Limitations on micro-evolution and speciation

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
What the heck are you trying to prove then?

You have claimed that the fossil record does not show evolution. I am trying to understand why you think that because until you elaborate your claim is just an assertion.

 

[randman]

Why doesn't your moniker show up on users viewing the thread?
Who is this btw?

And, no, you are basically not trying to understand anything as near as I can tell.

Tell me what "stasis" and "sudden appearance" refer to?

your turn

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
How old are you LFOD?

Old enough to have a mortgage.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
Tell me what "stasis" and "sudden appearance" refer to?

your turn

After this conversation, I have no flippin' clue.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Well, this thread hasn't accomplished much... let me re-state the purpose:

Trying to find out what keeps microevolutionary changes from accumulating after reproductive isolation.....

So far no answers to this one?

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
I realize PE advocates try to get around this by stating that though we don't see any fossil showing this, the species were isolated and evolved fairly rapidly geologically speaking, and that explains why all we is the finsihed product of a leap of evolution down the road. It is a nice theory, but theren't any fossils showing it happening.

Randman,

Don't you realize that your last sentance conflict with the rest of that paragraph? Your last sentance ammounts "to there aren't any fossils showing there aren't any fossils." That doesn't make much sence. There is evidence for the statis part of PE in the fossil record. The description of speciation events doesn't come form the fossil record but rather present day studies on the biology of extant organisms. PE is essentially an application of population biology to paleontology and the fossil record. I really don't understand where you want to claim that there isn't enough evidence for statis and "rapid" species turnover.

~~RvFvS~~

 

[randman]

I agree there is evidence for stasis in the fossil record.
That's the point. Species don't appear to macro-evolve in the fossil record. The ideas on how this can happen then come from other areas.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
I agree there is evidence for stasis in the fossil record.

I wish you had put this as "there is evidence for stasis at the species level in the fossil record," a point upon which we all agree. Now, we can discuss the lack of stasis in higher taxa in the fossil record in the evidence thread - I would like to return this thread to a discussion of whether there is any mechanism that prevents the effects of microevolution from accumulating into macroevolutionary change after a single species is split into two reproductively isolated groups (that is, after speciation has occurred). That was really what this topic was started for.

 

[Morat]

Perhaps he should read Gould's initial paper on PE. He might be surprised at the snail fossils Gould used.

After all, Gould had to show that the snails isolated and then speciated. That takes finding a spot where the fossil record was particularly fine-grained and where such an isolation and speciation event took place.

Contary to Randman's belief, Gould's theory wasn't supported by "we see lots of higher order transitions, but no lower order ones.". Inspired, probably. Supported, no.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Well then I don't understand. Why is the reptile to mammal fossil sequence not sufficient to demonstrate species evolving?

Because it is not necessarily a reptile to mammal fossil sequence. That is only one interpretation of the evidence, and the author does not even present enough corroborating material to make it clear his geochronology is reliable (lots of impressive references, but no data).

But here's what really cracks me up most of all:

Such large-scale, progressive, continuous, gradual, and geochronologically successive morphologic change (Sidor & Hopson, 1998) is descent with modification, and provides compelling evidence for evolution on a grand scale.

Translation: Our conclusion based on imagination and interpretation provides compelling evidence for our conclusion based on imagination and interpretation.

Who could argue with that?

 

[Jerry Smith]

quote:
Such large-scale, progressive, continuous, gradual, and geochronologically successive morphologic change (Sidor & Hopson, 1998) is descent with modification, and provides compelling evidence for evolution on a grand scale.


Translation: Our conclusion based on imagination and interpretation provides compelling evidence for our conclusion based on imagination and interpretation.

Translations don't work well when you only know one of the languages.

 

[randman]

Jerry, I don't think anyone here didn't understand what was said. It's just that evolutionists hate to admit they are wrong on something.

 

[Jerry Smith]

What, exactly, was an evolutionist wrong on? Was it me? What was I wrong on? Was it someone else? What were they wrong on. If you are referring to Nick's "translation" from a language he apparently doesn't understand into Nick-ese (a language which I don't understand), then I have to ask: can you not see what is wrong with his "translation"?

 

[randman]

He is right on the money, and is pointing out the circular nature of evolutionist evidence.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Such large-scale, progressive, continuous, gradual, and geochronologically successive morphologic change (Sidor & Hopson, 1998) is descent with modification, and provides compelling evidence for evolution on a grand scale.


Translation: Our conclusion based on imagination and interpretation provides compelling evidence for our conclusion based on imagination and interpretation.

And you say:

He is right on the money, and is pointing out the circular nature of evolutionist evidence.

He is asking us to believe that evolutionist evidence is cicular, but he isn't doing a good job of pointing out how it actually is.

Maybe you can explain exactly how it is that long term, progressive, continuous, gradual, and geochronologically successive morphological change only presents "circular" evidence of evolution.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Anyone have any mechanisms that prevent microevolution and speciation from producing macroevolutionary change?

I am counting the few examples where there are of long periods of relative stasis with some amount of speciation, but I am not counting stasis within a species. I am counting this not as a mechanism that prevents macroevolutionary change, but only as an example where it is not observed to be produced even though it might. I guess that can be considered weak evidence that such a mechanism exists.

 

[tycho]

Such large-scale, progressive, continuous, gradual, and geochronologically successive morphologic change (Sidor & Hopson, 1998) is descent with modification, and provides compelling evidence for evolution on a grand scale.

Scary as it is, I have to agree with Nick that this statement sounds funny. Inserting the words ", therefore, the data displaying this" before "provides" might clear up the statement.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

I am counting the few examples where there are of long periods of relative stasis with some amount of speciation, but I am not counting stasis within a species. I am counting this not as a mechanism that prevents macroevolutionary change, but only as an example where it is not observed to be produced even though it might. I guess that can be considered weak evidence that such a mechanism exists.

...I am counting this not as a mechanism that prevents macroevolutionary change, but only as an example where it is not observed to be produced even though it might...

That's another one for the scrapbook. "You see, grandson? This is how evolutionists used to think!"

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by tycho


Scary as it is, I have to agree with Nick that this statement sounds funny. Inserting the words ", therefore, the data displaying this" before "provides" might clear up the statement.

Nope. That just adds another loop to the cycle. "The data displaying this" sounds authoritative, but when you actually read the piece you'll see that it's not the data that displays anything but one interpretation of the data. So you're just adding another repetition. albeit one that will make the statement sound more convincing to those people who aren't really paying attention.

 

[randman]

Well, speaking of the mechanism that prevents macro-evolution, maybe we should just borrow a page from the evolutionist camp and make it up. Well, obviously some species do not evolve, and that there is an inherent loss of momentum which prevents anything but minor changes.

This inertia is governed by the laws of genetics, which we make up. Hey, this stuff works. Just make up anything, and pass it off as fact.

Btw, on a serious note, it is not up to critics of evolution to disporve evolution, but evolutionists must prove genetic changes which we observe can lead to macro-evolution, that there is an unlimited range of possibility. This, of course, has not been proven, and they don't bother to even try. What they do is ask others to disprove their ideas.

Well, prove to me that there is not an inherent inertia that limits speciation. I say that this is an idea which evolutionists must disprove. I call it the law of genetic inertia.