DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

I know a lot less about the specifics of evolution than many people here. In spite of that, I think I have an argument that I have not seen used on this forum by evolutionists, when they are arguing with creationists about "macrovevolution". Evidently there is a lot stronger evidence for "microevolution" within a species than the macroevolution needed to change one species to another.

Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point. But it seems to me that once DNA was discovered, well after Darwin, logic is all one needs to deduce that evolution between species is far more likely than a designer who bypasses evolution.

Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species? Even if we never found a fossil example. Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence. Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect - examples of "macroevolution" are far from rare - the earth today as well as the fossil and molecular history are full of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Irreducible complexity (i.e. the eye)
2. Lack of a sufficient rate of mutation
3. The generally harmful effect of multiple mutations

edit: I guess the point is that creationists do see mutations as possible, including huge ones. Their beef is that the structures of life aren't possible given the 3 points above (they are wrong, of course).

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

Probability is what is to stop an animal from ever being born with enough mutations to be considered a different species. Actually, only probability+our definition of species. I think it is fairly safe to assume that never in the history of life have two organisms of a single species both randomly mutated in such a way as to be considered entirely different species, at the same approximate time, and mutated in such a similar way that they were capable of mating, and they found each other, and they mated, and their offspring survived.

This is a little different for organisms that reproduce asexually, I suppose.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect - examples of "macroevolution" are far from rare - the earth today as well as the fossil and molecular history are teeming with them.

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Irreducible complexity (i.e. the eye)
2. Lack of a sufficient rate of mutation
3. The generally harmful effect of multiple mutations

[/ QUOTE ]

The eye isn't irreducibly complex, but I think your point is that it is prohibitively unlikely to mutate de novo.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

But that just makes the probability of fortuitous mutations small. Still more likely than a designer.

As for your first comment, if true, why is this objection still brought up so much?

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
But that just makes the probability of fortuitous mutations small. Still more likely than a designer.

As for your first comment, if true, why is this objection still brought up so much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots of people are really, really dishonest?

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

I'd say because it's repeated so often, and on the surface seems reasonable. No one ever saw a lion turn into a zebra, or a monkey into a person. It's a similar thing with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which many fundies claim disproves evolution. This is of course nonsense.

If you want a simple debunking, the detailed fossil record of the horse, or the reptile-mammal transition fossils are amazingly complete evidences for "macroevolution".

A more recent example of huge changes in phenotype is the breeding of wild cabbage into cauliflower, broccoli, etc.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

Differentiating between 'new species' and 'mutation' definitely results in a gray area. I personally don't see the necessity for single generational 'leap' mutations in the framework of evolution. A lot of people have difficulty visualizing and conceptually understanding the magnitudes of time involved in evolution. Isolated ecosystems and gradual mutation together can explain current biodiversity. Proving there were no intermediary stages in evolutionary bounds and leaps is difficult to say the least and I would bet almost all of them can be quickly traced back to this practice that a lot of IDer's like to ignore.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been waiting 2 years for you to tell me how you apply probability to the existence of God. You constantly talk about it but never give a formula, or even an overall concept.

Even if the fossil record was perfect in a Darwinian sense how would you apply math to God's existence?

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

I think David knows math cannot be applied to determining God's existence. I'll elaborate


<rational thought>
(Math Lives here)
Burden of Proof on the believer
counterexample yields disproof.
</rational thought>

<theistic thought>
Burden of Disproof on disbeliever
example yields proof
</theistic thought>


Incompatible schools of thought - can't be integrated.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think David knows math cannot be applied to determining God's existence


[/ QUOTE ]

Coulda fooled me.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

This is a little different for organisms that reproduce asexually, I suppose.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Lemark had studied certain plants (like flax for instance) he would have been hailed as a genius, instead of a punchline.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

What math? What mathematical model of probabilty? You started a thread recently about "Belief" and how you thought a Belief was just an estimate of a probability. You were presented with a great deal of discussion about why that is a naive concept. I don't think you ever responded to that discussion. You have evidently just ignored it and continue on with your naive concept of belief hoping that your use of psuedo math terms like "probabilty" and "Bayes" will automatically legitimize it for your readers and convince them you are saying something meaningful.

I don't believe that "God" magically steps in and bypasses nature to perform magical supernatural feats. I believe that science is best equiped to explain how nature works. But these beliefs are not based on a psuedo application of math terms like "probabilty" and "Bayes" to God. They are based on my understanding of what the word "God" might reasonably mean in relation to my subjective experience of the spiritual.

Given these beliefs I have no problem looking at the scientific theory of evolution and discussing it on its own merits. No need to bring "God" into the picture at all. How well does the scientific theory of evolution actually explain the evidence? As phil pointed out, there is substantial fossil evidence pointing to the reality of macroevolution. The question is whether mutation is a powerful enough force for altering dna to explain it - along with natural selection. I have my doubts about this.

Yes, the time scales are large. But are they large enough? Just pointing out that given enough time random changes can do almost anything does not show that the time actually alloted was indeed enough time. Given enough time a monkey could randomly type all the works of Shakespeare. That doesn't mean 6 billion years is enough time for him to do it. Things like (.5)^100 get too small too fast.

The theory of evolution is still in its infancy in my opinion. We have been suprised recently by discoveries about the merging of bacteria into other organisms and possibly even into cells of larger creatures, thus altering the dna in a way other than Mutation. The links by phil and m_the0ry about cross breeding of both plant and animal species show another possibility for species level change in dna structure. We also have recent discoveries for changes of gene regulation without dna alteration called Epigenetics. Who knows where these advances in the theory will lead and who knows what new discoveries wait around the corner? There may even be something to the idea of a general Gaia type Planet Wide evolutionary paradigm.

Why bring "God" into any of this. It's science. I don't know why some people insist on a "God" that tinkers with nature but if that's what they want to believe I guess that's going to be their Religious belief. They are not going to be swayed by psuedo application of math terms like "probabilty" and "Bayes" nor should they. In fact, you are doing exactly the same kind of thing that we resist when Religious people try to pawn off their Religious terms as science. You are trying to pawn off mathematical terms as Religious.

PairTheBoard

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why bring "God" into any of this. It's science.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I'm a lurker and I've recently started posting so I haven't quite figured out your faith and what it is but clearly you're one of the more illuminated theists who value science and don't clinge into biblical mythologies as true. You also talk a lot about Love etc. so I'm guessing you're a lot like my brother who also believes in God, emphasizes the meaning of Love but isn't against evolution and is actually quite liberal with his beliefs.

I guess my main point is that these sort of arguments which put science vs. God are directed towards those theists who do that themselves. Not all religious people think science and religion are incompatible and especially in Europe where I live that's very rare. That's an American thing with all the ID nonsense so therefore there is need for atheists/secularists/scientists whatever to bring God into discussion when talking about evolution etc.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

Phil: The eye isn't irreducibly complex. You may learn about it from Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable.
Here's a link to a video of a childrens' lectures he did back in 1991 (5 years before publishing the book), where he explains why the eye can definitely evolve step by step just like any other complex trait.

Another thing: evolution doesn't say lions turned into zebras or monkeys into people. Nowadays lions, zebras, monkeys, and people are more or less equally complex. We all have a common, less complex ancestor a long long time ago.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.

I was trying to provide the creationist objections to David's idea below, which I don't think any creationist would dispute, but which is irrelevant to the question of evolution

[ QUOTE ]
But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem I have - It's easy to imagine lots of things, so what? I am told these beliefs are made with scientific knowledge behind them. These imaginary "light sensitive patches" are only found one place - the imagination. The fossil record, shows the most primitive of animals with fully formed eyes. And even if we found one with "light sensitive patches" that wouldn't explain their origins either - unless we were to imagine one.

But it's cool- really. I can imagine things too, just don't keep telling me it's on based on science. I'd like someone to admit that they have a belief in naturalism and when the evidence isn't there for their belief they have no problem imagining it. We'd save a lot of time that way.

The same is true for Sklansky's original post. Once we find DNA, it's only a logical progression until we find it feasible to believe in common descent? Perhaps, but that's not science - it's philosophy. This equivocation is frustrating. Am I the only one to see that science and evolutionary thought are not the same thing?

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

The nautilus has a very primitive 'pinhole' eye, with a light sensitive patch. I think answers your question and shows why this is considered science and not imagination.
Evolution of the eye

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
The nautilus has a very primitive 'pinhole' eye, with a light sensitive patch. I think answers your question and shows why this is considered science and not imagination.
Evolution of the eye


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe anyone is still arguing the eye as too complex with too many adaptive valleys, etc. to have evolved.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know a lot less about the specifics of evolution than many people here. In spite of that, I think I have an argument that I have not seen used on this forum by evolutionists, when they are arguing with creationists about "macrovevolution". Evidently there is a lot stronger evidence for "microevolution" within a species than the macroevolution needed to change one species to another.

Evolutionists on this forum seem to struggle a bit with this objection and are forced to point to rare cases to make their point. But it seems to me that once DNA was discovered, well after Darwin, logic is all one needs to deduce that evolution between species is far more likely than a designer who bypasses evolution.

Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species? Even if we never found a fossil example. Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence. Even more so if there was ever any evidence of a designer who sometimes bypasses scientific laws. But given there isn't, and given we know of a theoretical way for species to mutate into other species, math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Borodog smacked crationists with a version of this in a previous thread. They didn't really have an answer.

What about crossover?
 

Why is it that so many talk only about mutation and
ignore crossover?

Crossover plays a more dramatic role in variation than mutation.

D.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, what vhawk and I are saying is that the term species is used to differentiate between groups that have already separated evolutionarily, the term isn't useless, but it is of limited use.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, what vhawk and I are saying is that the term species is used to differentiate between groups that have already separated evolutionarily, the term isn't useless, but it is of limited use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with the limited use part (unless I'm misunderstanding you). Without the concept of species our understanding of evolution and its processes does not exist and we may as well all be creationists.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, what vhawk and I are saying is that the term species is used to differentiate between groups that have already separated evolutionarily, the term isn't useless, but it is of limited use.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree with the limited use part (unless I'm misunderstanding you). Without the concept of species our understanding of evolution and its processes does not exist and we may as well all be creationists.

[/ QUOTE ]


I wrote this whole thing out and then i realized we are just talking past each other.
I'm just saying the definition of species and the concept of species are two different things. The definition being to rigid for the gray areas as gene frequencies change over time (amongst other gray areas), but the concept of speciation and the existence of species is not at all limiting in the same way (you dig?).

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I am confused about something, once we are aware of the existence of DNA and the existence of mutations, then what is to stop an animal to occasionally be born with enough mutations that it qualifies as a different species? Even if we never found a fossil example.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are confused. The scenario you describe is extremely unlikely ever to happen, and it certainly has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

I'm not a microbiologist, but my understanding is that actual "mutations" in DNA are only a small part of overall genetic (and also therefore morphologic) variability. And speciation certainly does not occur in one generation. The idea is that genetic variation + differential reproductive success = inevitable biological diversity over time.


[ QUOTE ]

Before DNA and its mutations were discovered, it might be reasonable to make a lot of the fact that there is little or no experimental evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would not be "reasonable" at all. Evolution was accepted as the explanation for biological diversity long before DNA was discovered, and for good reason: the strong evidence which supports it. Even before DNA was discovered, the mechanisms of Mendelian heredity, variation, and natural selection were known. Not to mention the evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and geology, etc, all of which conclusively support evolution.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
But it seems to me that once DNA was discovered, well after Darwin, logic is all one needs to deduce that evolution between species is far more likely than a designer who bypasses evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I made a similar argument here, where I asked what magical mechanism prevents evolution:

[ QUOTE ]
This is a question for NotReady and anyone else who would care to answer. In another thread NotReady claimed that "atheistic" evolution wasn't science (I'm not sure what "atheistic" has to do with it--is that like atheistic gravity or atheistic plate tectonics?).
<font color="white"> . </font>
So let me pose this question. If you have:
<font color="white"> . </font>
a) Self-replicator[ing] organisms whose phenotype (i.e. their internal and external structures, organs, behaviors, etc) depends on their genotype (a genetic code that contains the "recipe" for growing the organism), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
b) The fidelity of their genetic replication is good but not perfect (i.e. errors are made), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
c) Small difference in the genetic codes of two similar organisms can lead to small differences in phenotype (not that all small difference in genetic code must necessarily lead to small difference in phenotype; some small difference in genetic code lead to huge differences in phenotype, and some small, and even large, differences in genetic code do not lead to any phenotypic difference at all), and
<font color="white"> . </font>
d) The differential reproductive success of individual replicators within the population depends to any extent on phenotype, then
<font color="white"> . </font>
Evolution is inevitable.
<font color="white"> . </font>
So, what prevents evolution from occuring? If if it does occur, how can you claim that it "isn't science" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

math tells us the second explanation has to be the giant favorite.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've been waiting 2 years for you to tell me how you apply probability to the existence of God. You constantly talk about it but never give a formula, or even an overall concept.

Even if the fossil record was perfect in a Darwinian sense how would you apply math to God's existence?

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually agree with this. To assign any sort of "probability" to the arbitrary, meaningless concept of God is too much of a concession that the concept makes rational sense. Belief in God simply requires faith.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]

I actually agree with this. To assign any sort of "probability" to the arbitrary, meaningless concept of God


[/ QUOTE ]

Right answer, wrong reason.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it "was", it would most likely just mean we haven't found the way by which we think it evolved. If it really was, however, then perhaps it could suggest design (perhaps not), but it would definitely not suggest an idea as particular as God.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I realize that, if it was it would be proof of God. It's pretty easy to imagine how a light sensitive patch of cells could develop a signaling system with movement/nerve cells to provide an evolutionary advantage, and eventually become an eye.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the problem I have - It's easy to imagine lots of things, so what? I am told these beliefs are made with scientific knowledge behind them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the thing. If "God" were tinkering with the universe, his magical tricks would be indistinguishable from natural events for which there are shortfalls in scientific explanation.

Therefore, magical tricks performed by "God" can never prove the existence of God. Neither can science ever prove God is not performing such magical tricks as long as science has any shortfalls in its ability to explain everything. Science cannot find evidence For Divine magic tricks. Science can only expand scientific explanation. There is no reason for science to say anything one way or the other about the possibilty of Divine magic tricks taking place in the gaps of scientific explantion. That is a Religious issue, not a scientific one.

If Religious people want to believe Divine magic tricks take place in the gaps of scientific explanation that's their perogative. However they are wrong to say a scientific shortfall implies Divine magic tricks. It doesn't. And Religious people are especially foolish when they assert the existence of Divine magic tricks in scientific gaps that are likely to be filled in the near future. They can do so if they wish, and maybe the gaps won't be filled so quickly, if at all. But regardless it remains a Religious assertion.

PairTheBoard

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mayr's definitions are becoming increasingly dated, the inaccuracies are highlighted by interpecies sex. Which gene pools are allowed to mingle with others is a highly dynamic process.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mayr's definitions are becoming increasingly dated, the inaccuracies are highlighted by interpecies sex. Which gene pools are allowed to mingle with others is a highly dynamic process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate?

Also, I'm not saying that there aren't problems with defining "species" or that transitional organisms or exceptions can't be found - this is biology after all.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is as if a vague and formless being, whom we may call, as we will, man or superman, had sought to realize himself, and had succeeded only by abandoning a part of himself on the way. The losses are represented by the rest of the animal world, and even by the vegetable world, at least in what these have that is positive and above the accidents of evolution. (Creative Evolution)

From lightly woven and easily attainable thoughts like this, Bergson produces an idea of evolution that had been expressed previously in a profound mode of thought by W. H. Preuss in his book, Spirit and Matter (1882). Preuss also held that man has not developed from the other natural beings but is, from the beginning the fundamental entity, which had first to eject his preliminary stages into the other living beings before he could give himself the form appropriate for him on earth. We read in the above-mentioned book:

The time should have come . . . to establish a theory of origin of organic species that is not based solely on one-sidedly proclaimed theorems from descriptive natural science, but is also in agreement with the other natural laws that are at the same time the laws of human thinking. What is necessary is a theory that is free from all hypothesizing and that rests solely on strict conclusions from natural scientific observations in the widest sense of the word; a theory that saves the concept of the species according to the actual possibility, but at the same time adapts Darwin's concept of evolution to its own field and tries to make it fruitful. The center of this new theory is man, the species unique on our planet: [censored] sapiens. It is strange that the older observers began with the objects of nature and then went astray to such an extent that they did not find the way that leads to the human being. This aim had been attained by Darwin only in an insufficient and unsatisfactory way as he sought the ancestor of the lord of creation among the animals, while the naturalist should begin with himself as a human being in order to proceed through the entire realm of existence and of thinking and to return finally to humanity. . . . It was not by accident that the human nature resulted from the entire terrestrial evolution, but by necessity. Man is the aim of all telluric processes and every other form that occurs beside him has borrowed its traits from him. Man is the first-born being of the entire cosmos. . . . When his germinating state (man in his potentiality) had come into being, the remaining organic substance no longer had the power to produce further human possibilities. What developed thereafter became animal or plan. . . .

Such a view attempts to recognize man as placed on his ground by the development of modern world conception, that is to say, outside nature, in order to find something in such a knowledge of man that throws light on the world surrounding him. In the little known thinker from Elsfleth, W. H. Preuss, the ardent wish arises to gain a knowledge of the world at once through an insight into man. His forceful and significant ideas are immediately directed to the human being. He sees how this being struggles its way into existence. What it must leave behind on its way, what it must slough off, remains as nature with its entities on a lower stage of evolution surrounding man as his environment. The way toward the riddles of the world in modern philosophy must go through an investigation of the human entity manifested in the self-conscious ego. This becomes apparent through the development of this philosophy. The more one tries to enter into its striving and its search, the more one becomes aware of the fact that this search aims at such experiences in the human soul that do not only produce an insight into the human soul itself, but also kindles a light by means of which a certain knowledge concerning the world outside man can be secured. In looking at the views of Hegel and related thinkers, more recent philosophers came to doubt that there could be the power in the life of thought to spread its light beyond the realm of the soul itself. The element of thought seemed not strong enough to engender an activity that could explain the being and the meaning of the world. By contrast, the natural scientific mode of conception demanded a penetration into the core of the soul that rested on a firmer ground than thought can supply.

Steiner"Riddles of Philosophy"

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

Can someone explain to me how the number of chromosomes in sexually reproducing organisms can change and those altered beings can continue to mate and produce offspring? In all my readings of Dawkins and Co., I haven't heard an explanation of this.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can someone explain to me how the number of chromosomes in sexually reproducing organisms can change and those altered beings can continue to mate and produce offspring? In all my readings of Dawkins and Co., I haven't heard an explanation of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have no idea-not my work. But I suppose an armless, legless, chinless man can still reproduce. Obvioulsy didn't chop off the right chromosome. But then again, if the leg chromosome is missing from both how does one produce a leg?

I know, there is the "creative chromosome" which includes all the rest but exists and within the chromosome and who's existance lies within itself within its own justification.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
The nautilus has a very primitive 'pinhole' eye, with a light sensitive patch. I think answers your question and shows why this is considered science and not imagination.
Evolution of the eye


[/ QUOTE ]

Oops. Education.

Re: DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, only probability+ our definition of species

[/ QUOTE ]

Creationists latch onto our definition of a species all the time, and their right. If our definition of species was a consistent and correct law of nature it would be very hard to support macro evolution, but its not, its just a convenient way of categorizing unlike things. Things that are very like it struggles with because its a definition composed for unlike things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, I've tried to make this point several times on this forum. I really dislike 'species,' and the reason is mostly due to creationists. I think most people really aren't aware of how nebulous and arbitrary our definition of species is, and they treat it like its a boundary that represents some actual reality. This leads to confusion and defeat at the hands of the savvy creationist.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you need species - using Mayr's definition of reproductively isolated, etc. - to really get at evolution because once gene flow stops between populations then they each develop unique paths and evolutionary histories.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do agree with that, absolutely, and it is a somewhat meaningful distinction. I should not have used the word arbitrary. It just doesn't mean what the creationists want it to mean.