Macroevolution:

[tevans9129]

Although it is risky to attempt to classify creatures based on so little information as is supplied by no more than two photos, I think even a layman would be able to tell that the two creatures depicted were not the same species, without asking.

OK, if I understand you correctly, when I ask if someone can provide evidence of one "kind" evolving into a different "kind", they know very well what I am adking so are just using, "what is your defintion of kind" as a deflection. Therefore, from what you have given, from now on I will ask, can you provide an unaltered image of one species evolving into a different species and that should get a straight answer, correct?

 

[Speedwell]

OK, if I understand you correctly, when I ask if someone can provide evidence of one "kind" evolving into a different "kind", they know very well what I am adking so are just using, "what is your defintion of kind" as a deflection. Therefore, from what you have given, from now on I will ask, can you provide an unaltered image of one species evolving into a different species and that should get a straight answer, correct?

A straight answer, but not one that you will like. Speciation takes place gradually over many generations, as one sub-population of the species is exposed to different environmental selection criteria. For a long time the two groups may remain very similar and remain partially interfertile as well. The boundary between related species is a fuzzy one, which is why species determination is often difficult and sometimes controversial. There is no hard line at which we can say, "Aha, a new species has now been formed." So no one individual in the transition series represents "the" transitional form.

 

[Obliquinaut]

If I wanted to ask a “biology scientist” if these two images were of the same “kind”, biology wise, what would be the proper language for doing that?

So are you only interested in when something changes at the CLASS level now? So if it changes from Class Aves to Class Mammalia it will count as "evolution"?

I guess the OBSERVED EVIDENCE OF SPECIATION shown earlier wasn't enough?

This is why it is important to pay attention to the technical terminology. It keeps Creationists from moving the goalposts all over the place.

You see, a few decades ago you wouldn't even get Creationists to accept "micro-evolution", let alone "Macroevolution". Now it seems we are moving the goal to include changes from one species to another?

And why does it only count now if it is up at the Class level?

You have to help us because it seems you are moving the goal all around.

 

[pitabread]

Then they should be a little more detailed in their explanation.

How detailed do you want? I mean, there is ample information online for these subjects. In the current age of the Internet, there's not really an excuse for people to not be able to learn these things.

 

[AV1611VET]

You see, a few decades ago you wouldn't even get Creationists to accept "micro-evolution", let alone "Macroevolution".

That's because, back then, it was called "adaption."

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, thanks, therefore, it seems to me that asking that would result in most everything being of the same "kind". Is that not very convenient for those who promote evolution as there is no need to explain how any one entity evolved into a totally different entity because they are all the same?

"Chordata is a familiar phylum that includes organisms like mammals, fish, birds,reptiles, and amphibians (all vertebrates); sea squirts (tunicates); and lancelets (cephalochordates). All chordates have a notochord, a dorsal nerve cord, and pharyngeal slits at some point in their development.Jan 20, 2016"

What about using "Species" or "Genus", when would they be used and can you provide an example?

With the chicken and horse example, would it be appropriate to ask if they were of the same "species"?

How many times do you need to be told that "change of kind" is a false creationist argument.

Creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of "kind". Don't expect those that accept science to define the terms that you use for you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of "kind".

Kind = genus.

Now they can.

 

[pitabread]

Kind = genus.

Now they can.

Now go convince your fellow creationists, since they often have other ideas...

 

[tevans9129]

A straight answer, but not one that you will like. Speciation takes place gradually over many generations, as one sub-population of the species is exposed to different environmental selection criteria. For a long time the two groups may remain very similar and remain partially interfertile as well. The boundary between related species is a fuzzy one, which is why species determination is often difficult and sometimes controversial. There is no hard line at which we can say, "Aha, a new species has now been formed." So no one individual in the transition series represents "the" transitional form.

Got it, no such thing exists, it is all speculation, thanks. Bottom line, adaptation, which most everyone agrees with but no evolving from one species to a different species, I can agree with that. That is where billllions of years come into play, no way to logically test the "theories".

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of "kind".

Kind = genus.

Now go convince your fellow creationists, since they often have other ideas...

Why? They already have one.

You guys don't; and you're getting left behind.

 

[Obliquinaut]

That's because, back then, it was called "adaption."

The concepts don't change because Creationists come up with words. If I am not very much mistaken "microevolution" was a Creationist invention.

 

[Speedwell]

Got it, no such thing exists, it is all speculation, thanks. Bottom line, adaptation, which most everyone agrees with but no evolving from one species to a different species, I can agree with that. That is where billllions of years come into play, no way to logically test the "theories".

Speciation has been observed in real time. It happens.

 

[pitabread]

Why? They already have one.

You guys don't; and you're getting left behind.

Is the above post supposed to make some sort of sense?

The point is that creationists are unable to agree upon what "kind" is supposed to mean. I've seen everything from species to domains to everything in between.

It's clearly a useless concept.

 

[tevans9129]

None are "totally different" as they all have characteristics in common.

OK, so if a chicken has anything in common with a horse then it should be classified as being the same, not different. I think I understand now. Then do we even need evolution, even need to discuss it since everything is basically the same so would adaptation not do a better job of explaining life?

 

[AV1611VET]

Speciation has been observed in real time. It happens.

That sounds convincing, but actually it isn't.

A new species occurs because of microevolution (adaption).

A new genus? now that's different!

 

[tevans9129]

Speciation has been observed in real time. It happens.

From what to what?

 

[Speedwell]

OK, so if a chicken has anything in common with a horse then it should be classified as being the same, not different. I think I understand now. Then do we even need evolution, even need to discuss it since everything is basically the same so would adaptation not do a better job of explaining life?

Hard to say. I'm not sure what you mean by "adaptation" and how you distinguish it from "evolution."

The chicken is classified with the horse--they are in the same phylum. At higher levels of discriminatory resolution they are classified in different classes, orders, families and genera. And, of course, they are different species.

 

[pitabread]

A new genus? now that's different!

Why? Especially keeping in mind that "genus" is an artificial human classification to begin with.

 

[tevans9129]

• An example of "speciation".
• [The scene: a population of wild fruit flies minding its own business on several bunches of rotting bananas, cheerfully laying their eggs in the mushy fruit...
  
  
  
  
  
• Disaster strikes: A hurricane washes the bananas and the immature fruit flies they contain out to sea. The banana bunch eventually washes up on an island off the coast of the mainland. The fruit flies mature and emerge from their slimy nursery onto the lonely island. The two portions of the population, mainland and island, are now too far apart for gene flow to unite them. At this point, speciation has not occurred — any fruit flies that got back to the mainland could mate and produce healthy offspring with the mainland flies.
  
  
  
  
  
• The populations diverge: Ecological conditions are slightly different on the island, and the island population evolves under different selective pressures and experiences different random events than the mainland population does. Morphology, food preferences, and courtship displays change over the course of many generations of natural selection.
  
  
  
  
  
• So we meet again: When another storm reintroduces the island flies to the mainland, they will not readily mate with the mainland flies since they've evolved different courtship behaviors. The few that do mate with the mainland flies, produce inviable eggs because of other genetic differences between the two populations. The lineage has split now that genes cannot flow between the populations.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Download the graphics on this page from the Image library.
  
  

This is a simplified model of speciation by geographic isolation, but it gives an idea of some of the processes that might be at work in speciation. In most real-life cases, we can only put together part of the story from the available evidence. However, the evidence that this sort of process does happen is strong.]

Guess what, they are still fruit flies, that have adapted to their environment. I love learning about evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? They already have one.

You guys don't; and you're getting left behind.

Actually there can't really be since it is an artificial boundary that does not exist in reality. Modern phylogeny is based on cladistics:

Introduction to Cladistics

Which is why you are still an ape.