Macro-Evolution

[Sinai]

When discussing evolution, a distinction should be made between micro-evolution (the gradual evolution of a trait that only slightly alters the morphology of the plant or animal) and macro-evolution (the gradual evolution of one body plan into another, such as a worm or insect or mollusk gradually evolving into a bird or a fish).

There is plenty of evidence of micro-evolution. It can be documented that gray moths can change into black moths or that pink daisies can evolve into blue daisies. In just a few thousand years, a wide variety of cichlid fish species evolved in Lake Victoria. And we are all aware of the introduction of new varieties of corn or of dogs or of other species. Micro-evolution is supported in the Bible and in the fossil record. It is macro-evolution--the gradual evolution of one body plan into another--that finds no support in the Bible, in the fossil record or in the lab.

In Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly implored his readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation of his concept of evolution or to "use imagination to fill in its gaps." He claimed the fossil record's leaps and bounds were the result of its being incomplete. That was quite plausible at the time Darwin penned his theory.

The fact that the long anticipated "missing links" are still missing has caused many scientists within the area to become increasingly skeptical about the full validity of a theory that had been widely accepted only a few decades ago. Granted, there are at least potentially valid reasons why transitional fossil forms might be lacking. Nevertheless, today's extensive paleontological evidence has shown a staccoto pattern in which new life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record without the theorized long gradual development or adaptation.

If you check the works of such professionals active in evolutionary biology as Gould and Dawkins, Eldredge and Smith, you will find that there has been a battle raging over whether gradual evolution ever occurred and if it did, why it is not evident in the fossil record.

 

[messenjah]

Thank you Sinai, that is just what I was trying to say but I couldn't find the words.

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by Sinai
When discussing evolution, a distinction should be made between micro-evolution (the gradual evolution of a trait that only slightly alters the morphology of the plant or animal) and macro-evolution (the gradual evolution of one body plan into another, such as a worm or insect or mollusk gradually evolving into a bird or a fish).

When discussing science, do be sure to use the same definitions that scientists use. For example, macro-evolution is commonly used to describe evolution above the species level. It would seem to me that the speciation that you described below would fulfill this requirement.

[snip]
In Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly implored his readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation of his concept of evolution or to "use imagination to fill in its gaps." He claimed the fossil record's leaps and bounds were the result of its being incomplete. That was quite plausible at the time Darwin penned his theory.

While the fossil record is far from complete, Darwin incorporated what he had at the time. This is not the same as imploring readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation.

The fact that the long anticipated "missing links" are still missing has caused many scientists within the area to become increasingly skeptical about the full validity of a theory that had been widely accepted only a few decades ago. Granted, there are at least potentially valid reasons why transitional fossil forms might be lacking. Nevertheless, today's extensive paleontological evidence has shown a staccoto pattern in which new life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record without the theorized long gradual development or adaptation.

It's even worse than you describe! There are now even more missing links than there were 10, 50, or 150 years ago! Every time we discover one missing link, we create two more! Those paleontologists are just creating more and more work for themselves! As you might expect, evolutionary theory is improved, not destroyed, by these discoveries. Furthermore, I think you'll find that honest scientists work to improve theories or create new ones. As such, evolutionary theory today is not the same as the evolutionary theory of the 19th century.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Sinai
In Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly implored his readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation of his concept of evolution or to "use imagination to fill in its gaps." He claimed the fossil record's leaps and bounds were the result of its being incomplete. That was quite plausible at the time Darwin penned his theory.

Originally posted by Satoshi
While the fossil record is far from complete, Darwin incorporated what he had at the time. This is not the same as imploring readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation.

Since I don't have my copy of Origin of Species with me, I can't give you the page numbers, but as well as I recall, there are at least seven places where Darwin implored (or if you prefer, asked or suggested that) his readers to either ignore the evidence of the fossil record or to use their imagination to fill in its gaps. As I mentioned earlier, there were sufficient gaps in the fossil record at the time Darwin wrote his book that it was not a particularly unreasonable request or suggestion to make at that time.

 

[dkewatson]

Just a guess since I am no archeaologist...but last time I checked matter DECOMPOSES. Thus it is consistent with "missing links" in the fossil records. Do you all realy expect every fossil to be preserved in great condition? I mean some of these fossils are millions of years old, kind of hard for it to stay in pristine condition after all that time.

--Dan

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by Sinai




Since I don't have my copy of Origin of Species with me, I can't give you the page numbers, but as well as I recall, there are at least seven places where Darwin implored (or if you prefer, asked or suggested that) his readers to either ignore the evidence of the fossil record or to use their imagination to fill in its gaps.

Saying that the fossil record is incomplete is different than saying that it doesn't support Darwin's Theory of Evolution and that it should be ignored.

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Sinai:
In Origin of Species, Darwin repeatedly implored his readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation of his concept of evolution or to "use imagination to fill in its gaps." He claimed the fossil record's leaps and bounds were the result of its being incomplete. That was quite plausible at the time Darwin penned his theory.

Original response by Satoshi:
While the fossil record is far from complete, Darwin incorporated what he had at the time. This is not the same as imploring readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation.

Sinai's response to Satoshi's post:
Since I don't have my copy of Origin of Species with me, I can't give you the page numbers, but as well as I recall, there are at least seven places where Darwin implored (or if you prefer, asked or suggested that) his readers to either ignore the evidence of the fossil record or to use their imagination to fill in its gaps. As I mentioned earlier, there were sufficient gaps in the fossil record at the time Darwin wrote his book that it was not a particularly unreasonable request or suggestion to make at that time.

Satoshi's most recent response:
Saying that the fossil record is incomplete is different than saying that it doesn't support Darwin's Theory of Evolution and that it should be ignored.

If you will read what has been previously posted, you should note that I did not say that either the fossil record or Darwin's theory of evolution should be ignored. It was Darwin who asked his readers to ignore the fossil record. As I mentioned earlier, "there were sufficient gaps in the fossil record at the time Darwin wrote his book that it was not a particularly unreasonable request or suggestion to make at that time."

Darwin apparently believed that as the fossil record became more complete, it would eventually support his theory. However, the predicted transitional fossil forms that would support macro-evolution have not appeared. Instead, today's extensive paleontological evidence has shown a staccoto pattern in which new life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record without the theorized long gradual development or adaptation. As I have previously said, this has caused many scientists within the area to become increasingly skeptical about the full validity of the theory of evolution: "If you check the works of such professionals active in evolutionary biology as Gould and Dawkins, Eldredge and Smith, you will find that there has been a battle raging over whether gradual evolution ever occurred and if it did, why it is not evident in the fossil record."

 

[LouisBooth]

hmm...Good stuff Sinai

 

[maninastrangeland]

transitional fossils, give me a break. everthing is a transitional fossil

 

[Jerry Smith]

"If you check the works of such professionals active in evolutionary biology as Gould and Dawkins, Eldredge and Smith, you will find that there has been a battle raging over whether gradual evolution ever occurred and if it did, why it is not evident in the fossil record."

Who is this quote from? It should be corrected in a detail that is grammatically minor, but meaningfully large. It should be corrected to say, "battle raging over whether evolution occurred gradualistically, and if it did, why that gradualism is not reflected in the fossil record." I think the original may have been intentionally deceptive.

 

[LouisBooth]

"transitional fossils, give me a break. everthing is a transitional fossil
"

noooo...So tell me, what has the fern transformed into?

 

[maninastrangeland]

beats me, thats the THEORY part of evolution, louis.

i'll explain this for the sake of explaining. Gravity is just a theory.

why have you heard "the law of gravity" then?

think about what the law of gravity says. it talks about an attraction beatween masses. does it explain how it works? not at all

this is the theory part of gravity. we know gravity exists, thats the law. do we know how it works? we aren't 100% sure. thats the theory.

now lets relate this to the theory of evolution. but first: the law of evolution.

like gravity, we know evolution exists, we know that every living thing evolved from a common ancestor: thats the law of evolution.

the theory part, just like the theory of gravity, tries to explain how this process works. the process of natural selection, etc. are all part of the theory--which doesn't mean a guess, but the best conclusion from given evidence.

so get over your egos saying evolution is fake, and realize it's just as real as the force that keeps you on the ground.

 

[LouisBooth]

"think about what the law of gravity says. it talks about an attraction beatween masses. does it explain how it works? not at all "

but the problem is that no other theory assumes so many variables and so much time for it to pass to work. That's the big difference.

"like gravity, we know evolution exists, we know that every living thing evolved from a common ancestor: thats the law of evolution. "

No, there is no law of evolution for that exact reason. Things did not evolve from a comman anestor.

Evolution (macro) isn't the force that keeps me on the ground..it keeps your head in the clouds

 

[maninastrangeland]

well, louis

thats some mighty fine gainsaying there.

however, you offer little substance and i can hardly respect an argument that goes solely on the premise "because i said so"

just because you don't think there is a law of evolution, just because you believe in god, just because evolution takes place in a time that you cannot even concieve does not mean that there isn't a law of evolution, that there is a god, or that time erases at your command.

theres only one way to classify this: ignorant

 

[LouisBooth]

whatever you say then. Every scientist will tell you that there is no law of evoution, and some (quickly increasing I might add according to a poll I read) say that its wrong

If you want to chalk up my points and holes in evolution as ignorant, that's your opinion and perogative (sp) but then again I'd just say you're putitng your head in the sand when confronting a problem.

 

[maninastrangeland]

can someone point louis to the scientific literacy survery?

 

[Sinai]

Originally posted by Sinai and quoted by Jerry Smith:
"If you check the works of such professionals active in evolutionary biology as Gould and Dawkins, Eldredge and Smith, you will find that there has been a battle raging over whether gradual evolution ever occurred and if it did, why it is not evident in the fossil record."

Originally posted by Jerry Smith:
Who is this quote from? It should be corrected in a detail that is grammatically minor, but meaningfully large. It should be corrected to say, "battle raging over whether evolution occurred gradualistically, and if it did, why that gradualism is not reflected in the fossil record." I think the original may have been intentionally deceptive.

Sorry, Jerry. I was quoting an earlier statement I had posted. Since I was answering Satoshi (who had misunderstood and/or misstated what I had said), I was quoting that portion of my earlier post that was in issue. Unfortunately, my leaving out the rest of my earlier post resulted in a statement that was not quite correct. Thank you for calling it to my attention. I assure you that it was not "intentionally deceptive" and apologize for the error.

At the time Darwin published his theory in Origin of Species, there were rather extensive gaps in the fossil record, which is why he urged his readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation of his concept of evolution or to "use imagination to fill in its gaps." Darwin apparently believed that as the fossil record became more complete, it would eventually support his theory.

However, the predicted transitional fossil forms that would support what is generally referred to today as macro-evolution have not appeared. Instead, today's extensive paleontological evidence has shown a staccoto pattern in which new life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record without the theorized long gradual development or adaptation.

My original statement (back about a page or two on this thread) dealt with the lack of transitional fossil forms that would support the long gradual evolution from one life form to a totally different life form, such as a worm or insect or mollusk gradually evolving into a bird or a fish:

"The fact that the long anticipated "missing links" are still missing has caused many scientists within the area to become increasingly skeptical about the full validity of a theory that had been widely accepted only a few decades ago. Granted, there are at least potentially valid reasons why transitional fossil forms might be lacking. Nevertheless, today's extensive paleontological evidence has shown a staccoto pattern in which new life forms suddenly appear in the fossil record without the theorized long gradual development or adaptation. If you check the works of such professionals active in evolutionary biology as Gould and Dawkins, Eldredge and Smith, you will find that there has been a battle raging over whether gradual evolution ever occurred and if it did, why it is not evident in the fossil record." It should be noted that the gradual evolution I was talking about was the gradual evolution from one life form to a different life form (for example, from one family or phylum to another).

Again, I'm sorry for the confusion, and appreciate your calling it to my attention, Jerry.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Sinai,

You appear to be arguing that no transitionals have been found between higher taxa. That's not true. Numerous examples of such fossils exist. Gould says as much in his work.

You might want to read the following link from the ASA (a Christian organization of scientists).

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by Sinai
It should be noted that the gradual evolution I was talking about was the gradual evolution from one life form to a different life form (for example, from one family or phylum to another).

Again, I'm sorry for the confusion, and appreciate your calling it to my attention, Jerry.

I'm sorry: I didn't realize I was saying that about your own words. I have no reason to believe, then, that they were intentionally deceptive.. I would like to point out that the key word is gradual. There is no dispute about whether evolution has occurred "from one life form to a different life form," only whether it did so in at a gradual tempo, or whether the changes were characterized by long periods of relative stasis alternating with brief periods of relatively fast-paced evolution (in geological terms).

 

[Sinai]

Thank you, RufusAtticus, for your response and for the link to Professor Miller's article. That is part of what I was referring to when I mentioned that "there has been a battle raging (among professionals active in evolutionary biology) over whether gradual evolution ever occurred."

My point was not that macro-evolution either did or did not occur, but rather that there appears to be rather sharp disagreement within the professional scientific community regarding this entire area. As nearly as I can determine, some of the sharpest disagreement seems to be between certain evolutionary biologists who believe the fossil record does support macro-evolution and random mutations, and the physicists and mathematicians who contend that the fossil record clearly demonstrates that there was not sufficient time for random processes to either produce life from a primordial bath of chemicals or to have caused the evolution of life as we know it on our planet.