Macro Evoultion Evidence?

[Jon]

What is the best evidence for macro evoultion? (one or two items)

Thanks-Jon

 

[michabo]

The twin nested hierarchies.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Macroevolution is usually definded as the development of a new species (speciation)

There are numerous cases of observed speciation occuring - both in the wild and in the lab.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

 

[Jon]

these are lenthy articles, could you please brief me on what they say?

thanks,

 

[Physics_guy]

these are lenthy articles, could you please brief me on what they say?

If you think they are lengthy - try reading the original research from which they were based! You have got to be willing to put in the 15 to 30 minutes of effort it will take to read these articles. No one is going to be there to spoon-feed you through life.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

THe lists I gave are simply detailed lists of dozens of times when scientists have observed a new species evolve from an existing one. There are a number of ways in which speication can occur, and which also have been observed. Most of the expamples from plants, insects and other animals.

It should take no more then a few minutes of reading to see some compelling examples of macroevolution.

 

[michabo]

these are lenthy articles, could you please brief me on what they say?

As Physics_guy says, these are brief. Let's face it, organisms are complex and you should mistrust any overly simplistic explaination. If you put in some time to work through these links, you should be able to follow and understand most of them.

 

[Shane Roach]

In other words, not only do a lot of supporters of evolution not really understand the subject, but can't even be bothered to cut and paste some references with proper attributions.

If you look at the list of supposed speciation events, you will find them based largely on plants and single celled creatures. I have yet to hear a single study done on any sort of rate of speciation vs. rates of extinction, especially as they would apply to higher animals - mammals, birds, reptiles and so forth.

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation to me of how you would ever get a mutant that could not mate with its previous generations, which would leave you with perhaps physical branches but all species could at least mate artificially with all others if they had a common ancestor.

 

[michabo]

In other words, not only do a lot of supporters of evolution not really understand the subject, but can't even be bothered to cut and paste some references with proper attributions.

Sorry. I know how creationists like arguments through soundbites. Would you like "evolution did it" better?

I've never heard a satisfactory explanation to me of how you would ever get a mutant that could not mate with its previous generations, which would leave you with perhaps physical branches but all species could at least mate artificially with all others if they had a common ancestor.

Evolution doesn't say that. But you could look at ring species which would help. Assuming you are interested in learning.

 

[notto]

In other words, not only do a lot of supporters of evolution not really understand the subject, but can't even be bothered to cut and paste some references with proper attributions

Can you cut and paste some references with proper attributions to a method I can use in the lab to identify intelligent design or to identify research where this methodology has been used? I've been asking for a week and so far the only response I have been give were links that dontt provide what I asked for or I was told to "read a book on ID".

I guess I can conclude that not only do a lot of supporters of id not really understand the subject, but they can't be bothered to cut and paste some references with proper attributions, right?

 

[Split Rock]

these are lenthy articles, could you please brief me on what they say?

thanks,

I agree that the twin-nested hierarchy is very compelling evidence. Phylogenic trees constructed based on morphological comparisons between species form a single multi-nested hierarchy, rather than a bunch of separate hierarchies one would expect if life diversified from specially created "kinds." In addition, phylogenetic trees built by comparison of DNA sequences corroborate the classical phylogenetic trees.

 

[Shane Roach]

Sorry. I know how creationists like arguments through soundbites. Would you like "evolution did it" better?

Evolution doesn't say that. But you could look at ring species which would help. Assuming you are interested in learning.

I've already read that assignment.

 

[Shane Roach]

Can you cut and paste some references with proper attributions to a method I can use in the lab to identify intelligent design or to identify research where this methodology has been used? I've been asking for a week and so far the only response I have been give were links that dontt provide what I asked for or I was told to "read a book on ID".

I guess I can conclude that not only do a lot of supporters of id not really understand the subject, but they can't be bothered to cut and paste some references with proper attributions, right?

It looks to me like ID is a combination of gathering evidence against naturalistic attempts to explain origins and argumentation that this tends to indicate design. I don't know a lot about ID personally, nor do I fully support it since I haven't read much about it.

I do know that I myself appear to have some insubstantial awareness that I refer to as a soul. Having experienced such a thing, I find the presumption of big bang and evolution theory that they can cast back into time without taking the possibility of conscious interruption into account indefensible.

I would think a simple question about some of the more moving proofs for evolution asked in a forum so obviously full of its proponents could do a little better.

 

[notto]

It looks to me like ID is a combination of gathering evidence against naturalistic attempts to explain origins and argumentation that this tends to indicate design. I don't know a lot about ID personally, nor do I fully support it since I haven't read much about it.

I do know that I myself appear to have some insubstantial awareness that I refer to as a soul. Having experienced such a thing, I find the presumption of big bang and evolution theory that they can cast back into time without taking the possibility of conscious interruption into account indefensible.

I would think a simple question about some of the more moving proofs for evolution asked in a forum so obviously full of its proponents could do a little better.

Likewise when I ask a simple question about some of the (supposedly) more moving proofs for ID in a forum so obviously full of its proponents.

</end thread derailment>

 

[Shane Roach]

Likewise when I ask a simple question about some of the (supposedly) more moving proofs for ID in a forum so obviously full of its proponents.

</end thread derailment>

That's funny, I pointed out that part of the problem appears to be the existence of aspects to life that are not addressed by the scientific method, and I pointed out that it appears there are scientific problems with mechanistic theories, and your response is to not respond and to accuse me of not responding when I obviously did, even though I admit I am not very knowledgeable about ID or Creationism.

I took my stab. Let's see yours.

 

[michabo]

I took my stab. Let's see yours.

You just hinted at vague and mysterious problems. What response do you expect?

 

[mikeynov]

That's funny, I pointed out that part of the problem appears to be the existence of aspects to life that are not addressed by the scientific method, and I pointed out that it appears there are scientific problems with mechanistic theories, and your response is to not respond and to accuse me of not responding when I obviously did, even though I admit I am not very knowledgeable about ID or Creationism.

I took my stab. Let's see yours.

What are you interested in - that evolution 'happened,' or the mechanisms which attempt to explain its apparent facthood?

If it's the former, there's quite a number of peer reviewed citations regarding speciation (and no, they're not all plants and microorganisms - not that I'm sure why that's a problem anyways) - look up my post from a week or so back. The '29 evidences for macroevolution' on talk.origins includes a number of smoking gun items which indicate, overwhelmingly, 'macroevolution' on a large scale and/or common descent (including universal common ancestry). The 'quiet thread' on this forum includes several examples (HERV's for human ancestry being a good one), and Aron-ra's thread on taxonomy is a must-read and demonstrates how the organization of life itself overwhelmingly points towards evolution.

In terms of the latter (i.e. 'how' evolution occurs), how far does your incredulity stretch? Some of the articles cited do a good job of giving research to this effect. Also bear in mind that science is inherently constrained to the 'natural' world, and doesn't 'do' metaphysics/the supernatural.

In a nutshell, the 'fact' of evolution is dubbed a fact due to the overwhelming support that it did happen. The mechanisms which explain the fact are contested to some degree -e.g. the emphasis of geographical isolation for speciation. However, that descent with modification is largely a result of differential reproductive success in heritably varying self-replicators isn't exactly wild conjecture. We have observations which directly support this, and there is no barrier or reason to believe that the cumulative changes we see in short periods of time (which can be quite marked, leading even to speciation) could not amount to much larger changes.

Combine this with the overwhelming 'fact' of evolution and you'll be on your way to understanding why the scientific world largely accepted this over a century ago.

 

[Jon]

thankyou for your responses.

 

[danaman5]

I do know that I myself appear to have some insubstantial awareness that I refer to as a soul.

Science does not care about "insubstantial awareness". I have no "insubstantial awareness", so obviously it is not a universal thing. Whatever this is, it is not scientifically testable, so there isn't much that the scientific method can say about it. Science comes up with the natural explanations. You can put whatever philosophical/theological spin you want on those explanations.

 

[Matthew777]

I'm starting to think the TalkOrigins is just the ICR for evolutionists. I wonder if they could refrain from mentioning it for at least one week.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.