Nephilmeyer wrote in another thread concerning macroevolution:
Now, one of the first things we need to get clear is what you mean by "changed to the point of being something totally different". What is "totally different"?
Another thing we need to get clear is that the major transformations, such as land animal to whale, dino to birds, and ape-like creature to human, did not happen with one speciation. Rather, what we have are dozens or hundreds of speciation events. Each of them is a small change but added together they are a huge change. So we are not talking about making the change in one leap.
Remember, in evolution change is in small steps but it is cumulative. I like the analogy of walking from New York to San Fran. Each step is small and doesn't look much different from the step before. It hasn't changed the distance hardly at all. BUT, as the steps accumulate you do get a large change of distance.
Nephilmeyer, remember when I said science works by the hypothetico-deductive method? OK, macroevolution is the statements that all creatures share a common ancestor. Now, make deductions from that. IF all species represent descent with modification from splitting from common ancestors, then a deduction is that we should be able to classify all creatures in a nested hierarchy. That is, species that came from a recent common ancestor would share many characteristics, species that came from a more distant common ancestor would share some characteristics but not as many as those from a recent ancestor. And so forth.
Well, that is exactly how we can classify organisms. Individual organisms that share so many characteristics that they breed freely with other organisms like themselves but not with other groups are species. Species that share many characteristics are grouped in genera. Different genera are grouped in families, which means the different genera share some characteristics but not as many as the species within a genus. Families can be grouped in orders, orders in classes, and classes in phylum. As we go "up" in the grouping, the groups share fewer and fewer characteristics among the group but still share more and different characteristics than other groups at the same level.
This nested hierarchy was discovered and classified by a creationist - Linneaus. But evolution predicts that this heirarchial classification will work.
Hierarchial classifcations do not work for objects that do not share a common ancestor (macroevolution). Gems, for instance, cannot be classed in a hierarchy. Neither can types of stars.
So here is one powerful piece of evidence that macroevolution is true.
There are others, but this is enough to start discussion. We can get into the transitional fossil series later.
Now, one of the first things we need to get clear is what you mean by "changed to the point of being something totally different". What is "totally different"?
Another thing we need to get clear is that the major transformations, such as land animal to whale, dino to birds, and ape-like creature to human, did not happen with one speciation. Rather, what we have are dozens or hundreds of speciation events. Each of them is a small change but added together they are a huge change. So we are not talking about making the change in one leap.
Remember, in evolution change is in small steps but it is cumulative. I like the analogy of walking from New York to San Fran. Each step is small and doesn't look much different from the step before. It hasn't changed the distance hardly at all. BUT, as the steps accumulate you do get a large change of distance.
Nephilmeyer, remember when I said science works by the hypothetico-deductive method? OK, macroevolution is the statements that all creatures share a common ancestor. Now, make deductions from that. IF all species represent descent with modification from splitting from common ancestors, then a deduction is that we should be able to classify all creatures in a nested hierarchy. That is, species that came from a recent common ancestor would share many characteristics, species that came from a more distant common ancestor would share some characteristics but not as many as those from a recent ancestor. And so forth.
Well, that is exactly how we can classify organisms. Individual organisms that share so many characteristics that they breed freely with other organisms like themselves but not with other groups are species. Species that share many characteristics are grouped in genera. Different genera are grouped in families, which means the different genera share some characteristics but not as many as the species within a genus. Families can be grouped in orders, orders in classes, and classes in phylum. As we go "up" in the grouping, the groups share fewer and fewer characteristics among the group but still share more and different characteristics than other groups at the same level.
This nested hierarchy was discovered and classified by a creationist - Linneaus. But evolution predicts that this heirarchial classification will work.
Hierarchial classifcations do not work for objects that do not share a common ancestor (macroevolution). Gems, for instance, cannot be classed in a hierarchy. Neither can types of stars.
So here is one powerful piece of evidence that macroevolution is true.
There are others, but this is enough to start discussion. We can get into the transitional fossil series later.
