A thread on evolution

[Subduction Zone]

2ndly, let me prove them false on a rational basis: Well if you are talking about goats for 9 minutes but in the middle you talk about sheep for 1 minute. if you quote the sheep section you are quote mining by your own admission, even if the quote was correct. it was just not in context of the whole, get it now?

Your strawman of a quote mine does not prove that they do not exist.

Try again.

 

[pitabread]

Wrong, micro evolution is within the species level. At the speices level and beyond is macroevolution. The sources that you have supplied claimed that.

In fairness, I've seen the term used both ways. The problem is that microevolution and macroevolution are not rigorously defined scientific terms. They are more colloquial in most usage.

 

[Gene2memE]

why would i put in the work, if you guys, who allegedly took all these courses, cannot answer one question?

We can, and we have.

Rest of answer deleted, as I've really got better things to do at the moment than try and answer malformed questions.

 

[createdtoworship]

Have you still not seen the TO Transitional Vertebrate Fossil page? Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

I mean, this site has been around for over twenty years now, with loads of examples of transitions (including of the higher taxa, which you keep asking for). Considering you said you've been asking this question over and over, I find it hard to believe nobody has ever referred you to this site before.



Not really. Genetics alone demonstrates common ancestry of species on Earth. Even if life never fossilized, we'd still have overwhelming evidence they are related via common ancestry.

It's also been pointed out to you that there isn't really a strict definition of "micro" and "macro" evolution in nature, unless you want to argue reproduction barriers between populations (i.e. speciation). Evolution is just, well, evolution.

exactly, and they don't provide peer review I asked for. Point 3 for gradyll, today.

 

[createdtoworship]

In fairness, I've seen the term used both ways. The problem is that microevolution and macroevolution are not rigorously defined scientific terms. They are more colloquial in most usage.

can't hide behind your colloquialisms. Macro evolution is traceable to that of evolution above the species level. only. I posted a peer review that defines this term early on.

here was the original post:
---------------------------------------


the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"


also indiana university:


http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf


also some institutes of Biological Sciences:


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


national evolution sythesis center:


NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level


2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM

This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”

Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).


“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)



A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

 

[createdtoworship]

Why not? A slang dictionary is just as "official" as any other dictionary.

And just because a source is open to contributions does not automatically make it "prone to error". I can link studies on Wikpedia that show it is just as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Guess what? You will find some errors in any encyclopedia. They are still GENERALLY reliable sources.

it's the theory behind it, that makes it error prone. Ask any scientist if he uses wikipedia for his tests. open source was invented so that people could edit a software or some other test until it was perfected. But the problem is that this was only used when there were no professionals available to do it. So it would go open source. open source has flaws because you have the uneducated educating the educated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

exactly, and they don't provide peer review I asked for. Point 3 for gradyll, today.

Nope, no points for you. You still not know what peer review is or how it is used. In fact they supplied you what you demanded. You merely denied it.

When you are ready to learn what is and what is not evidence, I am ready. Or we could discuss the video that you linked but did not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it's the theory behind it, that makes it error prone. Ask any scientist if he uses wikipedia for his tests. open source was invented so that people could edit a software or some other test until it was perfected. But the problem is that this was only used when there were no professionals available to do it. So it would go open source. open source has flaws because you have the uneducated educating the educated.

There is no "theory" behind it. You are not using that word properly. And if you want to claim that they are error prone you need to supply evidence that supports your claim.

Your unsupported assertion is worthless.

And scientists that are doing actual science are supply new information . Wikipedia is a very good source for settled science. It is not a good source for cutting edge science at all. Just because someone does not know how to use a tool properly does not make that tool wrong.

When people use Wikipedia here it is used to support science that has already gone through peer review. Science that there is no doubt about. Such as the theory of evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

Wrong, micro evolution is within the species level. At the speices level and beyond is macroevolution. The sources that you have supplied claimed that.

Second your claim is simply wrong. Neanderthal is ape like because Neanderthal is an ape. You are apelike because you are an ape. If you can't phrase your demands properly no one can answer them.

Lucy is roughly half way in between man and chimp. Her hips were more like modern man's than like a chimp's. Her brain was closer to a chimp's than it is to man. Not everything evolves at the same rate. Like it or not she is the "missing link" that creationists demand.

A Peer review proves you wrong, macro evolution is not at the species level:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

 

[createdtoworship]

Nope, no points for you. You still not know what peer review is or how it is used. In fact they supplied you what you demanded. You merely denied it.

When you are ready to learn what is and what is not evidence, I am ready. Or we could discuss the video that you linked but did not understand.

this coming from someone who won't even remind us of the one peer review he DID post. (I don't think it exists)(again referring to macro evolution)

 

[Subduction Zone]

can't hide behind your colloquialisms. Macro evolution is traceable to that of evolution above the species level. only. I posted a peer review that defines this term early on.

here was the original post:
---------------------------------------


the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".


http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"


also indiana university:


http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf


also some institutes of Biological Sciences:


An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


national evolution sythesis center:


NESCent: NABT: Macroevolution: Evolution Above the Species Level


2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM

This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium


3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

Douglas Futuyma defines it: “the origin and diversification of higher taxa.”

Douglas Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg. 447, glossary (Sinaeur, 1998).


“Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing [among other things] the origin of novel designs…” (Campbell’s, Biology, 4th ed.)



A Peer review article also coincides:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

LOL!! That is not "a peer review".


Once again you demonstrate that you do not even understand the term that you are abusing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

this coming from someone who won't even remind us of the one peer review he DID post. (I don't think it exists)(again referring to macro evolution)

That is because you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand the concept of evidence.

As I said, when you learn the basics we can move on.

 

[createdtoworship]

There is no "theory" behind it. You are not using that word properly. And if you want to claim that they are error prone you need to supply evidence that supports your claim.

Your unsupported assertion is worthless.

And scientists that are doing actual science are supply new information . Wikipedia is a very good source for settled science. It is not a good source for cutting edge science at all. Just because someone does not know how to use a tool properly does not make that tool wrong.

When people use Wikipedia here it is used to support science that has already gone through peer review. Science that there is no doubt about. Such as the theory of evolution.

you want evidence I have Wikipedia pegged right? (Want more?)

http://www.ihealthbeat.org/articles...althrelated-wikipedia-articles-contain-errors
Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists - BBC News
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417113527.htm
Up to six in ten articles on Wikipedia contain factual errors | Daily Mail Online

 

[createdtoworship]

That is because you have yet to demonstrate that you even understand the concept of evidence.

As I said, when you learn the basics we can move on.

I have posted probably links to above and beyond 30 peer reviews. I have yet to see one of yours. You have to eventually put your money where your mouth is, or we will start to just think your trolling these boards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A Peer review proves you wrong, macro evolution is not at the species level:"The term macroevolution was introduced by Iurii Filipchenko, a Russian geneticist and developmental biologist and mentor of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Filipchenko distinguished between Mendelian inheritance within species and non-Mendelian, cytoplasmic inheritance responsible for the formation of taxa above the species level."

Erwin, D. H. (2000), Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2: 78–84. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x

Article found online here:
Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

although I typically think wikipedia is error prone, here is a link that shows that the journal is peer reviewed:

Evolution & Development - Wikipedia

Sorry, but that is just an essay in a peer reviewed journal. Not every article in a peer reviewed journal undergoes peer review.

By your standards you failed. Worse yet the only "support" you can find in it is of an old outdated definition of "macro evolution". You failed at least twice here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have posted probably links to above and beyond 30 peer reviews. I have yet to see one of yours. You have to eventually put your money where your mouth is, or we will start to just think your trolling these boards.

You keep using that term incorrectly. And no, have not. Your most recent example was just an essay. Essays generally do not undergo rigorous peer review.

Once again we should do the following. First discuss the nature of evidence so that you can understand the concept. Second, review the video that you linked so that you can understand the peer review process. You did find an excellent video, I don't see why you avoid your own source.

 

[createdtoworship]

Sorry, but that is just an essay in a peer reviewed journal. Not every article in a peer reviewed journal undergoes peer review.

By your standards you failed. Worse yet the only "support" you can find in it is of an old outdated definition of "macro evolution". You failed at least twice here.

well I guess we can toss your definition of peer review out the window. Part of the definition of peer review is that it's in the journal genius.

 

[createdtoworship]

You keep using that term incorrectly. And no, have not. Your most recent example was just an essay. Essays generally do not undergo rigorous peer review.

Once again we should do the following. First discuss the nature of evidence so that you can understand the concept. Second, review the video that you linked so that you can understand the peer review process. You did find an excellent video, I don't see why you avoid your own source.

here are some more for you to digest, make it 34 peer reviews posted now.

Michael Denton peer review 2/25/13 in bio complexity
Denton
Denton

D. Halsmer, J. Asper, N. Roman & T. Todd peer review in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics at the Wessex Institute (2009)
The coherence of an engineered world

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Pro-Intelligent Design Peer Reviewed Scientific Paper Argues for an "Engineered World" - Evolution News & Views

a summary review of this particular journal is found at evolutionnews.org:
Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Article Endorses Irreducible Complexity - Evolution News & Views

McIntosh has published other pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific literature, evolutionnews.org has reviewed here: Peer-Reviewed Paper Investigating Origin of Information Endorses Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design - Evolution News & Views

 

[Subduction Zone]

gradyll, concepts such as "macro-evolution" will not be set or defined in peer reviewed articles. Those are for basic research. Terms are usually defined at conferences and other gatherings. They are too broad of an idea for a peer reviewed article. Peer reviewed articles usually cover just one small idea at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

well I guess we can toss your definition of peer review out the window. Part of the definition of peer review is that it's in the journal genius.

Nope, you do not know how terms are defined.

Where do you get that claim from? And watch the name calling.

The fact that you are demonstrably wrong should not make you so mad.