| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jem" |
| Date: |
04 Mar 2007 10:23:08 AM |
| Object: |
Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution.
Just had to get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from
fundies. I am only directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
I see in the anti-evolutionists arguments that macro evolution, the
actual origins of species, is not answered by Darwinian theory. As I
understand it, it doesn't claim to have that answer?
Darwin never claimed any explanation that species appeared quickly,
but since the fossil records we have found don't account for
everything, I was thinking maybe the gaps in record are still
explainable.
If a species divides into two groups, by say migration, they will
continue to evolve but separately. Their environments and food and
weather would all have different effects on each group. Other factors
like the changing social habits could possibly make more changes.
Since they evolve separately, eventually they could become so
different they diverge as species, now there is two. The full record
for us to find is not there for natural reasons, but if we miss enough
of the record, could this not explain it?
.
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 01:39:51 PM |
|
|
"jem" <A0054883@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:jhrlu21kiqb1kovn3bce74vkcu9e7oeghq@4ax.com...
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution.
Just had to get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from
fundies. I am only directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
I see in the anti-evolutionists arguments that macro evolution,
Generally, antievolutionists consistently misuse the legitimate
scientific word "macroevolution". Basically, it's all evolution
above the within-one-species level. Both "macroevolution" [new
species formation] and "microevolution" [evolution within one
species] are observed to occur today.
the
actual origins of species, is not answered by Darwinian theory.
This might depend on what they're claiming is the "question" here.
Modern evolutionary theory has a lot to say about how speciation
occurs, but the speciation process isn't necessarily about Darwinian
natual selection, which is of course a large part of the original
"Darwinian theory".
Natural selection is about the origin of adaptive features of
organisms, not necessarily new species formation. Speciation may
often result from geographic isolation and genetic drift, without
any selection for reproductive isolation required.
As I
understand it, it doesn't claim to have that answer?
I suspect they're fibbing or perhaps equivocating "Darwinian
[= natural selection] theory" for "evolutionary theory". We do
observe speciation occurring, and we do know a lot about how it
occurs. So, the real answer is no, the creationists' claims are
wrong as usual.
Darwin never claimed any explanation that species appeared quickly,
but since the fossil records we have found don't account for
everything, I was thinking maybe the gaps in record are still
explainable.
Speciation-level gaps in the fossil record are pretty much to be
expected, since the speciation process should be relatively local
geographically and may be relatively rapid compared to the duration
of species. This idea is pretty much all that "punctuated equilibria"
is all about: the idea that well-documented species-to-species
changes should be relatively rare [they're not absent] in the known
fossil record.
If a species divides into two groups, by say migration, they will
continue to evolve but separately.
Right. And this alone is enough to account for many, perhaps most,
speciations. After enough time apart, the two groups will have
accumulated enough differences that their members won't interbreed
freely even if they spread and come back into contact.
Their environments and food and
weather would all have different effects on each group. Other factors
like the changing social habits could possibly make more changes.
All of these and more will fall under the category of independent
changes that occur in the separated populations.
Since they evolve separately, eventually they could become so
different they diverge as species, now there is two. The full record
for us to find is not there for natural reasons, but if we miss enough
of the record, could this not explain it?
There are in fact speciation-level changes seen in the fossil
record, and plenty of cases of observed speciation occurring
today.
You can find lots of good info at
http://www.talkorigins.org/
and its further links like:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-research.html
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 06:58:35 PM |
|
|
In article <jhrlu21kiqb1kovn3bce74vkcu9e7oeghq@4ax.com>,
jem <A0054883@airmail.net> wrote:
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution.
Just had to get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from
fundies. I am only directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
I see in the anti-evolutionists arguments that macro evolution, the
actual origins of species, is not answered by Darwinian theory. As I
understand it, it doesn't claim to have that answer?
Darwin never claimed any explanation that species appeared quickly,
but since the fossil records we have found don't account for
everything, I was thinking maybe the gaps in record are still
explainable.
If a species divides into two groups, by say migration, they will
continue to evolve but separately. Their environments and food and
weather would all have different effects on each group. Other factors
like the changing social habits could possibly make more changes.
Since they evolve separately, eventually they could become so
different they diverge as species, now there is two. The full record
for us to find is not there for natural reasons, but if we miss enough
of the record, could this not explain it?
The micro/macro question is something made up by creationists to muddy
the waters. Evolution is a continuous process. "Macroevolution" or
speciation is the result of many "microevolutionary" steps.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 12:28:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:23:08 +0100, in alt.atheism , jem
<A0054883@airmail.net> in <jhrlu21kiqb1kovn3bce74vkcu9e7oeghq@4ax.com>
wrote:
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution.
Just had to get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from
fundies. I am only directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
I see in the anti-evolutionists arguments that macro evolution, the
actual origins of species, is not answered by Darwinian theory. As I
understand it, it doesn't claim to have that answer?
He did, though. Descent through modification, affected by differential
reproductive success. There is plenty more to learn, but that is the
basics.
Darwin never claimed any explanation that species appeared quickly,
For what meaning of "quickly"? In some lineages (ferns, for example)
speciation can occur in one generation.
but since the fossil records we have found don't account for
everything, I was thinking maybe the gaps in record are still
explainable.
If a species divides into two groups, by say migration, they will
continue to evolve but separately. Their environments and food and
weather would all have different effects on each group. Other factors
like the changing social habits could possibly make more changes.
Since they evolve separately, eventually they could become so
different they diverge as species, now there is two. The full record
for us to find is not there for natural reasons, but if we miss enough
of the record, could this not explain it?
It explains a bit, but there is more. (BTW, if you came up with this
on you own, pretty good work.) You are talking about an aspect of
Punctuated Equilibria. There is open debate on which are the primary
mechanism of speciation and, more than just primacy, which work when.
That is, is more speciation due to geographic separation or does more
happen as a species changes over time in place? We find examples of
what you say above, but we also find where new species form in the
same geographic region as the original. Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution#Hawthorn_fly
"An interesting example of evolution at work is the case of the
hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, which appears to be undergoing
sympatric speciation.[7] Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on
different fruits. A distinct population emerged in North America in
the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were
introduced. This apple-feeding population normally feeds only on
apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. The
current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples.
Scientists are investigating whether or not the apple-feeding
subspecies may further evolve into a new species.
Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen allozyme loci
are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take
longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence
of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization
rate) suggests that this is occurring. The emergence of the new
hawthorn fly is an example of evolution in progress.[8]"
Oh, and talk.origins is, as was said, the better group to ask these
questions. And go to www.talkorigins.org for lots of information.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 04:50:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:23:08 +0100, jem <A0054883@airmail.net> wrote:
- Refer: <jhrlu21kiqb1kovn3bce74vkcu9e7oeghq@4ax.com>
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution.
Just had to get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from
fundies. I am only directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
I see in the anti-evolutionists arguments that macro evolution, the
actual origins of species, is not answered by Darwinian theory. As I
understand it, it doesn't claim to have that answer?
Darwin never claimed any explanation that species appeared quickly,
but since the fossil records we have found don't account for
everything, I was thinking maybe the gaps in record are still
explainable.
If a species divides into two groups, by say migration, they will
continue to evolve but separately. Their environments and food and
weather would all have different effects on each group. Other factors
like the changing social habits could possibly make more changes.
Since they evolve separately, eventually they could become so
different they diverge as species, now there is two. The full record
for us to find is not there for natural reasons, but if we miss enough
of the record, could this not explain it?
Macro/micro evolution is a total fabrication invented by religious
crazies.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 05:13:55 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:o8jmu25lub4e2bi28k54730kla61kmhgr3@4ax.com...
[snip]
Macro/micro evolution is a total fabrication invented by religious
crazies.
The way the terms are constantly misused by creationists
certainly gives that impression, but actually the words
were coined by and are still used by evolutionary biologists.
They don't mean what creationists usually seem to think they
mean.
see, for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
Both "microevolution" [evolutionary change within one species] and
"macroevolution" [new species formation, and the evolution of higher
groups of related species from common ancestral species] are
observed to occur. The largest scale sense of "macroevolution" [the
evolutionary history of major groups of organisms] doesn't really
require any new processes other than the cumulative results of
"microevolution", plus speciations, plus extinctions, over much longer
periods of time, but the differences in scale make the distinction a
useful one in scientific discussions.
Creationists abuse the "micro/macro" distinction and usually get the
definitions wrong, but then they get so much else wrong as well.
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 11:13:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 17:23:08 +0100, jem wrote:
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution. Just had to
get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from fundies. I am only
directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
I see in the anti-evolutionists arguments that macro evolution, the actual
origins of species, is not answered by Darwinian theory. As I understand
it, it doesn't claim to have that answer? Darwin never claimed any
explanation that species appeared quickly, but since the fossil records we
have found don't account for everything, I was thinking maybe the gaps in
record are still explainable.
If a species divides into two groups, by say migration, they will continue
to evolve but separately. Their environments and food and weather would
all have different effects on each group. Other factors like the changing
social habits could possibly make more changes. Since they evolve
separately, eventually they could become so different they diverge as
species, now there is two. The full record for us to find is not there for
natural reasons, but if we miss enough of the record, could this not
explain it?
Creationists cannot deny microevolution, because it can be observed
directly. So, they try to deny macroevolution, which they believe to be
qualitatively different. However, they are unable to provide a reason why
macroevolution isn't just lots of microevolution.
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sippuuden" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 10:53:26 AM |
|
|
jem wrote:
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution.
Just had to get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from
fundies. I am only directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
I see in the anti-evolutionists arguments that macro evolution, the
actual origins of species, is not answered by Darwinian theory. As I
understand it, it doesn't claim to have that answer?
Darwin never claimed any explanation that species appeared quickly,
but since the fossil records we have found don't account for
everything, I was thinking maybe the gaps in record are still
explainable.
If a species divides into two groups, by say migration, they will
continue to evolve but separately. Their environments and food and
weather would all have different effects on each group. Other factors
like the changing social habits could possibly make more changes.
Since they evolve separately, eventually they could become so
different they diverge as species, now there is two. The full record
for us to find is not there for natural reasons, but if we miss enough
of the record, could this not explain it?
This is a topic more suitable for talk.origins
Have you read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 10:58:23 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:53:26 -0800, Sippuuden <sipp@macrosoft.net>
wrote:
jem wrote:
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution.
Just had to get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from
fundies. I am only directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
I see in the anti-evolutionists arguments that macro evolution, the
actual origins of species, is not answered by Darwinian theory. As I
understand it, it doesn't claim to have that answer?
Darwin never claimed any explanation that species appeared quickly,
but since the fossil records we have found don't account for
everything, I was thinking maybe the gaps in record are still
explainable.
If a species divides into two groups, by say migration, they will
continue to evolve but separately. Their environments and food and
weather would all have different effects on each group. Other factors
like the changing social habits could possibly make more changes.
Since they evolve separately, eventually they could become so
different they diverge as species, now there is two. The full record
for us to find is not there for natural reasons, but if we miss enough
of the record, could this not explain it?
This is a topic more suitable for talk.origins
Have you read:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
No I haven't, thanks a bunch
I'll check it out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 10:58:26 AM |
|
|
jem wrote:
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution.
Just had to get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from
fundies. I am only directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
perhaps you meant to say you are directing it towards people who
understand evolutionary theory? it's really not a matter of being a
"supporter"
I see in the anti-evolutionists arguments that macro evolution, the
actual origins of species, is not answered by Darwinian theory. As I
understand it, it doesn't claim to have that answer?
Darwin never claimed any explanation that species appeared quickly,
but since the fossil records we have found don't account for
everything, I was thinking maybe the gaps in record are still
explainable.
If a species divides into two groups, by say migration, they will
continue to evolve but separately. Their environments and food and
weather would all have different effects on each group. Other factors
like the changing social habits could possibly make more changes.
Since they evolve separately, eventually they could become so
different they diverge as species, now there is two. The full record
for us to find is not there for natural reasons, but if we miss enough
of the record, could this not explain it?
Yes, it does explain it. The micro/macro thing is just a creationist
effort to confuse people about evolutionary theory.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: Macro-Micro Evolution Question |
04 Mar 2007 11:49:41 AM |
|
|
On 4 Mar 2007 08:58:26 -0800, "J Forbes" <jforbnospam@selectric.org>
wrote:
jem wrote:
First, I make no claim to expertise on the topic of evolution.
Just had to get that aside to minimize the sniping, expected from
fundies. I am only directing this to supporters of Darwinian theory.
perhaps you meant to say you are directing it towards people who
understand evolutionary theory? it's really not a matter of being a
"supporter"
You're right, bad choice of words. I guess I was thinking in terms of
those that attack it opposed to those that accept it (with some
understanding of it hopefully).
I've been looking at the page Sippuuden suggested, hurts my brain!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
