Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

We Never Know · May 24, 2019

It Aint Necessarily So said:
You're free to use the word however you like, but if you want to be understood, you will want to say what you mean by macroevolution. Creationists typically are vague on this. They're not clear about how much evolution can occur before it's called macroevolution, even though they say that it does not occur.

Personally, I don't use the word because it has no utility to me. There's just evolution whether we are talking about across a generation or across an eon. I have no need to put an arbitrary line separating one degree of evolution from another as the creationist likes to do when arguing that one occurs and the other does not.

Agreed. However when the word is being discussed, I give my opinion of it.

Subduction Zone · May 24, 2019

We Never Know said:
Same species of birds or fish for example that have been seperated and can no longer breed to produce offspring and are now classified as different species, in my opinion isn't macro-evolution, it would be more micro-evolution.

Then you do not understand what micro and macro evolution are. In a case like this the inventor of the term gets to set its definition and macroevolution is just evolution at the species level and above. Evolutionary scientists do not use the terms very much these days because there does not appear to be any difference between micro and macro. At the very least creationists cannot seem to find any. It is on the same order as there is no difference between walking to the corner drug store than there is to walking to the nearest park, than there is to walking across town, or to the next town, or across state or across the country. Without artificial human made boundaries there really is no difference.

We Never Know · May 24, 2019

Subduction Zone said:
Then you do not understand what micro and macro evolution are. In a case like this the inventor of the term gets to set its definition and macroevolution is just evolution at the species level and above. Evolutionary scientists do not use the terms very much these days because there does not appear to be any difference between micro and macro. At the very least creationists cannot seem to find any. It is on the same order as there is no difference between walking to the corner drug store than there is to walking to the nearest park, than there is to walking across town, or to the next town, or across state or across the country. Without artificial human made boundaries there really is no difference.

"You don't understand". That seems to be your most used leading line

However I do and have a different oipinon than you.

Let's take Neanderthal and humans. Different species but still could interbreed.
Being different species would that be macro-evolution or being they could still interbreed would that be micro-evolution?

Show your work of why or why not.

Opinions among science varies.

ecco · May 24, 2019

We Never Know said:
Show your work of why or why not.

Show your work?!?

Do you think you are a 4th-grade teacher?

We Never Know · May 24, 2019

ecco said:
Show your work?!?

Do you think you are a 4th-grade teacher?

It's called being sarcastic as in provide evidence/links. Sorry it went over your head.

ecco · May 25, 2019

We Never Know said:
It's called being sarcastic as in provide evidence/links. Sorry it went over your head.

Ditto

ImmortalFlame · May 25, 2019

We Never Know said:
"You don't understand". That seems to be your most used leading line

However I do and have a different oipinon than you.

Let's take Neanderthal and humans. Different species but still could interbreed.
Being different species would that be macro-evolution or being they could still interbreed would that be micro-evolution?

Show your work of why or why not.

Opinions among science varies.

Actually, opinions among scientists vary as to whether or not neanderthals were a separate species or a sub-species of homo sapien. Either way, neanderthals and homo sapiens evolved simultaneously from a common ancestor, not one from the other, so your question here is somewhat malformed and nonsensical.

We Never Know · May 26, 2019

ImmortalFlame said:
Actually, opinions among scientists vary as to whether or not neanderthals were a separate species or a sub-species of homo sapien. Either way, neanderthals and homo sapiens evolved simultaneously from a common ancestor, not one from the other, so your question here is somewhat malformed and nonsensical.

Opinions among scientist vary you say. Darn! I wish I would have thought of that...but wait I did. I said "Opinions among science varies". Scientist make up science so I guess we agree there.

Point being Neanderthal and humans are considered different species yet they interbred. We can flip the die and call them cousins or what ever. At current they are labeled different species.
We used to think different species couldn't inter-breed, We used to think if different species did inter-breed they would be sterile. We now know what we used to think isn't right. So then we try to go to subspecies, cousin species, etc. That still doesn't explain hybrids.

Fact is we don't know as much as we think we do. I'm fine with that because it just shows we have much more to learn.

But you would just rather give it hand wave like it doesn't matter. And that's fine. Many ostriches stick their head in the sand trying to not look at reality.

We Never Know · May 26, 2019

ecco said:
Ditto

Ghost

ImmortalFlame · May 26, 2019

We Never Know said:
Opinions among scientist vary you say. Darn! I wish I would have thought of that...but wait I did. I said "Opinions among science varies". Scientist make up science so I guess we agree there.

No, what you said was this (empahsis mine):

"Let's take Neanderthal and humans. Different species but still could interbreed. "

You said definitively that humans and neanderthals were "different species". You only said "Opinions among science varies" with regards to micro and macro-evolution.

We Never Know said:
Point being Neanderthal and humans are considered different species yet they interbred. We can flip the die and call them cousins or what ever. At current they are labeled different species.

Er, no, I just addressed this. Science is currently uncertain as to whether humans and neanderthals were different species or if neanderthals were a sub species of homo sapien. It is dishonest to pretend that a conclusion has been reached on this.

We Never Know said:
We used to think different species couldn't inter-breed, We used to think if different species did inter-breed they would be sterile. We now know what we used to think isn't right. So then we try to go to subspecies, cousin species, etc. That still doesn't explain hybrids.

Because genetics isn't an exact science. Species is still a useful label as it is fairly predictable in most instances.

We Never Know said:
Fact is we don't know as much as we think we do. I'm fine with that because it just shows we have much more to learn.

But you would just rather give it hand wave like it doesn't matter. And that's fine. Many ostriches stick their head in the sand trying to not look at reality.

What doesn't matter? What are you talking about?

ecco · May 26, 2019

We Never Know said:
Point being Neanderthal and humans are considered different species yet they interbred.

The most common definition of a species is: a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

However, what you need to keep in mind is that entities are assigned a species by humans. Definition of a species and inclusion within a species is not an exact science. Definition of a species and inclusion within a species changes as knowledge advances.

That's called progress.

james dixon · May 27, 2019

ecco said:
The most common definition of a species is: a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

Here are a few "species" no one here has yet cared to talk about.
Many living things have "evolved" over time and there are a few that just seem to remain the same.

Do you think in the end they will outlive us all-?

james dixon · May 27, 2019

There are also other living creatures that are evolving that we should not lose sight of; as in the virus and amoeba--

ecco · May 28, 2019

james dixon said:
Here are a few "species" no one here has yet cared to talk about.
Many living things have "evolved" over time and there are a few that just seem to remain the same.

Do you think in the end they will outlive us all-?

The roaches probably will.

Bear Wild · May 28, 2019

We Never Know said:
Opinions among scientist vary you say. Darn! I wish I would have thought of that...but wait I did. I said "Opinions among science varies". Scientist make up science so I guess we agree there.

Point being Neanderthal and humans are considered different species yet they interbred. We can flip the die and call them cousins or what ever. At current they are labeled different species.
We used to think different species couldn't inter-breed, We used to think if different species did inter-breed they would be sterile. We now know what we used to think isn't right. So then we try to go to subspecies, cousin species, etc. That still doesn't explain hybrids.

Fact is we don't know as much as we think we do. I'm fine with that because it just shows we have much more to learn.

But you would just rather give it hand wave like it doesn't matter. And that's fine. Many ostriches stick their head in the sand trying to not look at reality.

Lets see it was Carl Linnaeus who came up with the binomial nomenclature based on morphology before DNA was discovered. He did not know about evolution, convergent evolution or chromosomes. Since then the term species became more and more difficult to define adequately. Since some organisms reproduce asexually and dna can be transferred non sexually we find the term must me much more flexible to include new research on genetics. In addition organisms can separate themselves in behavioral patterns even though they are genetically and morphologically so similar. As we learn about genetic drift and increasing variation the term has to work around these ideas. This does not detract from the concept of evolution but actually makes the theory of evolution more realistic to what is found.
One would think that and intelligent designer would make the boundaries more clear to avoid confusion whereas evolution by the way it works blurs boundaries and creates similar adaptations from very different approaches.

tas8831 · May 30, 2019

ecco said:
Apparently, you haven't been watching the news.
Every day someone claims that their survival during a tornado is a miracle.
Every day someone claims that their survival during a car crash is a miracle.

Three people shot. One survives - it's a miracle.
A missing child found alive - it's a miracle.
Plane crashes on landing 535 dead. Eight survive - it's a miracle.

Not quite in the same category as miracles:
I'd like to thank my producers and God and my fans for this Grammy. (Did God not like the other contenders? Did they not pray hard enough?)

Score a winning touchdown and raise a hand to thank Jesus. (Did God not like the other team? The other team's kicker did raise a hand to thank Jesus when he scored the go-ahead FG, was that not enough?)

I

Spot on.

Sickens me when Olympic athletes, having trained and put their lives on hold for years or even decades, all for that chance to win at the Olympics. And when they do, they..... thank Jesus. When I see that, I see a person that hates him or herself. That is really what goes through my head. They hate themselves so much that they can only have achieved what they did because Jesus did it for them.

tas8831 · May 30, 2019

We Never Know said:
We used to think different species couldn't inter-breed, We used to think if different species did inter-breed they would be sterile. We now know what we used to think isn't right. So then we try to go to subspecies, cousin species, etc. That still doesn't explain hybrids.

Fact is we don't know as much as we think we do. I'm fine with that because it just shows we have much more to learn.

But you would just rather give it hand wave like it doesn't matter. And that's fine. Many ostriches stick their head in the sand trying to not look at reality.

Wild Fox said:
Lets see it was Carl Linnaeus who came up with the binomial nomenclature based on morphology before DNA was discovered. He did not know about evolution, convergent evolution or chromosomes. Since then the term species became more and more difficult to define adequately. Since some organisms reproduce asexually and dna can be transferred non sexually we find the term must me much more flexible to include new research on genetics. In addition organisms can separate themselves in behavioral patterns even though they are genetically and morphologically so similar. As we learn about genetic drift and increasing variation the term has to work around these ideas. This does not detract from the concept of evolution but actually makes the theory of evolution more realistic to what is found.
One would think that and intelligent designer would make the boundaries more clear to avoid confusion whereas evolution by the way it works blurs boundaries and creates similar adaptations from very different approaches.

In fact, were creation/design true, there would be no fuzziness at all, since each 'kind' would be a clear-cut and discreet 'creation.'
Cute how creationists argue against themselves so often and do not even seem to recognize this.

Kangaroo Feathers · May 30, 2019

exchemist said:
OK let's take this slowly. I said the theory of evolution does not depend on any chemistry.

You replied suggesting that life had to start somehow. Which is obviously true, but so what?

All the theory of evolution requires is replication of inherited traits. It does not matter whether this is done by earth biochemistry or by some exotic and unknown chemistry on Jupiter's moon Titan, involving methane as a solvent and long chains of, ooh, I don't know, silicon atoms, say.

Any biochemical system that reproduces by passing on characteristics from one generation to the next can evolve by natural selection.

There is no practical reason evolution requires any chemistry at all. There is every reason to expect imperfectly replicating machines to evolve, the only chemistry there will be materials science, which presumably won't be a big part of it, at least initially.

Polymath257 · May 30, 2019

Kangaroo Feathers said:
There is no practical reason evolution requires any chemistry at all. There is every reason to expect imperfectly replicating machines to evolve, the only chemistry there will be materials science, which presumably won't be a big part of it, at least initially.

I'll double down on this one.

ANY system that has imperfect replication and selection pressure is expected to evolve. We even see this in computer simulations.

There are two aspects that can be issues: the rate of 'mutation' and the strength of the selection. if the mutation rate is too low and the selection pressure is too high, there won't be enough variation to adapt to the new conditions: the species will go extinct.

Conversely, if the mutation rate is high and the selection pressure is low, we just get a single population that is very diverse.

But, in the cases where the mutation rate and the selection pressure are at medium levels, we get a huge increase of diversity, with new 'species' naturally appearing, and even complex interactions like parasitism and 'cooperation'.

It is also possible to evolving populations to get caught in 'local optima'. If there is a 'selection well', it is possible to get trapped even if there is a more optimal configuration somewhere else.

exchemist · May 30, 2019

Polymath257 said:
I'll double down on this one.

ANY system that has imperfect replication and selection pressure is expected to evolve. We even see this in computer simulations.

There are two aspects that can be issues: the rate of 'mutation' and the strength of the selection. if the mutation rate is too low and the selection pressure is too high, there won't be enough variation to adapt to the new conditions: the species will go extinct.

Conversely, if the mutation rate is high and the selection pressure is low, we just get a single population that is very diverse.

But, in the cases where the mutation rate and the selection pressure are at medium levels, we get a huge increase of diversity, with new 'species' naturally appearing, and even complex interactions like parasitism and 'cooperation'.

It is also possible to evolving populations to get caught in 'local optima'. If there is a 'selection well', it is possible to get trapped even if there is a more optimal configuration somewhere else.

Yes this must obviously be true, if one thinks about it.

The tricky bit is how one gets a replicating system in the first place. So it's the abiogenesis bit, not the natural selection bit.

Shocking claim to Macro-evolution!

No Slack

Veteran Member

No Slack

Veteran Member

No Slack

Veteran Member

Woke gremlin

No Slack

No Slack

Woke gremlin

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...

Think & Care

Veteran Member