Why I do not accept evolution part one

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My favorite example are the lizards from Italy that were transported to another island and changed their diets and gullets in a few decades:

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

But the fish evolving new species in cut-off streams in South America and lakes in the African rift region. (I can't remember enough details to google them.)

Would those be Chichlid fish?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Would those be Chichlid fish?

That's what thinking of, but I see it wasn't actually evolution in the era of human scientific endeavor, though it does seem to fairly rapid.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's what thinking of, but I see it wasn't actually evolution in the era of human scientific endeavor, though it does seem to fairly rapid.

Yes, there are examples of speciation of multicellular creatures within human timescales, but they're either fairly rare or are lurking, so far undiscovered...

 

[Ophiolite]

Science does not claim that an animal can give birth to a new genus, etc. All change happens at or below the speciation level. We know speciation happens, because it's been documented in nature and in the lab. Once you accept that (and you have to), evolution has all the room it needs to work. I'm just paraphrasing Dawkins here.

And none of that addresses your flawed assertion that "science makes no claims about macro-evolution". Science makes abundant claims about macro-evolution. Macro-evolution research is a vital and vibrant part of biology.
It does not further the aim of convincing doubters when we make and defend faulty statements. I advise against it.

 

[Kylie]

Science does not claim that an animal can give birth to a new genus, etc. All change happens at or below the speciation level. We know speciation happens, because it's been documented in nature and in the lab. Once you accept that (and you have to), evolution has all the room it needs to work. I'm just paraphrasing Dawkins here.

Why do you think Macroevolution means one species giving birth to a different species?

 

[NxNW]

And none of that addresses your flawed assertion that "science makes no claims about macro-evolution". Science makes abundant claims about macro-evolution. Macro-evolution research is a vital and vibrant part of biology.
It does not further the aim of convincing doubters when we make and defend faulty statements. I advise against it.

The usual track for these debates goes like this:

Creationist: I believe in micro evolution, but not macro.
Science: Do you believe in speciation?
C: No.
S: Here are examples of speciation in the lab and in nature.
C: That doesn't count. When I say macro, I mean a cat giving birth to a dog. A single cell giving birth to a human. A dinosaur giving birth to a bird. A fish giving birth to a mammal. A crocoduck.
S: Science doesn't predict such things.
C: Checkmate!
S: If you accept the examples of speciation I gave you, that's all evolution needs to work.
C: La la la I can't hear you! I'll pray for you!

 

[Ophiolite]

The usual track for these debates goes like this:

Creationist: I believe in micro evolution, but not macro.
Science: Do you believe in speciation?
C: No.
S: Here are examples of speciation in the lab and in nature.
C: That doesn't count. When I say macro, I mean a cat giving birth to a dog. A single cell giving birth to a human. A dinosaur giving birth to a bird. A fish giving birth to a mammal. A crocoduck.
S: Science doesn't predict such things.
C: Checkmate!
S: If you accept the examples of speciation I gave you, that's all evolution needs to work.
C: La la la I can't hear you! I'll pray for you!

Irrelevant. If you are presenting a scientific case it behoves you to be accurate in your statements. You were inaccurate. That is not a problem. Everyone can make an error. Trying to deflect attention away from your error is a problem. Accept that you made a mistake and move on.

 

[NxNW]

Irrelevant. If you are presenting a scientific case it behoves you to be accurate in your statements. You were inaccurate. That is not a problem. Everyone can make an error. Trying to deflect attention away from your error is a problem. Accept that you made a mistake and move on.

My points are valid. Your tone is inappropriate.

 

[pitabread]

And none of that addresses your flawed assertion that "science makes no claims about macro-evolution". Science makes abundant claims about macro-evolution. Macro-evolution research is a vital and vibrant part of biology.
It does not further the aim of convincing doubters when we make and defend faulty statements. I advise against it.

I think part of the issue is that "macroevolution" is ill-defined in the scientific literature.

The definition in the textbook Evolution (4th ed.) even calls it a "vague term":

macroevolution - A vague term, usually meaning the evolution of substantial phenotypic changes, usually great enough to place the changed lineage and its descendants in a distinct genus or higher taxon.
​

At the same time such textbooks do dedicate entire sections to the discussion of macroevolution in that context (large scale evolutionary changes over longer periods of time).

 

[NxNW]

I think part of the issue is that "macroevolution" is ill-defined in the literature.

Exactly, and creationists deliberately misuse it and then knock down the strawman.

 

[Shemjaza]

Exactly, and creationists deliberately misuse it and then knock down the strawman.

If we stopped using every term Creationists misused we wouldn't be able to discuss biology at all.

(Or physics, astronomy or geology for that matter).

 

[Kylie]

My points are valid. Your tone is inappropriate.

What part of Ophi's tone was inappropriate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think part of the issue is that "macroevolution" is ill-defined in the scientific literature.

The definition in the textbook Evolution (4th ed.) even calls it a "vague term":

macroevolution - A vague term, usually meaning the evolution of substantial phenotypic changes, usually great enough to place the changed lineage and its descendants in a distinct genus or higher taxon.
​

At the same time such textbooks do dedicate entire sections to the discussion of macroevolution in that context (large scale evolutionary changes over longer periods of time).

The person that invented the terminology defined macroevolution as evolution at the species level and above. Its meaning has changed a bit since then, but since we are dealing with literalists and the original definition of terms is so often the one that literalists demand, and especially since accommodating them in this case irritates the heck out of them I prefer to use the original definition when dealing with creationists.

 

[Ophiolite]

My points are valid. Your tone is inappropriate.

You stated that "science has nothing to say about macro-evolution".
This is incorrect. You have been told this. You have been given examples. Hence that point of yours is invalid.
There is nothing inappropriate about pointing out an error. What is inappropriate is the intransigent refusal to acknowledge such an error.
Here is a tip - when you are in hole, unless you are an open cast miner, archaeologist, or grave digger, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

I shall be saying no more about this in this thread. I shall start a thread on macro-evolution sometime during April. Feel free to engage there.

 

[NxNW]

The person that invented the terminology defined macroevolution as evolution at the species level and above.

Which is nonsensical, because there IS no evolution above the species level, and science makes no claim that there is.

 

[Speedwell]

Which is nonsensical, because there IS no evolution above the species level, and science makes no claim that there is.

Now I get it. I also get why the way you put it caused so much unnecessary confusion and dismay. You might have said, "repeated speciation events are sufficient to account for the biological diversity we see. No other kind of event is necessary."

 

[Speedwell]

You stated that "science has nothing to say about macro-evolution".
This is incorrect. You have been told this. You have been given examples. Hence that point of yours is invalid.
There is nothing inappropriate about pointing out an error. What is inappropriate is the intransigent refusal to acknowledge such an error.
Here is a tip - when you are in hole, unless you are an open cast miner, archaeologist, or grave digger, the first thing to do is to stop digging.

I shall be saying no more about this in this thread. I shall start a thread on macro-evolution sometime during April. Feel free to engage there.

No, you missed hs point entirely. Starting a new thread won't help.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which is nonsensical, because there IS no evolution above the species level, and science makes no claim that there is.

i think you may be misinterpreting what is written. "Evolution above the species level" simply means evolution that results in speciation caused by the accumulation of changes over time. Others can understand this. Why are you having a problem with it?

 

[Ophiolite]

No, you missed hs point entirely. Starting a new thread won't help.

And yet, science continues to say things about macro-evolution. His point does not alter that. @pitabread rightly noted that there are several definitions of macroevolution. It is not valid to select a single definition then declare that science has nothing to say about all of them.

 

[Speedwell]

i think you may be misinterpreting what is written. "Evolution above the species level" simply means evolution that results in speciation caused by the accumulation of changes over time. Others can understand this. Why are you having a problem with it?

He understands it, too. What other kind of evolution is there besides that which results in speciation? Genus-ization? No, there isn't such a thing, only repeated speciation which leads to the formation of new genera. And so on.