Limitations on micro-evolution and speciation

[Jerry Smith]

Most of us agree that micro-evolution occurs in nature. Many of us agree further, that speciation by reproductive isolation occurs in nature.

Some hold the view that macroevolution (common descent, or the evolution of novel features) is impossible. For those, I would like this to be a thread devoted to discussing why macroevolution is impossible, or more to the point: what is the limitation that prevents microevolution with reproductive isolation from having the cumulative effect of macro-evolution.

 

[randman]

"what is the limitation that prevents microevolution with reproductive isolation from having the cumulative effect of macro-evolution"

First, I think the onus is one the evolutionist to prove that it can, not that others disprove it.

Secondly, I think the fact of stasis in the fossil record is worthy of mention here. Species in the fossil record, when we have a fossils over a long period of time, do not actually behave as you state. They exhibit little change. They don't evolve, which suggests to me, that the capacity for micro-evolution to make the jump to macro-changes is not there.

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.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
"what is the limitation that prevents microevolution with reproductive isolation from having the cumulative effect of macro-evolution"

First, I think the onus is one the evolutionist to prove that it can, not that others disprove it.

Nobody is asking for proof of anything. We just want to know what the limitations are. Are there any?

Secondly, I think the fact of stasis in the fossil record is worthy of mention here. Species in the fossil record, when we have a fossils over a long period of time, do not actually behave as you state. They exhibit little change. They don't evolve, which suggests to me, that the capacity for micro-evolution to make the jump to macro-changes is not there.

Please quantify what you mean by "little change". Does the horse fossil sequence exhibit "little change"? How about the reptile to mammal sequence?

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.

Showing what happening?

 

[randman]

LFOD, you need to do some reading on PE, get a grip on how and why it came about, and what it is, or was, and then come back with your comments and questions when this comes up.

Note your question about "sudden" on the other thread. "Sudden appearance" was a term coined by the PEers, and it describes the way species appear in the fossil record. It has nothing to do with periods of time. You being an ardent advocate of evolution ought to know these things.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

How am I supposed to learn anything from this discussion if you won't answer my questions? Are you actually capable of answering one of them?

 

[randman]

Well, LOL, I really didn't think you were that poorly educated. "What happened" refers to the actual transitions of species evolving?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

What about the reptile to mammal transition here:

http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_05.htm

Doesn't it show species evolving?

 

[randman]

No.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

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

 

[randman]

That's a whole other thread, which would entail first determining if there is consensus among the evolutionists on the exact lineages so that we have something to compare, and then to examine the critics of this famous "holy grail" for evolutionists. It also would consist of actually trying to determine from the fossils how different each species is in the chain.

I submit, and I think most paleontologists agree, that this proposed transition from reptile to mammmal is not actually a species to species transition as we have been talking about here, and that the species to species transitions are still not shown.

I do realize evolutionists hold this up as near proof, in their opinion, of how mammals evolved, but to my mind, they have never claimed these fossils showed the actual species to species transitions.

Do you know of any articles in scientific journals which make this claim?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

So unless we have a fossil of every single species in the transition, then in your mind the fossils don't demonstrate evolution. Is that correct?

 

[randman]

No, but I've covered this before. Try attempting an honest dialogue.

 

[randman]

"Do you know of any articles in scientific journals which make this claim?"

It's your turn.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
"Do you know of any articles in scientific journals which make this claim?"

It's your turn.

I never made this claim in the first place and I doubt any scientists did either.

 

[randman]

So it hasn't been established in scientific journals.
Why?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
No, but I've covered this before. Try attempting an honest dialogue.

What is not honest about asking questions?

So you say you don't personally need the evidence to show every single species in the transition. Yet in you reply to me, you said "this proposed transition from reptile to mammmal is not actually a species to species transition" as if this was a problem for you.

Yet somehow you know enough to say that the reptile to mammal sequence is not an example of species evolving.

On what basis did you come to this conclusion?

 

[randman]

What the heck are you trying to prove then?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by randman
So it hasn't been established in scientific journals.
Why?

You said it yourself, Brainiac: "...they have never claimed these fossils showed the actual species to species transitions."

 

[randman]

Well first of all, noone claims the reptile to mammal scenario is an example of species to species transitions. Since not even evolutionists think it is, I hardly see why considering the claim is worth merit.

Are you actually trying to state that it is?

 

[randman]

How old are you LFOD?