The evidence for Evolution.

[SteveB28]

His point was that if you accept so called micro-evolution then you accept so called macro-evolution. They are one and the same thing. Creating an artificial difference is obfuscating.

Exactly....thank you.

.

 

[John 1720]

I'm afraid I'm off now so I can't carry on this discussion for a week or so...

Happy Christmas everyone!

I appreciate that gesture coming from an atheist. Thank you very much Jimmy D!

 

[John 1720]

His point was that if you accept so called micro-evolution then you accept so called macro-evolution. They are one and the same thing. Creating an artificial difference is obfuscating.

Nice of you to answer for him but don't you think it is obfuscating the point and the thread if the person who make the diminutive claim hasn't even addressed who he is talking to in the first place? Are we just supposed to guess who he is talking to?
Pat

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice of you to answer for him but don't you think it is obfuscating the point and the thread if the person who make the diminutive claim hasn't even addressed who he is talking to in the first place? Are we just supposed to guess who he is talking to?
Pat

It was clear to me what his point was and if you had read further you would have seen that he agreed with my post. Since you can never tell when an individual poster will come back sometimes others will try to answer for him, as I did.

 

[John 1720]

Exactly....thank you.

.

Exactly what to whom? That in itself is an obfuscated claim. Can you please quote the issue you saw in the 36 pages on this thread or do you insist on continuing to being vague and somewhat disrespectful, since you do not seem to be willing to associate exactly who it is and what they ssaid that can support your claim? I can see you have been here for a very long time but your posting on this thread is very confusing.
Pat

 

[John 1720]

It was clear to me what his point was and if you had read further you would have seen that he agreed with my post. Since you can never tell when an individual poster will come back sometimes others will try to answer for him, as I did.

l.o.l Clear as mud.
"Stop the obfuscation. If you accept so-called "micro-evolution", then you accept evolution....!"
Really? There are:
No Addressee
Where was it stated from the person in question (whom I suppose we are to guess their identity by osmosis), that they didn't accept macro evolution? I'd just like to understand the complaint of obfuscation, as well as the claim that whoever wrote it "must accept macro evolution. I'm not sure anyone in this thread said that. If we're going to have a discussion let's not throw clarity out the window for the sake of choosing sides.
Pat

 

[Subduction Zone]

Exactly what to whom? That in itself is an obfuscated claim. Can you please quote the issue you saw in the 36 pages on this thread or do you insist on continuing to being vague and somewhat disrespectful, since you do not seem to be willing to associate exactly who it is and what they ssaid that can support your claim? I can see you have been here for a very long time but your posting on this thread is very confusing.
Pat

That was an exactly to me. Don't you remember asking me about how I stepped in for Steve? If you can't follow a simple conversation how do you expectto debate here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

l.o.l Clear as mud.
"Stop the obfuscation. If you accept so-called "micro-evolution", then you accept evolution....!"
Really? There are:
No Addressee
Where was it stated from the person in question (whom I suppose we are to guess their identity by osmosis), that they didn't accept macro evolution? I'd just like to understand the complaint of obfuscation, as well as the claim that whoever wrote it "must accept macro evolution. I'm not sure anyone in this thread said that. If we're going to have a discussion let's not throw clarity out the window for the sake of choosing sides.
Pat

Quit complaining so much. If you don't understand something the correct action to take is to ask questions politely and properly.

 

[SteveB28]

Exactly what to whom?

Pardon? Obviously it's to whom the person I was responding to...!

That in itself is an obfuscated claim. Can you please quote the issue you saw in the 36 pages on this thread or do you insist on continuing to being vague and somewhat disrespectful, since you do not seem to be willing to associate exactly who it is and what they ssaid that can support your claim? I can see you have been here for a very long time but your posting on this thread is very confusing.
Pat

Oh, for heaven's sake, take some prune juice...!

I saw here, as I see in so many discussions, a repetition of the very tiresome non-argument around 'I accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution'.

I made a general plea for this obfuscation to stop. Because that's all it is. An attempt by those who can't face the facts of reality to draw attention away from that reality.

It's dishonest and not a little pathetic......




.

 

[John 1720]

My question was

Not sure I understand the term "evolutionary radiation". Can you clear that up for me?

To which you answered:

I don't have much to add to what's already been said, except that it's particularly noticeable on isolated islands, where there can be many unoccupied niches for new arrivals to exploit.
[/quote'
That's not much of an answer to a simple question.
You could have just said: "Evolutionary radiation is an increase in taxonomic diversity or morphological disparity, due to adaptive change or the opening of eco-space."
O well!

I then asked the question:

Also beak size would be an example of micro evolution and not macro evolution. I think everyone believes in microevolution. It is macroevolution, a development of a completely new species, that gives most of the theory of evolution dissenters heartburn.

To which you answered:
[quote="Speedwell"
Micro and macro evolution are the same process viewed at different timescales. A lot of small changes add up to a big change.

Things that happen on a microscale don't necessarily follow the same rules on a macroscale. In Physics we have identified 4 forces, Gravity, the electromotive force, the weak force and the strong force. However, both the weak force and the strong force only apply to microlevel scales, outside of a few femptometers the strong force is non-existent. Science has grown because it has been challenged by question and has overthrown assumptions by demanding proofs.
To assume that anything that happens on the micro-level over time will produce a macrolevel change needs to be proved. Any other conclusion is to assume and we know what happens when we assume. Assumptions have been the pitfall of science. "Nature abhors a vacuum", "Geocentricity", "Dalton's erroneous misconceptions in Atomic theory and his rejection of Avogadro’s hypothesis, NRays, Piltdown man was our ancestor, the Mars Rock proved that life on Mars, the Y2K $100,000,000,000 fiasco were all examples of asumptions by the scientific community that proved false.
Our definitions may differ but I believe microevolution represents small changes within a species, horizontal in nature and Macroevolution represents changes that would produce a entirely new species. Microevolution is easily proved all the way back to the monk Mendel, and dog breeders have definitely shown us that. I'm not aware of anyone who has been able to create an entirely new species by natural selection, or by any other means for that matter. Maybe you know something I don't but what experimental data and proof has shown us that you can create a new species?
I get the finches part of micro-evolution adaptation and the longer beaks after sever drought and the returning to normalcy after rainy seasons. That's microevolution adaptivity of a particular species but for hypothesis sake I'm not aware that any finches turn into eagles either.
A last comment is the lack of openness in sharing ideas within this thread and general courtesy, not that I'm blaming you at all. I'm just wondering why so many devolve into ad-hominem attacks. It seems things would be a lot more productive to just stay within objective discussion instead of acting like Trump and Clinton supporters.
Cheers, Pat

 

[John 1720]

Quit complaining so much. If you don't understand something the correct action to take is to ask questions politely and properly.

Oh I understand perfectly well what is going on when someone isn't polite enough to address them by their name, making sweeping remarks and complaints, while having no context or quotes to substantiate their accusation. It surely not called a dialog or a discussion by any definition and appears to be a tad bit arrogant. Why not simply rectify that and move on? Please don't pretend you do not know what I am talking about or disrespect me by telling me to 'quite complaining' I have a valid point here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So called microevolution is no different than macroevolution. The quantum physics analogy does not apply. You might have a valid use with that for onegeneration for one indivdual, but even so called microevolution is far beyond that.

Your argument failed, it is time for another one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh I understand perfectly well what is going on when someone isn't polite enough to address them by their name, making sweeping remarks and complaints, while having no context or quotes to substantiate their accusation. It surely not called a dialog or a discussion by any definition and appears to be a tad bit arrogant. Why not simply rectify that and move on? Please don't pretend you do not know what I am talking about or disrespect me by telling me to 'quite complaining' I have a valid point here.

No you don't.

When you don't understand something you should ask questions politely and properly.

 

[Speedwell]

Our definitions may differ but I believe microevolution represents small changes within a species, horizontal in nature and Macroevolution represents changes that would produce a entirely new species.

There is no such thing as an "entirely new species."
Speciation is a quantitative, not a qualitative change. It generally happens gradually, and there is no point where you can say, "Aha! This individual has given birth to another individual of a different species." Not even retroactively.

 

[John 1720]

Pardon? Obviously it's to whom the person I was responding to...!
[/quote[
And you are accusing others of being obfuscated? Post 717 is not addressed to anyone so how is one supposed to tell?

Oh, for heaven's sake, take some prune juice...!

Whatever, an irrational comment doesn't require a rational response

I saw here, as I see in so many discussions, a repetition of the very tiresome non-argument around 'I accept micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution'.
I made a general plea for this obfuscation to stop. Because that's all it is. An attempt by those who can't face the facts of reality to draw attention away from that reality.
It's dishonest and not a little pathetic......

It's dishonest, or hopefully only pathetically obfuscated, to say in one sentence that you were addressing the person you were responding to, without specifically addressing them in post 717, and then say in the next breath that it was only "a general plea". Well, which was it then? Something is wrong with the general dynamics of conversation here but I'm moving on to a more substantive conversation and will pass on the irrationality here.
Thanks anyway, Pat

 

[John 1720]

No you don't.

When you don't understand something you should ask questions politely and properly.

I did. I asked them to identify whom they were talking to. Please don't lecture me on politeness it seems a bit hypocritical.

 

[John 1720]

There is no such thing as an "entirely new species."
Speciation is a quantitative, not a qualitative change. It generally happens gradually, and there is no point where you can say, "Aha! This individual has given birth to another individual of a different species." Not even retroactively.

And we can prove these gradual micro changes over long periods of time building up one micro change after another eventually cause differing species over epochs exactly how? As I said in physics the forces that happen at a micro-level pico meters and fempto meters are not existent at the macro level. How then can we be sure in Biology that there can be no difference between micro evolution or macro evolution. I'm simply looking for something to hang my hat on here and don't believe I've heard articulate answers.
Thanks, Pat

 

[Speedwell]

And we can prove these gradual micro changes over long periods of time building up one micro change after another eventually cause differing species over epochs exactly how? As I said in physics the forces that happen at a micro-level pico meters and fempto meters are not existent at the macro level. How then can we be sure in Biology that there can be no difference between micro evolution or macro evolution. I'm simply looking for something to hang my hat on here and don't believe I've heard articulate answers.
Thanks, Pat

The analogy is not particularly apt because in physics the predominate forces are different at the different levels.
But the idea that there are two different processes at work in evolution for macro and micro is purely a creationist fantasy. There is just one: variation and natural selection. And since there is no qualitative difference between the kind of changes which cause adaptation and those which cause speciation there is only need for one.

 

[SteveB28]

Science has grown because it has been challenged by question and has overthrown assumptions by demanding proofs.

False. Yet another example of one who fails to understand the most basic principles of the scientific method.



.

 

[SteveB28]

I did. I asked them to identify whom they were talking to. Please don't lecture me on politeness it seems a bit hypocritical.

And you were told...!

And it was obvious.....!

IN CASE YOU COULDNT SEE, IN THAT RESPONSE I QUOTED THE PERSON TO WHOM I WAS RESPONDING...!

Good grief.....



.