Grumpy wrote: And only creationists separate evolution into micro and macro. There is no difference, there is only evolution.
The terms were coined by Yuri Filipchenko. And I have not seen any evidence that he was a creationist.
Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution” in 1927 in his German language work, “Variabilität und Variation”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
They, on their own, show common descent of all apes alive today to such certainty that it is perverse to deny it.
I would ask that you avoid the hyperbole and judgments. If I stated that it would be perverse to believe in evolution, I would surely be taken to task.
If we are to only go by what has been observed, then we can also rule out macroevolution. Macroevolution would only be an extrapolation of microevolution, not something that we can observe.This statement is a falsehood, speciation has been directly observed in not only the lab but in nature…
See post above.
Once intelligence takes over from nature then harmful mutations may not be so effective in killing. Our compassion leads us to work to keep those with such defects alive long after they would have perished in nature. Diabetes(type 1)is a good example. By keeping diabetics alive through childhood and allowing them the ability to reproduce we perpetuate the genes that cause the disease.
Well, I’m supportive of being compassionate towards those with diseases. But, my point still stands that I have not seen evidence that natural selection will select out human genetic inheritable diseases.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=321025#p321025
GrumpyMrGruff wrote:
otseng wrote: Yes, I would agree that we have observed speciation. But, it would be quite an extrapolation to show that this demonstrates evolution of (non-human) primates into humans. So, rather than placing the burden on me to disprove this, the burden is on those who claimed that this indeed has happened.If I read you correctly, you are the one claiming that there is some sort of qualitative difference between “macroevolution” and “microevolution”. I see only a quantitative difference – the amount of genetic change that has accumulated. There is no known biological mechanism which stops accumulation of genetic changes at some arbitrarily defined threshold (the species or genus or kind). We know that small changes can accumulate over a short time. We know that speciation can impose reproductive boundaries between two populations formerly of the same parent species. It follows that many small changes would then accumulate independently in each species over longer periods of time, leading to the pattern of genetic similarity we see today.
Which confirms my point. Macroevolution would be an extrapolation of microevolution. It is an inherently unobservable since it requires a long period of time.
As for “no known biological mechanism which stops accumulation of genetic changes”, this can be demonstrated in the breeding of animals. Though we can produce a variety of animal breeds, there is no example that I’ve seen where any major novel morphological features have been produced. Hair length and color can change. Length of necks, legs, beaks, ears, etc can change. Features from different animals can be combined, but no new major features arises. So, there appears to be a limit to microevolutionary changes when we breed animals. And if there is a limit to artificial selection, why should we expect natural selection to be limitless?
With regard to the above – I meant what mechanisms prevent the accumulation of many small “microevolutionary” changes to from “macroevolutionary” change. Would you please briefly define these so we’re on the same page?
otseng wrote:What I mean by macroevolution is major novel morphological features between different species. “An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.”
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v … 017#321017
On the contrary, I explained what distributions of ERVs (and genes in general) would be definitively at odds with common ancestry: While phylogeny is noisy, the sequences of many independent ERVs (and genes) independently point toward a single inferred ancestral tree. If surveyed genes or ERVs predicted a single tree no better than random data, this would be be in direct contradiction of the theory.
Are you saying that organisms that have similar morphological features and would also have totally different genome sequences would falsify your theory?
You suggested that analogous gene similarity might arise due to similarity of designed function.
I don’t necessarily claim that, but I don’t rule it out either.
If I follow this line of reasoning, should I consider the following a prediction of the creation model? Organisms with similar functions (e.g., bats and avians, whales and fish) should have very similar genes related to their shared function.
I do not make a claim about this either.
You have been invoking a designer, but you have not specified any of the tools used by the designer (or the genetic artifacts left by those tools which we might observe today).
It’s not necessary to specify the tools used by a designer to infer a designer. I do not need to know the tools used by the sculptures of Mount Rushmore to infer that it was a product of intelligence rather than natural forces.
But this is impossible because we can’t genetically sample extinct intermediate forms.
This is not entirely true, but I would agree that it is generally true. However, it is entirely possible that in the future we would have the genome mapped for all extant species. And then determine all the genetic changes necessary to go from one species to another.
Due to the same inability to genetically sample these fossil species, we will probably never have a definitive phylogeny for them.
I would agree with this.
Aha! You might exclaim. Pakicetus is not an ancestor of modern whales but it merely some relative. There is no set of transitional fossils for whales! This phylogenetic tree is drawn conservatively (without any direct ancestor-descendant relationships) to reflect our ignorance.
The graph is interesting and I could make some comments about it. But, let’s restrict the discussion to human ancestry from the primates. What chart can you produce on the evolution of humans?
One last note on this subject: You suggest that these data would falsify your creation model, but it seems to me you are simply setting an impossibly high bar for the data. We can’t give you the former without DNA that has long since degraded. We can’t give you the latter to the certainty you desire because fossil evidence – while useful – cannot give the precision that genetic evidence does for extant species.
It might be high, but I don’t think impossible.
Can you give falsification criteria for your model which do not invoke evolution? After all, maybe neither is correct.
I do not know of a third model. And no literature I’ve come across mentions any other explanation other than evolution or special creation.
Also bear in mind that evolution doesn’t necessarily select for long life. Many diseases with genetic components (like some types of cancer) have late onset – typically near the end of human’s reproductive window. These genes-of-interest are “immune” to natural selection because they don’t penalize reproduction. They may cause death, but only after copies have already been passed to children. (And those copies won’t affect the children until they’ve been passed to grandchildren…)
As you stated – “Mutations which reactivate pathogenesis are selected against (due to cancer, MS, etc.), but mutations which benefit the host will be selected for.”
What evidence can be shown that harmful mutations are selected out in humans?
Finally, would you please clarify what you mean about neutral mutation? While natural selection doesn’t act on neutral mutations, I’m not sure what you mean by its “failing to account” for them. What do you mean when you say, “there would be no mechanism to select them out“? Why do they need to be “selected out”? They are not errors against some Platonic template which must be corrected. They are simply new points in the fuzzy cloud of genomes we label ‘human.’
I probably can’t go much farther on this argument without knowing the percentage values of harmful, neutral, and beneficial sequences resulting from a mutated virus. So, I’ll drop this argument until we know more about these percentages.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=321249#p321249
Grumpy wrote: “With genetic manipulation and intensive production technologies, it is common for modern dairy cows to produce 100 pounds of milk a day— 10 times more than they would produce in nature.”
http://139.78.104.1/breeds/cattle/
Sounds to me like you are wrong, man has indeed made large morphological changes in cattle(and other animals)in the last 10,000 years.
You left out the word “novel”. Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.
So, there appears to be a limit to microevolutionary changes when we breed animals. And if there is a limit to artificial selection, why should we expect natural selection to be limitless?There is no limit, given time. Man has been at this evolution business for about 10-15 thousand years and we have already created new species. Imagine having a few hundred MILLION years to act on creatures more complicated than a single cell. You really don’t have to imagine anything, we have lots of fossils of the myriad of different lifeforms nature created, including men.
If you bring up the fossil record to prove macroevolution, then that would be circular logic, since macroevolution is used to explain the fossil record.
Man is clearly the only creature to control fire. It is one of the first things men were able to do that marked us as different in a qualitative way than all the other creatures.
Yes, I would agree with that.
So every creature(whatever you call it)for the last million years or so that controlled fire were men of one species or another.
Please show evidence of fire being in use in the last million years.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=323087#p323087
GrumpyMrGruff wrote:
otseng wrote: [That macroevolution is currently considered to be accumulated microevolution[1]] confirms my point. Macroevolution would be an extrapolation of microevolution. It is an inherently unobservable since it requires a long period of time.By analogy in physics: In a few billion years, the Andromeda galaxy is slated to collide (or have a near miss) with the Milky Way. We cannot observe an event that takes billions of years. However, nobody is voicing skepticism about the collision because we cannot observe it from beginning to end (we may indeed be extinct). Extrapolation? Sure. What’s wrong with that?
There’s nothing wrong with extrapolation by itself. To reiterate my point, all I’m saying is that macroevolution is unobservable. I brought this up originally to counter the charge that a designer should be dismissed because it cannot be observed and revealing the inconsistency in the use of observability.
As for “no known biological mechanism which stops accumulation of genetic changes”, this can be demonstrated in the breeding of animals. Though we can produce a variety of animal breeds, there is no example that I’ve seen where any major novel morphological features have been produced. Hair length and color can change. Length of necks, legs, beaks, ears, etc can change. Features from different animals can be combined, but no new major features arises. So, there appears to be a limit to microevolutionary changes when we breed animals. And if there is a limit to artificial selection, why should we expect natural selection to be limitless?You haven’t demonstrated that there is a limiting mechanism at work within artificial selection.
What I have shown is that from human experience in the domestication of animals, there is not much significant change in morphological features in animals to account for common descent.
You’ve pointed out that some thousands of years are insufficient to produce phenotypic change which will satisfy your version of macroevolution (which can conveniently be set higher than anything we have artificially selected thus far).
It might be my version, but I do not think it is an incompatible view of evolution. If common descent is true, my definition of macroevolution would certainly apply.
What I mean by macroevolution is major novel morphological features between different species. “An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.”
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v … 017#321017“Novel morphological features” is too vague, as is the subjective qualifier “major”.
Yes, I would agree that there is a subjective element to it. But even the term “species” is a bit subjective.
“It is surprisingly difficult to define the word “species” in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define “species” and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
And since micro and macro is often differentiated at the species level by evolutionists, then the terms microevolution and macroevolution are also likewise subjective.
(Rapid evolution of cecal valves in Pod Kopiste wall lizards? Not ‘major’ enough for you, I suspect.)
Yes, I’m heard of this before. And no, I would not consider it to be neither major nor novel.
What I am looking for is an objective evaluation I can perform on traits to determine if they are micro- or macro-evolutionary. I am not looking for a list of comparisons: ‘The appearance of trait X is macro; the appearance of Y is micro; the appearance of Z is macro…’ I don’t think this objective criterion can be provided.
I’m not so sure there can be an objective evaluation either. But, this would be a problem across the board.
GrumpyMrGruff wrote:You suggested that analogous gene similarity might arise due to similarity of designed function.I don’t necessarily claim that, but I don’t rule it out either.
In a previous post, you say:
As for genetic similarities, if species share morphological similarities, it would make sense that they also share genetic similarities.
I think the difference here is “similarity of function” and “morphological similarities”. Two different morphological features could be used for a similar function. A hoof and a webbed foot can be used for walking, but are not similar morphologically.
I can see no a priori reason to expect this pattern if the organisms were designed. Can you provide one? ‘The designer could’ve done it that way’ doesn’t cut it. The designer could’ve done anything – you refuse to discuss the scope and limitations of its methods. What reasons do we have to think it should’ve done it that way?
I try not to use that as an explanation and I don’t believe I’ve ever stated that here in this thread.
If possible, please define patterns (or lack thereof) of genetic similarity among extant organisms which cannot be accounted for by a designer. If this cannot be done (because a designer can be invoked to explain any pattern), will you concede that design is unfalsifiable by molecular genetic evidence (unlike evolution)?
The only way I can currently think of to falsify what I claim using molecular genetic evidence is what I stated earlier – “Genetic changes from one species to another and leading to humans are identified.” For the purposes of this discussion, just the genetic steps from the common primate ancestor to humans would suffice to falsify the Human Creation Model. I would agree that modern genetics is not able to do this now. But, if it’s ever done in the future, the model I proposed would be falsified.
It’s not necessary to specify the tools used by a designer to infer a designer. I do not need to know the tools used by the sculptors of Mount Rushmore to infer that it was a product of intelligence rather than natural forces.I disagree strongly for the reasons I outlined in this previous post. At the very least, you need to know that Mt. Rushmore is predated by intentional tool-users (potential designers).
I was specifically addressing your point “You have been invoking a designer, but you have not specified any of the tools used by the designer (or the genetic artifacts left by those tools which we might observe today).” My point is not about the ability to detect design, but that knowledge of the tools used is not necessary.
Regarding the demand for a sequential list of genetic changes between species…
GrumpyMrGruff wrote:But this is impossible because we can’t genetically sample extinct intermediate forms.This is not entirely true, but I would agree that it is generally true. However, it is entirely possible that in the future we would have the genome mapped for all extant species. And then determine all the genetic changes necessary to go from one species to another.
I have to disagree again. First of all, it is not clear how having all extant genomes will allow us to infer the step-wise mutations between them. There are infinitely many trajectories of incremental genome change that can get you from one extant genome to another. Additionally, many of these paths through ‘sequence space’ are blocked because of they decrease fitness – natural selection would prevent these paths from being traversed. We cannot tell which is which for the same reason we cannot predict a priori whether a mutation will be beneficial/harmful/neutral: We cannot infer phenotype from genotype, and we cannot predict whether a phenotype will have a reproductive advantage without knowing it’s environment. We can’t recreate extinct ecosystems to test the fitness of these infinite intermediate forms.
If this is even impossible in principle, then there’d be no way to unequivocally prove common descent through genetic evidence.
Second, where along these paths is the common ancestor? Knowing extant genomes cannot tell you what the ancestral genome looked like.
If this is true (and if it’s impossible to know the genome of extinct organisms), then it’d be impossible to construct a tree of life diagram based on genetics.
Third, we have a complete chimp and human genome. We can compare all the differences. You claim that having all sequences (and their comparative differences) will allow us to trace lineages among all species.
No, I’m not claiming that anyone currently can do this.
Basically, the first piece of evidence you ask for is impossible to obtain. Even the genome sequences for every living organism on earth constitutes a necessarily insufficient data set to do what you suggest.
What I’ve offered is the definitive proof and falsification of the theories. Can you offer then any other suggestions that would be the definitive proof and falsification of the theories?
GrumpyMrGruff wrote:Due to the same inability to genetically sample these fossil species, we will probably never have a definitive phylogeny for them.I would agree with this.
Then why did you ask for it?
To be clear, I’ve never asked to be able to “genetically sample” these fossil species. I was thinking of being able to reconstruct the extinct genomes from known genomes. But, if you say that this would be impossible even in principle in the future, then I’ll defer to you to provide methods to prove common descent.
As I tried to say with the whale fossil analogy, fossil constitute insufficient evidence to form a unique phylogeny. They can show that intermediate forms have existed over time, but we cannot tell if they are direct ancestors or close relatives of direct ancestors.
I can agree with this.
Here are a few competing phylogenies all consistent with known fossils as of 1999:
Figure 2: Hominid phylogenies and associated biogeography (from Strait & Wood [2])
One might see this as evidence of human evolution. I see it as evidence of the intractability of being able to coming to a consensus of arranging hominid evolution to man.
You should not need to invoke another model to provide falsification criteria for your own model.
I think this would apply if there was a third explanation on the table. If there are only two, then it is fair to to compare and contrast the two.
Your previously stated predictions were vague. Saying that mankind originated in the Mideast isn’t a prediction; it’s a statement about the past.
It’s a prediction because it logically follows from the premises of the model.
Likewise, you say mankind can be “traced” to a single couple. What methodologies (applied to what currently available data) are used to perform this trace? What patterns in this data would contradict it?
mtEve and yAdam is only a recent discovery of tracing the origins of humans to a single female and a single male. Prior to these discoveries, this was rarely contemplated except for those that accept an account similar to the Bible.
You have been vague about your use of the phrase “selected out”. Natural selection keeps harmful allele frequencies low. When they’re low, they are more likely to be wiped out by random genetic drift.
I believe I’m using the term in the typical sense. That is, they became extinct.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=323116#p323116
Goat wrote:
otseng wrote: You left out the word “novel”. Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.Can you give me the working definition you have of ‘macroevolution’. It seems anytime someone brings out evidence, you proclaim it ‘microevolution’. Just so there isn’t a moving of definitions, can you give me a clear and concise definition on how you are using ‘macroevolution’.
I gave my definition in post 180:
What I mean by macroevolution is major novel morphological features between different species. “An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.”
Grumpy wrote:otseng
You left out the word “novel”. Producing more of the same thing would just be microevolution.Then an elephant with a long nose is no different from you with your nose. Sorry, does not compute.
The nose of an elephant to a human nose is not analogous to your example of some milk to more milk.
It does not take “novel” features to produce enough change to call it “macro”, there is no macro or micro evolution, there is just change over time driven by survival of modified genes.
Why is novel important? Because if everything evolved from a single cell, then it would require for novel features to be generated along the way.
And what exactly do you mean by “there is no macro or micro evolution”?
The fossil record gives us copious and undeniable evidence that evolution has occurred, that is simply a fact.
No, it does not give us “copious and undeniable evidence that evolution has occurred”. But, this thread is already branching out in too many directions. So, I will skip addressing this for now.
nygreenguy wrote:
otseng wrote: What I have shown is that from human experience in the domestication of animals, there is not much significant change in morphological features in animals to account for common descent.As with everything, this is a gradient. I would like to ask you, what is novel? Is the human hand vs. the bats wing novel?
Yes, there is a gradient. And this makes many things difficult to classify because there is no clear delineation for many things. As for novel, it would be something that is new that has never existed before.
Grumpy wrote:otseng
To reiterate my point, all I’m saying is that macroevolution is unobservable.And repeating a statement in error improves it’s validity how, exactly?
No, I’m not saying that my claims needs to improve in its validity.
What I’m reiterating is the main reason I brought up macroevolution is its unobservability. My intention is not to disprove macroevolution. But since everyone since has jumped on trying to “prove” macroevolution, I’m simply restressing the point that I was making.
Thinking about it more, I don’t think trying to support or discredit macroevolution has much bearing on this thread. What we are discussing is human evolution and either proving or disproving macroevolution wouldn’t affect the discussions much.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=326206#p326206