speciation and macroevolution

[xpiotosaves]

I don't get what xpiotosaves is trying to say here at all. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with that abominable doctrine of Bob Jones University, who use this passage for opposition to inter-racial marriage. Ohhh... I get it. I think you are saying that you do not believe in the theory of evolution as an origin of species. Well I am afraid that would exclude me and #6. That would be YEC and I certainly do not agree.

Oh, inter-racial marriage is 100% fine with me, and I've never even heard of Bob Jones University. It seems like you figured out what I was saying reguardless. I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, but it doesn't really matter.

All that matters is that we all believe in Jesus as Christ, which we all do here.

 

[gluadys]

. I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, but it doesn't really matter.

If you accept microevolution, you also accept macroevolution even if you don't know it, as they are just different phases of the same process. If microevolution occurs, it is inevitable that macroevolution also occurs.


You are probably saddled with an inaccurate concept of macroevolution that prevents you seeing this. From a scientific perspective macroevolution (speciation) has been observed and is not in question.

 

[vossler]

From a scientific perspective macroevolution (speciation) has been observed and is not in question.

I keep hearing you say this, but I've yet to see you prove it. Please show us the observed macroevolution you elude to.

 

[gluadys]

I keep hearing you say this, but I've yet to see you prove it. Please show us the observed macroevolution you elude to.

I'm sure you have been referred to this site before.

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

And before you object that this is not what you mean by macroevolution, that is my point. You are saddled with an inaccurate concept of what macroevolution is.


Speciation is macroevolution. All macroevolution occurs through speciation.

 

[vossler]

I'm sure you have been referred to this site before.

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

And before you object that this is not what you mean by macroevolution, that is my point. You are saddled with an inaccurate concept of what macroevolution is.

Yes I've been referred to that site before, it hasn't changed since the last time I was there.

I'm saddled with a lot if deficiences but my eyes still work and can see. I have never observed speciation and in order to do that I would need to see it.

If someone states that speciation has been observed then they should provide visual evidence of it, otherwise how can one say it was observed?

 

[Willtor]

As a non-scientist I'm not interested in reproducing an experiment where a scientist makes a claim, I'd rather he provide visual proof of what is claimed to be an observable phenomena.

The only difficulty is that it's impossible for a picture to communicate the diet of a particular animal. They could show a picture of some fruit flies in front of a piece of meat, and another picture of some fruit flies in front of some fruit, but it wouldn't really mean anything. That's why I say if you really want to see it for yourself, you can perform the experiment for yourself. This is actually pretty easy compared to many sciences. For some experiments, you would need a multi-billion dollar telescope mounted on a satellite or a comparably expensive particle accelerator. No "layman" could ever perform those experiments. But you can perform this one. Fruit flies are hardly endangered.

 

[chaoschristian]

As a non-scientist I'm not interested in reproducing an experiment where a scientist makes a claim, I'd rather he provide visual proof of what is claimed to be an observable phenomena.

Vossler, the way you are arguing one is led to believe that you were born and raised in Missourah!

 

[vossler]

Vossler, the way you are arguing one is led to believe that you were born and raised in Missourah!

I wasn't born or raised there, but I did spend some time in the military there. Initially I thought that was a weird motto for a state to have, but since then have grown to admire it.

 

[gluadys]

Yeah, I'm a visual person. Seeing is believing you know.

Ok. Go to the sources. Some will likely have pictures.

Is that the only record of observed speciation?

You know it is not.

You can show me all sorts of records that show DNA, genes, etc. going through change, but the old saying that a picture is worth a thousand words would certainly be applicable here.

What if the difference is a difference in digestive chemistry? How would that show up in a picture? What if it is a matter of slightly different pheromones that the ladies find attractive? How will pictures demonstrate an olfactory attractant?

Pictures will only help when the change is to a visible body part. But morphology may be the least of the changes.

Again, you're making the claim, I'd like you to provide the evidence.

I have provided the key to the door. You need to use it to access the evidence as originally provided by the researchers.

Again, it's hard to see something that doesn't exist, so when told to see it we're left to our imagination.

Observed evidence does exist. You only need to remove the blinders that prevent you from seeing it.

 

[vossler]

The only difficulty is that it's impossible for a picture to communicate the diet of a particular animal. They could show a picture of some fruit flies in front of a piece of meat, and another picture of some fruit flies in front of some fruit, but it wouldn't really mean anything. That's why I say if you really want to see it for yourself, you can perform the experiment for yourself. This is actually pretty easy compared to many sciences. For some experiments, you would need a multi-billion dollar telescope mounted on a satellite or a comparably expensive particle accelerator. No "layman" could ever perform those experiments. But you can perform this one. Fruit flies are hardly endangered.

Well this doesn't hardly sound like speciation, it sounds more like variation. Kind of like dogs.

I'm looking for something far more substantial than that.

 

[vossler]

Ok. Go to the sources. Some will likely have pictures.

Give me the sources and I'll go there.

You know it is not.

Considering that I don't believe that it has happened, I don't know why you'd say that.

What if the difference is a difference in digestive chemistry? How would that show up in a picture? What if it is a matter of slightly different pheromones that the ladies find attractive? How will pictures demonstrate an olfactory attractant?

I guess what you're really saying is that speciation has only been observed via data, chemistry and other non-visual changes that are not respresented by an outward change. Am I right?

Pictures will only help when the change is to a visible body part. But morphology may be the least of the changes.

Maybe, but that type of change would certainly be convincing.

I have provided the key to the door. You need to use it to access the evidence as originally provided by the researchers.

Keys are nice if they lead somewhere, the ones I have just lead to dead ends.

Observed evidence does exist. You only need to remove the blinders that prevent you from seeing it.

If I'm called to continuously look to the periphery, somehow that seems what I'm looking for really isn't there.

 

[xpiotosaves]

If you accept microevolution, you also accept macroevolution even if you don't know it, as they are just different phases of the same process. If microevolution occurs, it is inevitable that macroevolution also occurs.


You are probably saddled with an inaccurate concept of macroevolution that prevents you seeing this. From a scientific perspective macroevolution (speciation) has been observed and is not in question.

Speciation and Macroevolution are not the same! Macroevolution is caused by "NEW" genetic information, where as speciation is caused by a decrease information.

 

[Willtor]

Speciation and Macroevolution are not the same! Macroevolution is caused by "NEW" genetic information, where as speciation is caused by a decrease information.

Speciation and macro-evolution are the same thing to evolutionists. If you have a different meaning for macro-evolution, it is one that is different from what evolutionists use. It would help if you used a different word so that we could discuss these things with some precision.

 

[relspace]

Speciation and Macroevolution are not the same! Macroevolution is caused by "NEW" genetic information, where as speciation is caused by a decrease information.

From the study introduced by gluadys, speciation can come about from all kinds of genetic change including increase, decrease, and change without increase or increase in the information.

But you are correct that the formula is not speciation=macroevolution

The formulas are

microevolution + time* = macroevolution for a species

and

microevolution + time* + speciation = macroevolution of many new species

* (how much time depend on the amount of environmental change and mortality during that time)

 

[xpiotosaves]

Speciation and macro-evolution are the same thing to evolutionists. If you have a different meaning for macro-evolution, it is one that is different from what evolutionists use. It would help if you used a different word so that we could discuss these things with some precision.

I don't know what evolutionists you've been talking to. When we get a new species of dog it isn't macroevolution!

 

[Willtor]

I don't know what evolutionists you've been talking to. When we get a new species of dog it isn't macroevolution!

I wasn't aware that dogs had speciated. Either way, now's your opportunity to coin a new word and define it. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Make up a word and tell me what you mean by it.

 

[xpiotosaves]

I wasn't aware that dogs had speciated. Either way, now's your opportunity to coin a new word and define it. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Make up a word and tell me what you mean by it.

Well why are you trying to tell me about species when I seem to know info that you don't. Dogs are of the Genus "Canis" but are different species. In binomial nomenclature the name is made by putting Genus before Species. Here are examples of two dogs species.
Domestic Dog-Canis familiaris
Wolf-Canis lupus

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I don't know what evolutionists you've been talking to. When we get a new species of dog it isn't macroevolution!

Well why are you trying to tell me about species when I seem to know info that you don't. Dogs are of the Genus "Canis" but are different species. In binomial nomenclature the name is made by putting Genus before Species. Here are examples of two dogs species.
Domestic Dog-Canis familiaris
Wolf-Canis lupus

use dogs to discuss the specifics of YECist kinds.

where is the kind boundary?
does the "dog kind" contain:
jackals? foxes? wolves? coyotes?

fertile hybrids are known within these groups.
but the groups are defined by a family: Canidae.
whose boundaries are not all that well defined scientifically. a family is a taxonomic division higher than genus.

if the dog kind does contain some or even all of these other genus, then did hyperevolution since Noah create all the various "dog kind" subgroups we now identify as various branches of Canidae?

 

[Melethiel]

Mosquitoes also have a much shorter generation time...

 

[chaoschristian]

I wasn't aware that dogs had speciated. Either way, now's your opportunity to coin a new word and define it. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Make up a word and tell me what you mean by it.

Well, he didn't jump on it, so I'm going for the gold here:

expediciation: used to define any manner of ad hoc conceptulizations for psuedo-scientific processes that seem to serve as a refutation to strawman concepts of evolutionary theory and 'macro-evolution', especially that of speciation. Includes, but is not limited to 'kinds.'

Example: We have never visually witnessed the expediciation of one dog kind into another dog kind; therefore evolution is false.