Micro- and Macroevolution

In light of recent and ongoing debate, am I interested to know what exactly the difference between microevolution and macroevolution is.  In other words, I am interested in knowing exacly what it is that IDers believe evolution cannot accomplish.

I am not interested in any list of examples of macroevolution.

I am also not interested in the definition, "macroevolution is change from one kind to another kind," unless you can also define exactly what a kind is, and more importantly, how to tell whether two individuals are members of the same kind.

Defintions that are loose, informal, or wishy-washy in any way will be rejected.  Definitions that pass the formality test will also be subject to tests for consistency and completeness.

So, what exatly is it that evolution cannot do?

give mammals two or more sexual organs (eg two penises, or a penis and a vagina, etc)

this is because of the fact that evolution acts in order to give an "advantage" to a species, or to improve upon it. For instance if something already exists, evolution will not make another, as it will just be a waste of energy (i'm not talking about genetic disorders, or mutations here).

also one cannot have a penis and vagina as this could lead to humans being asexual, and the whole reason that humans have one of each is so that we can spread our genes, and thereby give our offspring more possibilities of getting the "strong mating genes" from the stronger animals that are able to mate. if asexuality was allowed, a weaker society with possible mutations would evolve...not a good thing.

thereby one thing evolution cannot achieve is giving me an extra penis, or a vagina

Asexuality does convey certain benefits in certain environments, however. I will try to find the source, but I read sometime ago about a species of ants where the males and females had essentially become two separate species- the males mating with males, females mating with females.

Here you are wishing for an 2nd penis when you obiously have no vagina in which to place tne 1rst.

That aside ;it's a good example but I don't think IDers are willing to argue that lack of multi penile and hermaphroditic mammals arising as a morphologic norm strengthens their case.

i think what we want is an ID proof of  existent "Kinds" what couldn't come from others of a different "Kind". Like a cat is a cat is a cat, not a rat nor a bat.

I think that my ID view says: all fossils represent prediluvian fauna that were already extinct and/or died during the World Flood Event @ approx. 3,000 yrs ago . apparrently intermediate specimens in the fossil record are actually distinct and discreet species redistributed by hydrodynamics  and conveniently placed in the resultent sediment at the correct levels to actually prove rather than refute an Old Earth Global Evolutionary Model. This decidedly odd Glitch is easily explained by the fact that this was the work of "The Devil" to, of course, bedevil us w/ false/misleading data.
   
So; Even though it looks like millions of years between say, each of the examples in an apparrently steady chain of Cetacean fossils exhibiting a decrease in the hind limb structures until they are the vestigial structures of modern living specimens, it actually only happenned in a few thousand years like with domestic dogs and cats and only the current member species some how survived the flood (Divine Providence?)

Ironically, even the Intelligent Design position is an example of micro evolution from that of its predecessor Creation Science in the continuing competition w/ Evolution in the environmental niche of Public School Curricula.  

"Get yer stinkin' paws off me, you damned, dirty ape!" Charles Darwin to  Charlton Heston in a surrealist version La planète des singes.

"Get yer stinkin' paws off me, you damned, dirty ape!"

lol, best line ever haha. wat i luv in that particular movie is that allllll the apes, including orangatangs, gorillas, chimps, etc have evolved, tis great  

as for my comment about asexuality, i do not disagree that asexual animals exist, nor the fact that they profit from such an attribute. all that i am saying is that mammals will never do so

this is because of the fact that evolution acts in order to give an "advantage" to a species, or to improve upon it. For instance if something already exists, evolution will not make another, as it will just be a waste of energy (i'm not talking about genetic disorders, or mutations here).

Evolution is not a person - it does not want to do anything.  Evolution works the same way water runs down hills instead of up them.  It's not because the water wants to get the bottom, it's just the easiest thing for it to do.  Personifying evolution is why people have trouble understanding it.

I am also not interested in the definition, "macroevolution is change from one kind to another kind," unless you can also define exactly what a kind is, and more importantly, how to tell whether two individuals are members of the same kind.

Defintions that are loose, informal, or wishy-washy in any way will be rejected. Definitions that pass the formality test will also be subject to tests for consistency and completeness.

So, what exatly is it that evolution cannot do?

i was not trying to define it, only explain my point...id i had tried to define it, i would get completely screwed over

On the penises and vaginas thing:

Most important reason that answer is no good is that it is too specific.  I asked for exactly what evolution cannot do, not one particular example.

i think what we want is an ID proof of  existent "Kinds" what couldn't come from others of a different "Kind". Like a cat is a cat is a cat, not a rat nor a bat.

I'm not willing to allow any discussion of "kinds" until "kind" is more rigorously defined.  Chihuahuas are really different from saint bernards... are they the same kind?  Modern taxonomy holds them as being the same species, since they can breed viable offspring.  What about domestic cats and siberian tigers?  A cat is a cat is a lion?

This thread will be a  venue for discussion for what kinds are, but not for any other discussion about kinds until a robust definition is put forth and agreed upon.

I think that my ID view says:

Not relevant to current discussion I'm afraid.
 

Ironically, even the Intelligent Design position is an example of micro evolution from that of its predecessor Creation Science

Interesting... my feeling is that Intelligent Design is a weak attempt by Creationists to pretend that it is not being stated that the Designer is God.

Damn...I'm not even going NEAR ID...

In using the term "kind ", the challenge seems to be that of adopting an observational model based in early Bronze Age cultural data whence it is derived.
   
So if one lives in that cosmology, what does "Kind" mean?

Hmm... domestication of both plants and animals is an established practicallity in daily life; pastoralists, horticulturists to full blown agriculturalist States w/ standing armies exist within frequent travel distances.  Even if one hasn't been to a city the tales of merchants always filters to the hinterlands.
 
OK, fairly large database we have as bronze age thinkers. I would venture that "Kind" means any plant / animal that can be cross bred w/in a range of visually similar plant/ animal and produce viable offspring (no mules). Roughly corresponds to "species"?

Thus; "Chihuahuas are really different from saint bernards," but one could theoretically attain viable offspring(Goofy looking bastards) from a pairing, so, they are of a "kind".

What does MacroEvo not account for? I'm workin' on that.

The one big prob I see in ID is accounting for "intermediate" species/ kinds in the fossil record w/ out resorting to improbable "fakery"  or "they all died in the flood" theories.
   I'll come up w/ somethin' by the end o' the day.

I do concede that MicroEvo accounts for the development from Creation Science to Intel Design in a relatively short time.

I am also not interested in the definition, "macroevolution is change from one kind to another kind," unless you can also define exactly what a kind is, and more importantly, how to tell whether two individuals are members of the same kind.

if two populations of the same species are prevented from reproducing with eachother (no gene flow) they diverge.  microevol. takes them both in different directions

when they become so different that they can no longer potentially reproduce with eachother successfully, they are generally considered different species, and macroevolution

other methods of determining species include DNA analysis (especialy by looking at similarity of proteins) and of course comparative morphology

if two populations of the same species are prevented from reproducing with eachother (no gene flow) they diverge. microevol. takes them both in different directions

when they become so different that they can no longer potentially reproduce with eachother successfully, they are generally considered different species, and macroevolution

other methods of determining species include DNA analysis (especialy by looking at similarity of proteins) and of course comparative morphology

sounds good to me, i still stand firm by my penis! and i don't want us to start arguing about such a slippery topic such as vaginas, i was merely inserting my train of thought into this topic, to find if...yer ill stop now  :lol:

when they become so different that they can no longer potentially reproduce with eachother successfully, they are generally considered different species, and macroevolution

Technically that is called "speciation".  What I'm really interested in finding out is not what evolutionary biologists think are the possible forms of evolution, but what IDers think are the impossible forms of evolution.

IDers say that macroevolution doesn't happen.... so what exactly do they mean (i.e. what exactly doesn't happen) by that?

I hate to derail...but...

What do you mean by IDers?  Intelligent Design?

Quote from: "qwe"

when they become so different that they can no longer potentially reproduce with eachother successfully, they are generally considered different species, and macroevolution

Technically that is called "speciation".  What I'm really interested in finding out is not what evolutionary biologists think are the possible forms of evolution, but what IDers think are the impossible forms of evolution.

IDers say that macroevolution doesn't happen.... so what exactly do they mean (i.e. what exactly doesn't happen) by that?

IDers simply believe that speciation/macroevolution doesnt occur (source: wikipedia)

which is really silly when you look at the fossil record, but then again, what isnt silly about it?

evolutionary biologists (source: uni notes) claim that speciation comes from one primary mechanism: reproductive isolation (a population splits, gene flow decreases, then something happens to isolate them genetically)

for example one section tends to reproduce at night while the other tends to reproduce int he morning, now their gene flow is cut off and they can diverge genetically over time as mutations and selection piles up.  eventually you have two species where before you had one

im not sure if i answered your question?  i dont know what you mean by what do evolutionists consider 'possible' macroevolution?  any change that increases an organism's adaptive potential can occur

I hate to derail...but...

What do you mean by IDers?  Intelligent Design?

yup

Quote from: "Erasmus"

Quote from: "qwe"

when they become so different that they can no longer potentially reproduce with eachother successfully, they are generally considered different species, and macroevolution

Technically that is called "speciation".  What I'm really interested in finding out is not what evolutionary biologists think are the possible forms of evolution, but what IDers think are the impossible forms of evolution.

IDers say that macroevolution doesn't happen.... so what exactly do they mean (i.e. what exactly doesn't happen) by that?

they believe that speciation doesnt occur

which is really silly when you look at the fossil record, but then again, there arent many things in ID that arent silly

I lot of people in this forum could say the same thing about FE.  

IDers simply believe that speciation/macroevolution doesnt occur (source: wikipedia)

There's nothing simple about that belief.  If they're using the modern biological definition of species, then they're wrong because speciation in the modern sense is readily observed in nature and in the lab.

They don't actually say anything explicit about speciation, I think; instead they talk about "kinds" and "macroevolution", defining one in terms of the other but always leaving at least one not well-defined.

im not sure if i answered your question?  i dont know what you mean by what do evolutionists consider 'possible' macroevolution?  any change that increases an organism's adaptive potential can occur

I don't ask "what do evolutionists etc.?", I ask: "What do IDers etc.?"  I consider myself, while by no means an expert, reasonably familiar with the grander aspects of the modern theory of evolution.  I want to know what its opponents are saying, in greater detail than "It doesn't happen."

I recommend browsing through the many threads in this forum with evolution/creationism-related titles, as well as, and especially, "What Is Science?" in order to get a feel for exactly what it is that is never really well-stated by creationists.  Every time I ask I get answers like, "Well, a fish can't evolve into a human" or "a hoof can't evolve into a foot" or "a giraffe's neck can't evolve at all", but those are all specific examples.  I want a description of all the things that creationists believe can't be accomplished through naturalistic evolution.

An example good answer is "Speciation through reproductive isolation cannot happen," though this is obviously wrong.  Another answer I'd accept is, "Qualitatively distinct morphological features cannot evolve," where qualitative is to be considered opposite to "quantitive", which includes things like size, number of limbs, number of ribs, length of appendages, length of GI tract, volume of blood, percentage of body covered by hair/scales/feathers, etc.  Qualitatively means things like "Has an exoskeleton", "is a vertebrate", "has a placenta", etc.

^oh i see.  keep in mind who you're talking to, though:)

^oh i see.  keep in mind who you're talking to, though:)

Well if they can't answer or won't answer, I get to pat myself on the back for a job well done.  I think I've been clear enough in this post, though, that they won't get away with a continuation of their half-assedry.

"Well, a fish can't evolve into a human" or "a hoof can't evolve into a foot" or "a giraffe's neck can't evolve at all".

True!

As a devout IDer I have obviously not evolved enough intellectually to adequately grasp the nature or scope of Evolutionary process; so, any complex explanation w/ millions of years of natural selection bla bla woof woof is going to make my eyes glaze over.

My only prob in ID is how to explain the fact that you Gawdless, Evolutionism preaching, mongrel sons of sons of monkey fuckers in the dim,misty past are usually smarter and more clever than us created humans.

Oh well, give me a few more decades and I'll come up w/ something.

I am also not interested in the definition, "macroevolution is change from one kind to another kind," unless you can also define exactly what a kind is, and more importantly, how to tell whether two individuals are members of the same kind.
So, what exatly is it that evolution cannot do?

Think of it like a genetic spectrum.  A multi-dimensional one.  If two organisms are close enough together, they're in the same species, and can procreate.  Then there's others that are far off.  In any spectrum, there's always intermediate points, but they don't usually coexist, because of natural selection and genetic separation and divergence.  

If they did, then our definitions of species would be completely meaningless. (all biological classifications are artificial anyway).  An analogy is that we can only define notes because we exclude intermediate frequencies.  Imagine if notes were placed so close together that scientists got into arguments about whether two frequencies are close enough to be the same note or not.  The definition can't exist unless you have an abscence of intermediaries.

That's the real flaw with the argument.  Macro is micro over longer times.  There's no way to logically separate the two.  IDers have to invent fictitious biological barriers in order to limit the scope of evolution.

I think "kind" equates to locally observable compatability by a semi-nomadic pastoralist society in the early bronze age.

Kind, also, pertains to only those within a probable set of known "kinds" that could possibly be accommodated within a proposed "ark".

As an IDer I admit to difficulties in refuting the fossil record as presented in the Evo Heresy.

I probably believe that the earth is only 10,000 yrs old at most and the fossil "evidence" is the result of both hydronamics and gelogical factors during a controlled extinction event orchestrated by an allegedly irate monad. This Event occurred approx. 6,000 yrs ago.

I think "kind" equates to locally observable compatability by a semi-nomadic pastoralist society in the early bronze age.

So basically, the ID notions of biology are derived from back when people not-controversially just didn't know any better...

Kind, also, pertains to only those within a probable set of known "kinds" that could possibly be accommodated within a proposed "ark".

I believe that set is enumerated in scripture.

I probably believe that the earth is only 10,000 yrs old at most and the fossil "evidence" is the result of both hydronamics and gelogical factors during a controlled extinction event orchestrated by an allegedly irate monad. This Event occurred approx. 6,000 yrs ago.

How do you feel about dendrochronology?  (If you actually answer you'd be the first IDer that I've gotten a response from on this issue.)

Ah, those pesky tree rings. They make very nice clocks and tabletops.

I "feel" good about old wood.

Unfortunately, dendrochronology is a pointed stick in the eye to the intellectual argument for a young Earth.

So, while I might entertain notions of space-faring trees colonizing the virgin planet; as an IDer I am forced to accede to a possible older model.

Can we use DC to date the ark when it's eventually found?

Please don't start on Ice Cores; there is too much complex data involved  for my feeble non-evolved ID brain to comprehend in any rational way.

I, therefore, mount these 2 pre-emptive arguments:
    1; Satan, as the fuckin' Devil, through mysterious means, somehow faked the material evidence at the "core" of the issue .
    2; Lalalalalala.... I'm not listeneng to such heresy you infidel, you.

As Lokis go, Mythix, you're one of the funnier ones  :lol:

Can we use DC to date the ark when it's eventually found?

In theory, the felling of lumber for the construction of a wooden vessel can be dated using dendrochronology.  All we need to do is find trees whose age we know and whose ring-width pattern matches that of the timbers on the vessel.

Please don't start on Ice Cores; there is too much complex data involved  for my feeble non-evolved ID brain to comprehend in any rational way.

Well, the issue is that anchored chronologies are only a little more than 10,000 years old... old enough to show that YECism is wrong, but not nearly as convincing as ice core chronology which dates back at least 720,000 years.

1; Satan, as the fuckin' Devil, through mysterious means, somehow faked the material evidence at the "core" of the issue .
2; Lalalalalala.... I'm not listeneng to such heresy you infidel, you.

This harkens back to an age when women were burned at the stake for reading entrails, tea leaves, bones, Tarot cards, and tree rings...

I just want to point this out, take it or leave it.  I can prove that humans didn't evolve from sea creatures.  I think we can all agree that evoultion of that type would take millions and millions of years.  The problem is, the earth is only 6,000 years old.  So that evolution couldn't have occurred.  And the Word of God proves it.

So that evolution couldn't have occurred.

Right, I had forgotten what the topic of this thread was.  Thanks, Knight :)

Erasmus, not to draw away from the topic of your debate too much (again), but I was wondering what text there is on the subject of evolution that you would suggest to somebody who doesn't know much about it at all (a student that went to a Kansas high school).  I'm looking for a book that I can read that gives a good explanation of evolution in an easy to understand format.