The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[createdtoworship]

I wonder if you have ever benefited from taking a medicine, that was developed based on evolutionary theory?

thats not macro evolution. REd herring. And secondly it doesn't follow* the conversation so I would say it's strike two (*non sequitor).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Funny though, isn't it, that we don't tend to attribute our health to this jungle medicine?

Jungle medicine? Not sure what you mean by that. Consider the Spanish flu during WWI. It killed more U.S. citizens than the war did, and it was a time before vaccines existed for the flu. It killed what is considered the "healthy" age range the most, teenagers to those in their early thirties took the biggest hit. It is hard to imagine that not so long ago, the flu was such a killer. Even colds used to be threatening. Thanks to vaccines, smallpox has died out (except for test populations kept in secret labs. We know they exist, but not every location). Smallpox killed many people and disfigured those it didn't. You are old enough that you might remember it still existing and the mass effort to eradicate it. Perhaps you were even vaccinated for it yourself.

 

[bhsmte]

thats not macro evolution. REd herring. And secondly it doesn't follow* the conversation so I would say it's strike two (*non sequitor).

Macro or micro, whatever you want to call it, both are based on the same principles. I would call that a double in the gap on a two strike count.

Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

 

[AV1611VET]

Jungle medicine? Not sure what you mean by that. Consider the Spanish flu during WWI. It killed more U.S. citizens than the war did, and it was a time before vaccines existed for the flu. It killed what is considered the "healthy" age range the most, teenagers to those in their early thirties took the biggest hit. It is hard to imagine that not so long ago, the flu was such a killer. Even colds used to be threatening. Thanks to vaccines, smallpox has died out (except for test populations kept in secret labs. We know they exist, but not every location). Smallpox killed many people and disfigured those it didn't. You are old enough that you might remember it still existing and the mass effort to eradicate it. Perhaps you were even vaccinated for it yourself.

Look ... let's simplify this ... shall we?

Whether I get vaccinated for the Swine flu or the Hong Kong flu, it's still the flu ... period.

It is the same principle as making Roundup™ stronger each year.

The weeds adapt by losing traits (or genes or alleles or whatever it is they lose).

Today's cryptosporidium is stronger than yesterday's, but it's still diarrhea.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Look ... let's simplify this ... shall we?

Whether I get vaccinated for the Swine flu or the Hong Kong flu, it's still the flu ... period.

It is the same principle as making Roundup™ stronger each year.

The weeds adapt by losing traits (or genes or alleles or whatever it is they lose).

Today's cryptosporidium is stronger than yesterday's, but it's still diarrhea.

Even if you don't consider it evolution, evolutionary theory is applied to making the vaccines. It is used to predict what future diseases are most likely to appear and to prevent them before they infect and harm vulnerable populations. This is the predictive power of evolution, and it is useful in medicine even if you don't consider it evolution, it works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but this demonstration as you say, has not been observed on a macro level.

Sure it has. We can observe it in the fossil record.

A biologist could probably explain how we can observe it in the genetic records. I am not a biologist.

 

[Loudmouth]

well you don't observe the hypothesis,

Evolution is the hypothesis, so why do you repeatedly claim that we have to observe it?

the hypothesis comes from direct observation which is tested.

The same for evolution. The hypothesis comes from direct observations of biogeography, morphology, genetics, and the fossil record. From those observations we form the hypothesis that life evolved in the past. We then use further observations from biogeography, morphology, genetics, and the fossil record to test that hypothesis.

We could use ERV's as our model.

Observations: We observe that retroviruses insert randomly among many, many bases and can passed down through vertical inheritance if they insert into a germ line cell. We observe endogenized retroviruses that are passed down vertically and are found in both the chimp and human genomes.

Hypothesis: If humans and chimps share a recent common ancestor, then the vast majority of the ERV's in each genome will be found at the same spot in both genomes.

Null hypothesis: If humans and chimps do not share a common ancestor, then ERV's will only rarely be found at the same position, consistent with the rare even of a retrovirus inserting at the same base in two independent insertion events (about 1 in every 10,000 at most).

Test: Compare the position and sequence of ERV's in the human and chimp genome.

Results: Of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome, more than 99% are found at the same location. The hypothesis is supported, and the null hypothesis is rejected.

Conclusion: Humans and chimps share a common ancestor.

Can you please tell me why this does not follow the scientific method?

however Evolution is not even a theory because the first step in the scientific method is observation and there is no direct observation of macro evolution (evolution between genra)

Macroevolution is the hypothesis. You don't observe the hypothesis.

Theories are nothing more than a collection of hypotheses that have passed testing.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure it has. We can observe it in the fossil record.

That isn't absolutely correct. Fossils are the observation. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what we should and should not see in the fossil record. We then use fossils to test the hypothesis, and evolution keeps passing those tests.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That isn't absolutely correct. Fossils are the observation. The theory of evolution makes predictions about what we should and should not see in the fossil record. We then use fossils to test the hypothesis, and evolution keeps passing those tests.

Its predictive ability is actually better than even most of its supporters expected.

 

[Loudmouth]

but this demonstration as you say, has not been observed on a macro level.

Macroevolution is the hypothesis. You don't observe the hypothesis.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Macroevolution is the hypothesis. You don't observe the hypothesis.

It is a hypothesis based on observations.

 

[Loudmouth]

well it's true that some species can interbreed. But what I am defining (speaking for myself only)....that macro evolution is not at the species level, but at the genus level. And it is important to note a genus level transition is required for monkey to man evolution.

How do you determine if two species belong to the same genus? What are the objective criteria?

Are you aware that genera are a human invention?

 

[Loudmouth]

It is a hypothesis based on observations.

Correct. That is the nuance that gradyll keeps ignoring. Gould stated it quite clearly:

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

The theory of evolution is the explanation that ties together the observations made in biology, geology, etc. You don't observe theories. Observations and theories are two different things.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I think a lot of people are confusing hypothesis with theories, given that a hypothesis hasn't necessarily been proven or observed while a theory is used to explain an observation.

 

[Loudmouth]

that begs the question as to what is in fact evolution at all.

Evolution is a theory that explains a wide array of observations in biology and other scientific fields. Evolution explains why we see a nested hierarchy. Evolution explains why we don't see horses in the Cambrian. Evolution explains why there is more homology in genes shared by humans and chimps than in junk DNA shared by humans and chimps. Evolution explains why we see fossils with a mixture of bird and dinosaur features, but no fossils with a mixture of bird and mammal features.

Because it may in fact be that there is no evidence not because it is so slow that it misses the radar, but that there is in fact no evidence.

There are no genomes with DNA sequences that we can compare? There are no fossils? Species don't have shared features and derived features? There is no differential distribution of species across the globe?

You have to have your head buried deep in the sand to claim that there are no observations that can be used to test the theory of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

I think a lot of people are confusing hypothesis with theories, given that a hypothesis hasn't necessarily been proven or observed while a theory is used to explain an observation.

Theories are just a collection of hypotheses that have passed testing. Theories also provide an overarching model that can be used to devise new and specific hypotheses. Theories just tend to be more general while hypotheses are more specific, but in practice they are one in the same.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Theories are just a collection of hypotheses that have passed testing. Theories also provide an overarching model that can be used to devise new and specific hypotheses. Theories just tend to be more general while hypotheses are more specific, but in practice they are one in the same.

Theories have more supporting evidence than a hypothesis alone.

 

[Loudmouth]

Look ... let's simplify this ... shall we?

Whether I get vaccinated for the Swine flu or the Hong Kong flu, it's still the flu ... period.

If that were true, they wouldn't be giving out new flu vaccines every year. The truth is that the virus mutates so that the antibodies you produced to protect yourself from previous infections or immunizations no longer recognizes the new, evolved flu strain.

It is the same principle as making Roundup™ stronger each year.

The weeds adapt by losing traits (or genes or alleles or whatever it is they lose).

Evidence?

 

[PsychoSarah]

If anything, those weeds are gaining traits: genes that make them more resistant to the weed killer.

 

[createdtoworship]

How do you determine if two species belong to the same genus? What are the objective criteria?

Are you aware that genera are a human invention?

all taxonomy is arbitrary. But nonetheless, I respect the kinds God made in genesis. Which are closest in my opinion not to species but to genus. Which cannot interbreed with other genus. Species (some ) may interbreed. So one qualification of a genus is the ability to breed amongst itself, but there are other qualifiers in which a quick google search for taxonomy:genus would suffice.

Evolution is a theory that explains a wide array of observations in biology and other scientific fields. Evolution explains why we see a nested hierarchy. Evolution explains why we don't see horses in the Cambrian. Evolution explains why there is more homology in genes shared by humans and chimps than in junk DNA shared by humans and chimps. Evolution explains why we see fossils with a mixture of bird and dinosaur features, but no fossils with a mixture of bird and mammal features.

Now if you can provide evolutionary transitions between genus, then we can successfully state that evolution happens on a macro level and can be considered experimental science. But until that day, we use faith to believe that evolution fills all the gaps and answers all the questions in your reply, .....faith, yes, faith.