Is evolution a theory?

[juvenissun]

Yeah, that's always the big one. Goo turning into monkeys doesn't bother too many people, but monkeys(*) turning into humans, well, that's got to be physically impossible.

(*) Sort of, more or less.

The reason is very simple. If we could not find good evidences to support the monkey to human evolution (which is the most recent and has the most abundant fossil evidences), then there is no way we could do the same quality of study to older fossil records. That is why all other fossil evolution stories are not critical, but the monkey to human one is.

 

[Loudmouth]

The reason is very simple. If we could not find good evidences to support the monkey to human evolution (which is the most recent and has the most abundant fossil evidences), then there is no way we could do the same quality of study to older fossil records. That is why all other fossil evolution stories are not critical, but the monkey to human one is.

Why would you need fossil evidence at all since it is just microevolution which creationists accept anyway? You start with a primate and end with a primate. That is microevolution according the creationist method of determing if the ancestor can be described by the same name as the descendant.

 

[juvenissun]

Why would you need fossil evidence at all since it is just microevolution which creationists accept anyway? You start with a primate and end with a primate. That is microevolution according the creationist method of determing if the ancestor can be described by the same name as the descendant.

I don't need it. But you need it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't need it. But you need it.

So you accept the microevolution of primate to primate that gave rise to humans without needing any fossil evidence?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

(1) Do you have any idea how much diversity the term "bacterium" encompasses? (Clue: diversity of shape is not the only kind, and it's kinda harder to achieve with single small cells. But even for shape: have some Anabaena and Streptomyces if you thought bacteria were all boring little cudgels of goo like E. coli.)

I wouldn't consider E coli to be a boring little cudgel of goo, but a serious killer. (Or at least an infectious disease) I would like to think I do have some idea of the variety involved here, but no I will not go toe to toe with you on the matter, since it is encompassed by your area of expertise.

Can we put this into perspective, and scope? We have not seen a single cell organism develop into even a 10 cell organism. How many generations have now been under laboratory observation? (I am aware that we have seen single cell organisms function as a larger unit, but this does not fill the bill.)

(2) Hypothetically, what would you consider an example of a finch, a bacterium, or other organism of your choice, becoming a non-finch/bacterium/organism or your choice?

I'm not going to use latin names, but to go past variation at the species level would be genus, correct? This is unobserved, and yet the theory as a whole insists far more than that as fact; and that is where our society has become polarized.

I'm willing to bet the architects of the Modern Synthesis didn't give a fig what creationist did or did not contest when they defined macroevolution as speciation and above.

Not that I like that definition any more, but I digress.

In any case, I think we can add a question three to my two above.

(3) How would you define macroevolution?

I'm not sure that my thoughts on the matter have either relevance, or weight. I'd simply like not to see civil war break out over the issue

I agree with you that the scientific community's definition of macroevolution didn't account for the creationism movement; that would be an anachronism. And I think that if the creationism movement is going to commandeer the term, they should have a clearer definition of the term as they use it. Just that much alone could move the issue along in our times, don't you think?
How many staunch creationists are there on these pages, and might their aid be enlisted?

It seems to me that on this and many other points, the quagmire is at least largely due to talking past each other. Maybe creationists should come up with their own term for what they mean, and leave "macroevolution" unmolested, as the scientific community uses it? (Wishful and naive thinking, I know)

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Yeah, that's always the big one. Goo turning into monkeys doesn't bother too many people, but monkeys(*) turning into humans, well, that's got to be physically impossible.

(*) Sort of, more or less.

Yup, that's the way those sea monkey kits work, right? Start with goo, wind up with monkeys

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Why would you need fossil evidence at all since it is just microevolution which creationists accept anyway? You start with a primate and end with a primate. That is microevolution according the creationist method of determing if the ancestor can be described by the same name as the descendant.

I think this is putting words in someone else's mouth. And as usual - they don't fit. (I have spoken with many creationists, and not one would agree with your premise here)

Try again, once more, with feeling?

 

[juvenissun]

So you accept the microevolution of primate to primate that gave rise to humans without needing any fossil evidence?

1. It is not micro, it is super-cro.
2. Microevolution is not a good term.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. It is not micro, . . .

Yes it is. It starts with a primate and ends with a primate. That is microevolution according to the creationist criterium of being able to use the same name to describe the ancestor and descendant.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think this is putting words in someone else's mouth.

I am simply following the lead of creationists. If you are able to describe the ancestor and descendant by the same name then it is microevolution.

"It is bacteria evolving into bacteria, that is microevolution."

Isn't that what creationists say?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can we put this into perspective, and scope? We have not seen a single cell organism develop into even a 10 cell organism.

"Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."
Observed Instances of Speciation

I agree with you that the scientific community's definition of macroevolution didn't account for the creationism movement; that would be an anachronism. And I think that if the creationism movement is going to commandeer the term, they should have a clearer definition of the term as they use it. Just that much alone could move the issue along in our times, don't you think?
How many staunch creationists are there on these pages, and might their aid be enlisted?

It seems to me that on this and many other points, the quagmire is at least largely due to talking past each other. Maybe creationists should come up with their own term for what they mean, and leave "macroevolution" unmolested, as the scientific community uses it? (Wishful and naive thinking, I know)

The problem is that creationists are trying to protect a dogmatic religious belief from evidence. Until that changes we will continue to talk past each other. Science is driven by evidence and challenging hypotheses. Creationism is driven by protecting dogmas and not challenging them.

 

[Shemjaza]

I wouldn't consider E coli to be a boring little cudgel of goo, but a serious killer. (Or at least an infectious disease) I would like to think I do have some idea of the variety involved here, but no I will not go toe to toe with you on the matter, since it is encompassed by your area of expertise.

Can we put this into perspective, and scope? We have not seen a single cell organism develop into even a 10 cell organism. How many generations have now been under laboratory observation? (I am aware that we have seen single cell organisms function as a larger unit, but this does not fill the bill.

Researchers evolve a multicellular yeast in the lab in 2 months | Ars Technica

I guess this is an example of "single cell organisms function as a larger unit", but how else would you expect multicellularity to begin evolving?

 

[RaiseTheDead]

"Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella."
Observed Instances of Speciation

Pardon my lack of technobabble, but if you'd be so kind:

I can readily see this is an instance of speciation. Did the species go from single cell organism to 8 cell organism, or did it merely start forming consistent colonies of 8 (single) cells? This distinction would seem important, and in my mind far more important than if it jumped over a man-made fence known as "genus."

Isn't chlorella a superfood? Is it also considered bacteria? Is the current (latest?) version also a bacteria?

 

[Loudmouth]

I can readily see this is an instance of speciation. Did the species go from single cell organism to 8 cell organism, or did it merely start forming consistent colonies of 8 (single) cells?

"The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells."

That is from the paragraph that I quoted.

This distinction would seem important, and in my mind far more important than if it jumped over a man-made fence known as "genus."

Then why did you say the following in a previous post?

"I'm not going to use latin names, but to go past variation at the species level would be genus, correct? This is unobserved, and yet the theory as a whole insists far more than that as fact; and that is where our society has become polarized."

Isn't chlorella a superfood? Is it also considered bacteria? Is the current (latest?) version also a bacteria?

"He was growing the unicellular green alga . . ."

Algae are eukaryotes. Bacteria are prokaryotes.

 

[RaiseTheDead]

Well, erm thanks? (That's an interesting way of not answering my question)

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, erm thanks? (That's an interesting way of not answering my question)

All of the answers to your questions were in the original paragraph that I quoted. The algae (not bacteria) started as single cells. Later, they were found as colonies ranging from 4 to 32 cells. Even later, they were consistently found in colonies of 8 cells which persisted for over a decade.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes it is. It starts with a primate and ends with a primate. That is microevolution according to the creationist criterium of being able to use the same name to describe the ancestor and descendant.

I don't know what a primate is. So no, it is not a micro-.

 

[Naraoia]

Can we put this into perspective, and scope? We have not seen a single cell organism develop into even a 10 cell organism.

Amply answered above, but ... why should the number of cells matter?

Also note that single-celled organisms often have several different cell types (otherwise known as cell differentiation, a "hallmark" of true multicellularity). The same cell may alternate between them, or it may divide and its daughters might end up as different cell types.

How many generations have now been under laboratory observation?

How many generations do you think a single-celled creature ought to need to evolve into something even you would consider well and truly multicellular?

(And what would that be? Because a colonial Chlorella obviously isn't it.)

I'm not going to use latin names, but to go past variation at the species level would be genus, correct? This is unobserved, and yet the theory as a whole insists far more than that as fact; and that is where our society has become polarized.

Don't use taxonomic ranks, any rank above species is completely arbitrary. Give me an illustrative example. Imagine an evolving, I don't know, lizard. What kinds of changes would need to happen to it to stop being a lizard?

I agree with you that the scientific community's definition of macroevolution didn't account for the creationism movement; that would be an anachronism. And I think that if the creationism movement is going to commandeer the term, they should have a clearer definition of the term as they use it. Just that much alone could move the issue along in our times, don't you think?

Oh, yes, clear definitions are always helpful, provided everyone knows which definition everyone else is using. Well, we have at least one rigorous definition. Ball's in your court

How many staunch creationists are there on these pages, and might their aid be enlisted?

Honestly? Most of them seem to define macroevolution as "the sort of evolution I don't believe in". I don't think 99% of them ever even thought about it. They've just heard that macroevolution has never been seen, and come here totally convinced that we can't prove them wrong.

That's near five years of accumulated cynicism speaking

It seems to me that on this and many other points, the quagmire is at least largely due to talking past each other. Maybe creationists should come up with their own term for what they mean, and leave "macroevolution" unmolested, as the scientific community uses it? (Wishful and naive thinking, I know)

Oh, yes, absolutely. Judging from their stubborn refusal to give a useable definition of a "kind", I'm not holding out hope, though. "Microevolution" has been defined as "evolution within a kind", if memory serves.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't know what a primate is. So no, it is not a micro-.

How do you know it isn't micro if you don't even know what primates are?

Primates

 

[sfs]

That's near five years of accumulated cynicism speaking

You still have a long way to go. Fortunately, cynicism usually asymptotes.