"Macro" Evolution: Mules and Ring Species

[AV1611VET]

In this analogy, you and I are slightly different frequencies, but both "red".

That is correct.

We're different people with slightly differing DNA (when comparing to all other life), but are both still the same species.

Yes and no.

Just like it's not feasible to differentiate all the shades of "red", Occam's razor dictates evolutionists just call themselves by the same species, viz. sapiens.

 

[Split Rock]

What about them?

My point is that many creationists would claim they were all members of the "dog kind." Thus, evolution from a common ancestor, across genera, would still be considered "micro-evolution."

 

[OllieFranz]

My point is that many creationists would claim they were all members of the "dog kind." Thus, evolution from a common ancestor, across genera, would still be considered "micro-evolution."

Exactly. They keep pushing their definition of "kind" further and further up the taxonomic tree, but every level beyond "species" was "arbitrarily" determined by men. Species differentiation is the only classification level that is clearly defined by Nature (and thereby the only level that can be claimed to be attributable to "Nature's God"). Once the Creationists abandoned the kind=species definition, they conceded "macro" evolution. They just refuse to admit it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. They keep pushing their definition of "kind" further and further up the taxonomic tree, but every level beyond "species" was "arbitrarily" determined by men.

Sounds like you agree with me that 'kind' is one of those words (like 'trinity') that can't be defined this side of Heaven.

 

[OllieFranz]

No. I concede that when Genesis was written, the Hebrew word מִין was referring basically to what we call species. Because that is the only natural breaking point at which "kinds" can be differentiated. Any other decision point in the classification tree is arbitrary and man-made. That is why the Bible is not wrong when it numbers bats among the fowls of the air. It uses a different tree than modern science.

When Creationists abandoned species as the equivalent of מִין, they gave up their only effective argument in their fight against evolution. The Creationist movement is dead. Creationists just refuse to see that.

 

[MoonLancer]

Sounds like you agree with me that 'kind' is one of those words (like 'trinity') that can't be defined this side of Heaven.

Its a bogus word that's made up. It doesn't describe anything meaning or real. Also many creationists try and use it in a meaningful context with regard to evolution but cant define it in any way so its useless in a debate or argument of any "kind"

 

[sfs]

Apparently we are all disagreeing where the distinction is between "micro" and "macro" evolution, which is silly since most of us agree that the distiction is arbitrary and meaningless (as are the prefixes themselves) -- just another attempt by the Creationists to hold on to their dislike of evolution in the face of the evidence.

I don't agree that the distinction is arbitrary and meaningless. Speciation is an important process in evolution, and evolutionary dynamics are different above the species level than within a species.

This has nothing to do with the creationist distinction, of course. As others have said before, for creationists, microevolution is whatever evolution is so obvious that they can't deny it, while macroevolution is everything else.

 

[OllieFranz]

I don't agree that the distinction is arbitrary and meaningless. Speciation is an important process in evolution, and evolutionary dynamics are different above the species level than within a species.

This has nothing to do with the creationist distinction, of course. As others have said before, for creationists, microevolution is whatever evolution is so obvious that they can't deny it, while macroevolution is everything else.

I didn't mean to imply that the taxonomic levels are meaningless, or that evolution beyond speciation is uninterestng. Far from it.

All I was saying is that the Creationist distinction between "macro" and "micro" evolution is meaningless, particularly so once you abandon speciation as the threshold between them. It's all evolution, and the same evidence that supports "micro" evolution also supports "macro" evolution.

 

[Phred]

In my opinion, that thread is a good representation of the difference between micro- and macro-, but a poor representation of evolution.

Technically, every time light is incremented by one hertz, it becomes a new color; and by the same token, every time an offspring is produced, it is a new species.

Just as "red" is a set of electromagnetic wavelengths from 630 - 750 nanometers in length, a "Homo sapiens" is a set of mutants from DNA[sub]then[/sub] to DNA[sub]now[/sub].

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

You're wrong. Our ability to determine what a species is doesn't come from minute differences in DNA. It comes from differences in anatomical structure. Are the bones different? Is the coloration different? When the terms for the classifications were being created DNA wasn't even thought of yet. If you are the child of two members of a species then you are a member of that species. No parents ever had a child they didn't recognize. I'll say that again. No parents ever had a child they didn't recognize.

To use your analogy... if two 630 Hz parents had a child at 631 Hz they'd raise it and never know it was different. It might have a child at 631 Hz. Its children might be at 631 Hz. Eventually, several generations down the line a child might be born at 632 Hz. Several hundred generations down the line we might see children born in the 700 Hz range after each tiny incremental change. Now you can actually see the difference if you put one of those kids next to a 630 Hz person. But the change took generations. At 20 years a generation and 300 of those you have 6,000 years. And that's to go from red to red. But eventually you can see that a person might end up at 900 Hz. Having come from parents that looked no different from the child yet having ancestors that were completely different.

Your arbitrary designations of micro and macro are really nonexistent. Eventually a lot of tiny changes add up to a large change when viewed over time. But only tiny changes happen. Dogs don't give birth to cats. The fossil records are a bunch of snapshots over large increments of time.

Then along come the creationists with their desire to inject gods into the mix. Must have special creation. Can't have gradual change. So a new species must just "poof" appear. No species just changes into another one. And... no, they don't. Not until you pull back and view things from a long way out do they. Up close on regular timescales organisms don't change drastically. And still we see them change. We see them speciate, we see them change from laying eggs to giving live birth. We see changes in color, in anatomy... we see all the little changes you can't argue with. So you make up a name and say, "that happens, yes. But the other kind doesn't." Well, yes... it does. It's inevitable. Unless you can show me a force that will prevent it.

So you asked me to correct you if you were wrong? You're wrong. Bet you don't have the ability to understand how.

 

[JakeA]

So I can't accept why my Roundup isn't as effective as it was last year, without having to agree that we came from the jungle?

No, thanks.

Your all-or-ridicule attitude, which is prevalent with evolutionists, is showing.

You don't get it, units of measurements don't matter, the distance does, if it's millimeters or kilometers doesn't matter at all, the distance remains the same and yet here you are saying "i believe in millimeters but not in kilometers".

Even you have to understand that given enough time and small change added up, it will lead to bigger change from the first instance?

Even YOU have to understand that with enough millimeters, you get a kilometer and that if you are in the forest with the first, second, or even first few thousand of millimeters, when you get to the full kilometer you might be in a city?

Time + gradual change, it's not that hard to figure out really...

 

[AV1611VET]

Even YOU have to understand that with enough millimeters, you get a kilometer...

Not if a barrier is placed in the way; and God is a God of barriers.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Sounds like you agree with me that 'kind' is one of those words (like 'trinity') that can't be defined this side of Heaven.

You mean won't be defined, because creationists are far too afraid to stand behind a coherent definition.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not if a barrier is placed in the way; and God is a God of barriers.

What barrier would that be, AV -- one you're just making up?

 

[AV1611VET]

You mean won't be defined, because creationists are far too afraid to stand behind a coherent definition.

Fair enough.

Here's your coherent definition: Faith is believing, when evidence says otherwise.

Or, in other words: Science can take a hike.

 

[AV1611VET]

What barrier would that be, AV --

I'm not sure -- probably in the form of a quota.

 

[OllieFranz]

Not if a barrier is placed in the way; and God is a God of barriers.

Give us just one concrete example of such a barrier to evolution. And explain exactly why it is a barrier.

Or admit that you would like to believe in these barriers for no other reason than that you do not want to believe in evolution.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Fair enough.

Here's your coherent definition: Faith is believing, when evidence says otherwise.

Or, in other words: Science can take a hike.

My Case Against God: Against Self-Importance [Updated 12/18]

 

[Nathan Poe]

Give us just one concrete example of such a barrier to evolution. And explain exactly why it is a barrier.

Or admit that you would like to believe in these barriers for no other reason than that you do not want to believe in evolution.

He believes -- and his belief trumps reality.

The alternative is humility.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm not sure -- probably in the form of a quota.

So it's just something you've made up?

 

[AV1611VET]

Give us just one concrete example of such a barrier to evolution.

Time