Evidence for macro-evolution

B

BobMiller

Guest
Hello :wave:


I think we should have a thread that is dedicated to show evidence for macro-evolution.

I do know we have "the quiet thread," but I think we should have a thread which is lighter, and easier for the average Joe to understand.


The purpose of this thread:
To provide evidence for macro-evolution


Rules:
1) no belittling, insults, or derogatory comments.
2) No debating whatsoever/ If a creationist wants to debate the material on this thread, please copy and paste the material and start a new thread.
3) cite your sources
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
Well there just happens to be a list of Oberved Instances of Speciation right here.

Thats right, since you defined macroevolution as being
Large scale change(evolution) occurring over a long period of time that results in the formation new species.

this should fit the bill nicely. More then 2 dozen new species that have evolved in the wild and in the lab that have been observed.
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
Ok, let me guess what the next step is (since I have seen this about 40 times). The counter point will be that "well they are still fruit flies, salamanders, yew plants,..., now instead of species pretend that I really ment to say kind. But guess what, I won't define kind ok."
 
Upvote 0

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
We also have evidence from the fossil record of transitions between different kinds, oops I ment species, of dinosaurs.

Horner, J.R., D.J. Varrichio, and M.B. Goodwin. 1992. Marine transgressions and the evolution of Cretaceous dinosaurs. Nature 358:59-61.​
The paper describes some new fossils from Montana:
  • transitional ceratopsids between Styracosaurus and Pachyrhinosaurus
  • 50 specimens of lambeosaurids, transitional between Lambeosaurus and Hypacrosaurus.
  • a transitional pachycephalosaurid between Stegoceras and Pachycephalosaurus.
  • a transitional tyrannosaurid between Tyrannosaurus and Daspletosaurus
Until these transitional fossils were found, these dinosaur groups were known only from the large Judith River Formation. There, the fossils showed 5 million years of evolutionary stasis, followed by the apparently abrupt appearance of the new forms. It is now known that the sea level rose, drowning the Judith River Formation for 500,000 years. The dinosaurs were forced to move to smaller areas such the place in Montana. Being under pressure, all of these species evolved fairly rapidly, as shown by the transitional fossils in Montana. When the sea level fell again, the new forms spread back to the Judith River area.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/horner.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Lilandra

Princess-Majestrix
Dec 9, 2004
3,573
184
52
state of mind
Visit site
✟12,203.00
Faith
Pantheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I think that it is pretty simple to follow.

I would like to answer the claim that evolution is restricted within species and is no more than genetic diversity within a species group. Remembering that a species is typically defined as a population of animals that typically reside in the same geographic location that generally do not breed with another group of animals.

There are several reasons (isolating mechanisms) why different species restrict gene flow within their own group.


· Ecological isolation. Species occupy or breed in different habitats. Ex. The kit fox (Vulpes aelox) and the artic fox (Alopex lagopus). The Artic Fox in the extreme north is a good example of genetic isolation because its geographic isolation from other small canids has resulted in enough genetic drift that it is considered a different genus. All canids can still interbreed despite being dispersed around the globe because of the ability of large canids like the American Gray Wolf to cross vast distances.

Gray wolf

clupus.gif

http://www.thewildones.org/Animals/grayWolf.html.

The Gray Wolf is known to cross 1000s of kilometers in its own lifetime. Genetic exchanges between Gray wolves and coyotes are threatening the Red Wolf (has an intermediate size between the 2 other species) population with extinction.

redwolf



BarronCrawfordportrait.jpg



http://www.fws.gov/alligatorriver/redwolf.html.

coyote


http://www.coyotes-coyotes.com/coyotes-pictures.htm.

· Temporal isolation can happen when different species even in the same geographic location do not to breed because mating occurs during different seasons or even different parts of the day.

· Behavioral isolation occurs when a species prefers to mate within its own group. Differences in courtship rituals for example.

· Mechanical isolation is when 2 species are physically incapable of breeding even if they wanted to.

After mating there are isolating mechanisms like lack of viable or sterile offspring. Like a horse and donkey producing a mule.

Isolating mechanisms do more than restrict mating within an ancestral group they drive evolution. Speciation occurs because groups within an ancestral group of animals become isolated by any of the above mechanisms. Genetic drift (differences in DNA recombination in a breeding population) results from the isolation. More marked genetic differences are selected for by the animal’s environment. Size for example may be selected for in animals that take large or small prey.

There are 34 different species of canids in the Canidae family. Canids exhibit diverse morphological changes due to the diverse habitats they inhabit around the world. Moreover morphological changes have been observed and even artificially selected for by humans. No one disputes that the Jack Russel Terrier and Gray wolves are related despite a profound difference in appearance. In fact, appearances can be deceiving as the Gray Wolf and domestic dogs are vastly more genetically similar than different. MtDNA sequencing shows a .02 difference between Canus lupus and

Canus lupus familiaris.


Now either God specially created all 34 species of dogs to appear related or they obviously are. 34 species of canids are part of a total 1.4 million known living species of organisms on the planet Earth. These species are a small portion of the species that have inhabited the Earth. Again either similarities used to group these species taxonomically are inherited or created to look as though they were inherited.

http://faculty.uca.edu/~johnc/evolution_and_diversity1441.htm.

BIODIV1.GIF


How many species?

1.4 million (maybe up to 100 million)

-insects highest number: ~750,000 with 290,000 Coleoptera (beetles)

I will stop here if anyone wants to discuss speciation and its relationship to evolution.




Sources

http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part4
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Late_Cretaceous

<font color="#880000" ></font&g
Apr 4, 2002
1,965
118
Visit site
✟18,015.00
Faith
Catholic
Here is an excellent article with a section on just what Bob is looking for

Observed
Natural Selection
The mechanism by which Darwin proposed evolution proceeds, natural selection is a fundamental component of the evolutionary process, and the evidence for its occurrence is too strong for even creationists to deny. The classic example of natural selection at work is that of the peppered moth in pre-industrial England: the population of moths contained both light- and dark-colored ones, but as light-colored moths could camouflage themselves on the bark of birch trees more easily, birds preyed mostly on the darker-colored ones and kept their numbers low compared to the light-colored ones. However, when the Industrial Revolution began, the trees were darkened by smog, and the situation reversed: now the dark-colored moths could hide much more effectively than the light-colored ones. Birds began to prey on light-colored moths much more heavily and the balance of alleles shifted. In a similar example, a multi-year study of the famous "Darwin's finches" of the Galapagos islands demonstrated natural selection at work: In the years following a severe drought, finches with larger, stronger beaks capable of cracking the tougher seeds (which were all that was left) proliferated over less fit varieties.
This is evidence for evolution because: It is one of the essential components of the evolutionary process, a mechanism without which evolution could not possibly work, and it has been observed to work -- and work efficiently -- in nature, consistently pruning out deleterious adaptations and driving species toward higher fitness.
Beneficial, Information-Increasing Mutations
While some creationists will grudgingly admit that a few mutations can produce beneficial effects, they will almost always fall back on their position that even apparently beneficial mutations lose, not gain, genetic information, thus making large-scale evolution over time impossible. However, modern genetics has again soundly rebutted this point by providing numerous examples of mutations that are both beneficial and increase the information of the genome. The most common class of these are duplication and divergence mutations, in which one gene is duplicated and the copy is then free to undergo mutations that cause it to take on a new function while the original function is preserved. Such mutations have been observed producing resistance in bacteria to antibiotics such as vancomycin; there is also evidence that they are responsible for the development of the vertebrate blood clotting cascade and the antifreeze proteins in the blood of polar fish.
This is evidence for evolution because: As mentioned previously, mutations are a key mechanism of evolution, the method of producing new inheritable traits. The fact that mutations that are both beneficial and increase information have been observed means that, in principle, evolution has the ability to produce great diversity and adaptation over time.
Microevolution and Macroevolution
Among the strongest evidence for evolution is that it has been seen to happen, both in the form of variation within populations, called adaptation or microevolution, and in the form of the emergence of new species, called speciation or macroevolution. Speciation, while it is often inferred from the fossil record, has also been observed and documented in currently living creatures. For example, fruit fly breeding experiments have produced reproductively isolated sub-populations under diverse conditions in the lab. Speciation has also been observed to occur in nature, for instance in the case of new reproductively isolated groups of cichlid fishes forming in African lakes after isolation from the parent population.
http://tilapia.unh.edu/WWWPages/malawi/Malawi.html
This is evidence for evolution because: It is evolution, directly observed. When two populations of the same species are split up and become geographically isolated, there is no gene flow between the two groups. Thus, microevolutionary events (adaptations) that occur in one group will not be spread to the other, and vice versa. Over time, so many of these adaptations may accumulate that the two groups become reproductively isolated -- a point is reached where, even if they were rejoined, they would not be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Macroevolution (speciation) has now occurred. Once reproductive isolation has been achieved, the final step is trivial. Again, adaptations that appear in one population will not spread to the other. Extrapolated over geological time, the result is two entirely separate species that share a common ancestry but bear little or no resemblance to each other. This is the sum total of evolution -- nothing else is required but these small steps, and every step along the way has been directly observed in nature.
Genetic Algorithms
In recent years, a new field in computer science has emerged: so-called "genetic algorithms," which take advantage of the power of evolution to solve extremely difficult problems. They operate just as evolution does -- randomly generating a wide variety of candidate solutions and subjecting them to selective pressure. The losers are destroyed, while the winners move on to the next generation, are randomly mutated and join a new pool of prospective solutions. Incredible as it might seem, this is an extremely effective and very successful way of solving problems that would prove difficult or even impossible for a human designer to overcome. Genetic algorithms have found uses in a wide range of applications: engineering companies are already using them to design wings for the next generation of commercial airliners; pharmaceutical companies are creating new synthetic drugs through a similar technique called "combinatorial chemistry"; geologists use them to predict earthquakes; brokers craft them to pick winning stocks; mathematicians employ them to solve very difficult problems such as the Traveling Salesman's Problem; chemists are just beginning to explore the possibilities of creating room-temperature superconductors or artificial noses that can detect explosives and toxins through a process of artificial evolution. A team of English researchers has used genetic algorithms to evolve a prototype voice-recognition circuit that uses fewer than one-tenth the components of any comparable human effort, an advance that may someday lead to computers that can understand spoken language.
http://www.netscrap.com/netscrap_detail.cfm?scrap_id=73
http://www.lalena.com/ai/tsp/
http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/BA/combiChem/index.html

This is evidence for evolution because: It demonstrates the power of random variation and selection. The sort of large-scale evolution that brings forth mammals from reptiles or birds from dinosaurs operates only on geologic time scales, too long to be observed directly in a human lifetime. However, genetic algorithms can be used to simulate the process, speeding it up enough for it to be directly observable, and the results are a stunning confirmation of the power of evolution -- effortlessly building highly complex, efficient systems or homing unerringly in on a working solution among millions of candidates.
Verified Predictions
Evolution has been used numerous times to make predictions that were astoundingly confirmed. Charles Darwin himself predicted that, if his theory was true, Precambrian strata must contain fossils, though none were known to exist at the time. Today, those fossils have been found. Darwin also predicted that the ancestors of modern humans would be found in Africa, since that is where our closest extant relatives, the great apes, live; this prediction was of course also confirmed by the eventual discovery of a diverse array of African hominid fossils. Finally, Darwin described an insect-pollinated orchid, the Madagascar Star, with a 30 cm spur and a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Nectar is an adaptation by flowers to reproduce: the sweet liquid attracts animals which rub against the flower in their attempt to get at it, covering themselves with pollen which they subsequently spread. However, if an animal evolved a long proboscis or other drinking organ, it could get the nectar more easily without being covered with pollen. This would spur an evolutionary 'arms race' where the flower's spur continuously grows deeper, while the pollinators' drinking organs continuously grow longer. Based on the length of the orchid's spur, Darwin concluded that Madagascar must have a species of moth with a tongue slightly shorter than 30 cm. Forty years later, a hawkmoth with a 25 cm tongue that fertilized that exact species of orchid was found. One more verified prediction of evolution concerns the discovery of an ancestral ant, Sphecomyrma freyi, the common ancestor of modern-day ants and wasps, in early Eocene strata -- exactly where experts in ant evolution predicted it would be found.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,144
51,313
Guam
✟4,882,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,690
3,380
NW
✟186,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Large scale change(evolution) occurring over a long period of time that results in the formation of new species.
Nobody doubts speciation. Nobody. It has been observed in the lab and in nature on many occasions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,144
51,313
Guam
✟4,882,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
What line?

Between a species giving rise to a species, and a species giving rise to a new genus?

The former is microevolution; the latter is macroevolution.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Aaron112
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,690
3,380
NW
✟186,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Between a species giving rise to a species, and a species giving rise to a new genus?

The former is microevolution; the latter is macroevolution.
If we accept that speciation happens (and everyone does), and we agree that a genus is simply a collection of related species, I don't see what the problem is with speciation happening more than once to form a new genus. Maybe you can explain the obstacle you perceive?
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,850,144
51,313
Guam
✟4,882,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If we accept that speciation happens (and everyone does), and we agree that a genus is simply a collection of related species, I don't see what the problem is with speciation happening more than once to form a new genus. Maybe you can explain the obstacle you perceive?

Horses don't become giraffes.

Horses simply give rise to related species; and giraffes simply give rise to their related species.

"Kind" in the Bible is the same as "genus" in collegiate circles.

And God said animals will multiply "after their kind."
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums