ansector.”
“What is the stop button between micro and macro?”
DNA. The traits of the new species came about by some mechanism - natural selection, breeding etc. Those traits were already in the DNA of the parents. For a sea creature to evolve into a land animal, information has to be added. There is no mechanism for this to take place.
I am not saying that a new species of dogs cannot arise after small traits have accumulated over time. They can. The problem comes when you tell me that these small changes can cause a canine to change into another animal altogether.
The word species is used for classification. A new species of the genus canis is not a different animal altogether. It is a variation.
This is what creationist mean when they say animal kind. Zebras, horses, mules, donkeys are all variations of one kind of animal.
I think you’re fighting with one of GGG’s many backup aliases... If not, it’s just another bat from it’s belfry..
“Old age isnt easy.”
Amen, Brother. Us grey haired gentlemen have to stick together.
So now you admit at least that you said it.
Now provide a source that substantiates it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.