For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Buzzard3]

By this logic, we also don't know if dogs evolved from wolves because we have no scientific records of it. But surely you believe that this happened, do you not?

You wouldn't know how any mountains formed because none of us were there to witness it.

Murder crime scenes, also no way of knowing in court, given that no jury had witnessed the event.

No way of knowing if the sun existed 10,000 years ago.

No way of knowing if ice ages ever occurred.

No way of knowing how volcanic island chains had formed.

We could name a million things that we hypothetically wouldn't know due to a lack of direct witness, despite mountains of evidence clearly demonstrating how the past was.

You walk out to a train station and you see two rail cars mangled in pieces and off of the side of the train track, scrunched almost like slinkeys, as if they had run into eachother.

Or perhaps you see a car wrapped around a telephone pole, broken in pieces,

and you reach a conclusion that you have no idea what happened, simply because you weren't there to actively see it happen.

View attachment 316460

But of course, you use evidence to make an informed determination about history that you weren't present to observe at the time of the event.

And most people could rationally determine that a car drove into a telephone pole, without needing to actually be there to witness the event.

Yet more strawmen, I'm afraid.

 

[Shemjaza]

All those factors are evidence of common ancestry. However, it seems to me that they don't prove that macro-evolution is simply an accumulation of micro-evolutions over time and they don't tell us anything about how nature produced the lineages.
Evidence for evolution doesn't necessarily explain how evolution happened.

That's all macro-evolution is.

Each micro change adds up and with significant enough difference reproduction is impossible.

The new lineages aren't planned it's just all the tiny, yet demonstrable, changes that don't hurt survival chances and hang around and add to the make up of a population.

 

[Buzzard3]

And if you cannot use evidence to make informed determinations about history, then you would effectively be living in a philosophical worldview of not knowing anything about anything regarding who or what you are or where you came from.

I never met my parents, well I guess I must have been born from aliens because I know of no one who witnessed my birth. (I do know my parents, just giving an example of why this "I wasn't there to see it, therefore I don't know what happened" logic is flawed.

And again, more strawmen.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yet more strawmen, I'm afraid.

Can you explain why?

Micro evolution demonstrates how difference is generated and how it can accumulate.

The existence of macro-evolution requires there to be significant accumulated difference.

If accumulated micro evolution is the explanation for macro evolutionary change then particular evidence would be present... and it is.

 

[ottawak]

All those factors are evidence of common ancestry. However, it seems to me that they don't prove that macro-evolution is simply an accumulation of micro-evolutions over time and they don't tell us anything about how nature produced the lineages.
Evidence for evolution doesn't necessarily explain how evolution happened.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how." The straight answer is, by randomly distributed variation and natural selection. But somehow I don't think that's what you are looking for. The point is, as weak as you think the evidence is, nothing found so far contradicts the theory and that is what it would take to overthrow it. "Not enough evidence" is not really an argument against a scientific proposition--when you are not offering an alternative.

 

[Buzzard3]

Why must they have seen it?

I've already explained that, but for your sake, I'll reiterate:
The only way someone can know how any in fossil record happened (ie, know all the steps involved and know how nature produced all those steps) is to have observed such a transition.

Unless it is observed directly, all that can be done is hypothesize/theorize about how a macro-evolutionary transition occurred, which is not the same as knowing how said transition occurred.

For example, how could anyone possibly know how a whale's blow-hole evolved if that transition wasn't directly observed?

 

[AV1611VET]

If accumulated micro evolution is the explanation for macro evolutionary change then particular evidence would be present... and it is.

So with all that mutating going on, we eventually mutated into the image and likeness of God, didn't we?

 

[Job 33:6]

All those factors are evidence of common ancestry. However, it seems to me that they don't prove that macro-evolution is simply an accumulation of micro-evolutions over time and they don't tell us anything about how nature produced the lineages.
Evidence for evolution doesn't necessarily explain how evolution happened.

As noted multiple times now, macro evolution is just a collection of micro steps. What happens when you take 1+1? You get... 2. Small steps accumulate overtime, just as you are slightly more genetically different from your grandparents than you are from your parents.

Just as you are more genetically and morphologically different from me than you are your first or second cousin.

Because those small differences and mutations are slowly collecting over time. And they don't ever stop accumulating, it's called genetic drift.

And it's clear that animals evolved through micro steps, which is, as noted above, why DNA of modern day species reflects cladistics of the fossil record. Meaning that the fossil succession is a product of change in DNA over time. A step by step gradual change, as is seen in the fossil succession.

View attachment 316499

Here's an example of a successions above. Looks like micro steps to me.

 

[ottawak]

I've already explained that, but for your sake I'll reiterate:
The only way someone can know how any in fossil record happened (ie, know all the steps involved and know how nature produced all those steps) is to have observed such a transition.

Unless it is observed directly, all that can be done is hypothesize/theorize about how a macro-evolutionary transition occurred, which is not the same as knowing how said transition occurred.

For example, how could anyone possibly know how a whale's blow-hole evolved if that transition wasn't directly observed?

That's what the fossil record is for. The blowhole is just a nostril which moved over time.

 

[ottawak]

So with all that mutating going on, we eventually mutated into the image and likeness of God, didn't we?

Not necessarily. Unless you think God is an erect bipedal mammal.

 

[Job 33:6]

As noted multiple times now, macro evolution is just a collection of micro steps. What happens when you take 1+1? You get... 2. Small steps accumulate overtime, just as you are slightly more genetically different from your grandparents than you are from your parents.

Just as you are more genetically and morphologically different from me than you are your first or second cousin.

Because those small differences and mutations are slowly collecting over time. And they don't ever stop accumulating, it's called genetic drift.

And it's clear that animals evolved through micro steps, which is, as noted above, why DNA of modern day species reflects cladistics of the fossil record. Meaning that the fossil succession is a product of change in DNA over time. A step by step gradual change, as is seen in the fossil succession.

Here's an example of a successions above. Looks like micro steps to me.

The image depicting micro steps^

 

[Buzzard3]

That's all macro-evolution is.
Each micro change adds up and with significant enough difference reproduction is impossible.
The new lineages aren't planned it's just all the tiny, yet demonstrable, changes that don't hurt survival chances and hang around and add to the make up of a population.

"demonstrable" changes?


Please demonstrate all the steps involved in the evolution of a eurkaryote from a prokaryote.
Please demonstrate all the steps involved in the evolution of a bird from a reptile.


If you know how evolution works, here is your chance to demonstrate your knowledge.

 

[Buzzard3]

That's what the fossil record is for. The blowhole is just a nostril which moved over time.

Fine ... now all you have to do is demonstrate HOW nature produced that transition. This is my whole point.

If you don't know HOW nature produced such a transition, how can you claim to how evolution works?

 

[ottawak]

Fine ... now all you have to do is demonstrate HOW nature produced that transition. This is my whole point.

If you don't know HOW nature produced such a transition, how can you claim to how evolution works?

The fossil record is not, will never be complete. Such fossils as are actually available of the development of cetacians are entirely consistent with an evolutionary pathway for the blowhole based on variation and selection. No fossils yet found suggest the operation of an alternative mechanism. What more do you want? It doesn't matter because that's all you are going to get.

 

[Buzzard3]

I'm not sure what you mean by "how."

An example:
If you know how a eurkaryote evolved from a prokaryote - ie, you could describe all the evolutionary steps involved and how nature produced each of those steps.

The straight answer is, by randomly distributed variation and natural selection. But somehow I don't think that's what you are looking for. The point is, as weak as you think the evidence is, nothing found so far contradicts the theory and that is what it would take to overthrow it. "Not enough evidence" is not really an argument against a scientific proposition--when you are not offering an alternative.

When did I say or imply that I think the evidence for evolution is "weak"?

I'm not disputing that evolution happened and I'm not trying to overthrow the theory of evolution - in fact, I accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth (which doesn't mean I think it's the truth, but that's another matter).

 

[Job 33:6]

"demonstrable" changes?

Please demonstrate all the steps involved in the evolution of a eurkaryote from a prokaryote.
Please demonstrate all the steps involved in the evolution of a bird from a reptile.

If you know how evolution works, here is your chance to demonstrate your knowledge.

Demonstrable changes, such as mutations.

It would take fewer steps for a bird-like-reptile to evolve to a reptile-like-bird, than a proto or more basal reptile to evolve to a bird. Or for populations to do such things. Mutations theoretically could range from 1 to millions, depending on where we draw a hypothetical line between the two. But technically we could also conclude that birds are actually just highly derived reptiles, and thus there is no specific number of mutations that separate the two in a sense.

If wondering what mutations were involved in theropod evolution to the first birds, one example of a step is described here:
Science | AAAS.

"
BACK TO ALL NEWS
NEWSBIOLOGY
Mutant Chickens Grow Teeth

Warning: Mutant chickens may bite. Researchers have identified a genetic mutation that creates incipient teeth in bird embryos. The discovery provides a modern day glimpse of a feature that hasn't been seen in avians for millions of years.

Birds lost their choppers 70 million to 80 million years ago.

Now a group of developmental biologists has found a strain of birds that don't need outside help to grow teeth. While investigating a gene mutation known to affect organ development in chickens, Matthew Harris of the Max Planck Institute in Tübingen, Germany, noticed sharp protrusions on the jaw of a 16-day-old embryo. Scientists had never suspected a connection between tooth formation and the gene--known as talpid2--because embryos with the mutation rarely survive past 12 days. Further investigation by Harris and colleague John Fallon at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, indicated that the teeth were conical and saber-shaped, resembling those of an alligator or crocodile.

To see how tooth formation in these chickens compares to that of other animals, the team looked at the expression pattern of a gene called sonic hedgehog (shh), which is essential for tooth production in vertebrates. In normal chicks, shh was expressed in a region analogous to the sides of the gums, but in alligators and talpid2 mutants, shh appeared in the center of the gums. The mutant version of talpid2 thus appears to turn shh on in the right place for growing teeth. Over time, changes in the gene may have disrupted this ability, resulting in tooth loss, the researchers report 21 February in Current Biology."

Here we have an article discussing Sonic hedgehog, a gene which had historically undergone mutation resulting in the loss of reptilian or crocodilian teeth in birds. This would be an example of one step, of many, we could use to understand the evolution of birds.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm not disputing that evolution happened (which doesn't mean I think it's the truth, but that's another matter).

So you aren't disputing that evolution happened, meaning that you accept that it has happened, and yet you simultaneously don't think "it's the truth".

Tell me, how is it that you can accept that evolution happened, while also thinking that it isn't truth or the truth?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not necessarily. Unless you think God is an erect bipedal mammal.

So when will be become made in His image and likeness? like He said we are?

 

[Buzzard3]

The fossil record is not, will never be complete. Such fossils as are actually available of the development of cetacians are entirely consistent with an evolutionary pathway for the blowhole based on variation and selection. No fossils yet found suggest the operation of an alternative mechanism. What more do you want? It doesn't matter because that's all you are going to get.

If you understand how evolution works, please describe how nature produced each of the evolutionary steps for the whale's blowhole.

 

[Job 33:6]

Demonstrable changes, such as mutations.

It would take fewer steps for a bird-like-reptile to evolve to a reptile-like-bird, than a proto or more basal reptile to evolve to a bird. Or for populations to do such things. Mutations theoretically could range from 1 to millions, depending on where we draw a hypothetical line between the two. But technically we could also conclude that birds are actually just highly derived reptiles, and thus there is no specific number of mutations that separate the two in a sense.

.

And one way to understand the above quote is to be aware that bird like reptiles are actually morphologically and genetically more similar to birds than they are even to more basal reptiles.

For example, a crocodiles DNA is actually more similar to birds such as a chicken, than it is to other basal reptiles like turtles or frogs.

Or, morphologically, I've shared this image multiple times:

Reptiles on the left, birds on the right.

The reality is that theropod reptiles in particular are more similar to modern birds than they are to other basal reptiles like frogs and turtles.

So to argue "tell me all the steps between a reptile and a bird" is actually kind of a silly argument because genetically and morphologically it would actually be a greater feat to lay out the differences/steps of mutations and morphological changes between reptiles and other reptiles.

In fact, birds are derived or cladistically nested reptiles. Birds simply are reptiles. More specifically, they're theropods, which are of course, dinosaurs.