Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

I'm confused about the specific category of theists who say that there is microevolution within a species but never macroevolution from species to species. Because God created the different species. That stance doesn't make sense.

Once DNA was discovered, the distinction between different species, and different varieties within species, is blurred. Because we now know that changing a bit of DNA can cause both types of differences.

So as long as someone agees that mutations in DNA can be passed on, and that they sometimes stick if they have benefits, why make a big deal between inter species changes and intra species changes?

I suppose one reason might be that there hasn't been enough time for all these inter species changes. So if you believe that the universe is 6000 years old you can fall back on that argument.

But aren't there also a lot of theists who accept a 5 billion year old earth and still think that macro evolution hasn't occurred even though they admit micro evolution has?

I believe that these people take this inconsistant stance because they feel that they must oppose all macroevolution so that they can believe that God created man. But it is unnecessary to do this and it makes them look foolish (given they accept microevolution and an old earth).

The thing is that the truth of macroevolution doesn't mean that some species weren't directly created by God. It just means some weren't.

Furthermore, even if the physical human being evolved from monkeys it still doesn't screw up thiests concept of their relationship with God. Because even though we are physically and DNA wise 97% equivalent to a chimp, we are light years away from one when it comes to contemplating death or understanding Bertrand Russel's barber paradox.

If God let evolution take its natural course with the one exception that he infused man with the ability to understand those two things I just mentioned and other stuff like it, everything else scientists say should be irrelevant to theists.

PS I didn't use the barber paradox lightly. World class physicist Roger Penrose, and others, claim that human's unique ability to understand Godel's proof makes them way beyond animals. The barber paradox is a simpler version.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

I think the main problem stems from the fact that many atheists claim (wrongly IMO) that evolution disproves or otherwise diminishes God. Theists believe them and therefore must reject evolution lest they reject God as well. Nobody has argued microevolution disproves God that much, so it is accepted.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

Apart from what Sklansky likes to pretend to coax the theists [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], evolution greatly diminishes the Christian God and the Jesus story by making them look like stupid fables, no different from the silly tales of a hundred other cultures.

Evolution in no way diminishes a God of some sort. But it does greatly, greatly diminish the chance of a God that drowned the world, turned a woman into salt and impregnated a virgin with his holy wang so that we wouldn't go to a place of eternal fire any more.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Apart from what Sklansky likes to pretend to coax the theists [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], evolution greatly diminishes the Christian God and the Jesus story by making them look like stupid fables, no different from the silly tales of a hundred other cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on how you interpret holy texts. If you believe that they only have merit if they contain accurate descriptions of the physical world, then science seems to diminish their importance. I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns and not for the answers to science questions. If I don't believe that all the stories in the Bible must have actually occurred historically, there is no problem.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution in no way diminishes a God of some sort. But it does greatly, greatly diminish the chance of a God that drowned the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
turned a woman into salt


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Evolution and science can't really say anything about this other than that this phenomenon has never been observed in a scientific setting.

[ QUOTE ]
and impregnated a virgin with his holy wang so that we wouldn't go to a place of eternal fire any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution also says nothing about this. It explains why it is unnecessary to believe this, but it doesn't force you to believe otherwise.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

Well if you add them altogether it gets less plausible. Aka. if a god who drowns the world is implausible, then it follows that a god that drowns the world and turns a women into salt is even less plausible, etc.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. They could just watch other social animals, like chimpanzee,s, buddhists, and europeans to pick up the basics and think through the fine tuning. What mind blowing humanistic lesson is available in the bible that isn't available from lots of other sources? What humanistic lesson did it reveal to the world that prior writers hadn't covered?

If you have a book full of nonsense about the natural world, is this the book you want to turn to for good advice about obvious and naturally arrived at humanistic advice? On the grounds it's proven it's credibility?

Wrapping your self-worth in any cult and our evolved social characteristics will produce similar results. It's like a super stockholm syndrome. DS is looking for a rational explanation, when the answer is a psychological explanation.

luckyme

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Roger Penrose, and others, claim that human's unique ability to understand Godel's proof makes them way beyond animals. The barber paradox is a simpler version.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you find time to start another thread explaining how the barber 'paradox' is related to Godel's proof it would be interesting. The barber struck me as a problem of poorly formed premises rather than a paradox that grows out of solid ones. Likely I've been mishandling something.

thanks, luckyme

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

I found it interesting skimming wikipedia on evolution the other day that evolution is not just a scientific concept...Wikipedia listed 3 or 4 types of evolution besides biological evolution which is the most discussed type...Guess I have to go back and read it...there are many types of evolution apparently but we are constantly focusing on the 1 type where all the debate is...

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I found it interesting skimming wikipedia on evolution the other day that evolution is not just a scientific concept...Wikipedia listed 3 or 4 types of evolution besides biological evolution which is the most discussed type...Guess I have to go back and read it...there are many types of evolution apparently but we are constantly focusing on the 1 type where all the debate is...

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point! Creationists frequently make the mistake of confusing biological evolution with a vague overreaching idea of "evolution."

Biological evolution makes no claims about what initially sparked life. So the main creationist qualm (life from non-life) should not even be a part of the discussion!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...ning_evolution
[ QUOTE ]
When biological evolution is mistakenly conflated with other evolutionary processes, it can result in errors such as the claim that modern evolutionary theory says anything about abiogenesis (life spark) or the Big Bang.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apart from what Sklansky likes to pretend to coax the theists [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img], evolution greatly diminishes the Christian God and the Jesus story by making them look like stupid fables, no different from the silly tales of a hundred other cultures.

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends on how you interpret holy texts. If you believe that they only have merit if they contain accurate descriptions of the physical world, then science seems to diminish their importance. I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns and not for the answers to science questions. If I don't believe that all the stories in the Bible must have actually occurred historically, there is no problem.

[ QUOTE ]

Evolution in no way diminishes a God of some sort. But it does greatly, greatly diminish the chance of a God that drowned the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes

[ QUOTE ]
turned a woman into salt


[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Evolution and science can't really say anything about this other than that this phenomenon has never been observed in a scientific setting.

[ QUOTE ]
and impregnated a virgin with his holy wang so that we wouldn't go to a place of eternal fire any more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Evolution also says nothing about this. It explains why it is unnecessary to believe this, but it doesn't force you to believe otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, I think you could make a pretty strong argument that many of the stories in the Bible simply DO NOT WORK as fables, and MUST be based on actual, real events. Things like the ressurection, the crucifixion, the virgin birth, the Fall. If these were not real events but merely metaphor and allegory, then they are pointless. We cannot base a religion on Aesop. MOST Biblical stories work just fine as allegories, stuff like Abraham almost killing his son, Cain and Abel, that stuff doesn't have to have ever happened. We get the point. But if Eve never existed, ball game.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Roger Penrose, and others, claim that human's unique ability to understand Godel's proof makes them way beyond animals. The barber paradox is a simpler version.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you find time to start another thread explaining how the barber 'paradox' is related to Godel's proof it would be interesting. The barber struck me as a problem of poorly formed premises rather than a paradox that grows out of solid ones. Likely I've been mishandling something.

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another one of those Sklansky simplifications that mathmeticans might cringe at. Since I am only moderatrely familiar with Godel's proof I will let others elaborate.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

It's moot as Penrose's Godel idea ( by John Lucas before him) is wrong. I assume Sklansky is waiting to slam dunk all the theists with this, after he gets them to concede his evolution point.

D.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

Why are you confused about it??? It's really quite easy to see how they think that...

(I'm very tempted to bring out the old ducy here.)

When you believe one thing which does not fit the evidence, if you want to try to back it up, you must necessarily make up reasoning which either is flawed or also ignores or does not fit the evidence. In this instance, they are creating a false dichotomy of two types of DNA mutation, where in fact there is none.

Edit: Read Michael Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things" and his "How We Believe".

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused about the specific category of theists who say that there is microevolution within a species but never macroevolution from species to species. Because God created the different species. That stance doesn't make sense.

Once DNA was discovered, the distinction between different species, and different varieties within species, is blurred. Because we now know that changing a bit of DNA can cause both types of differences.

So as long as someone agees that mutations in DNA can be passed on, and that they sometimes stick if they have benefits, why make a big deal between inter species changes and intra species changes?

I suppose one reason might be that there hasn't been enough time for all these inter species changes. So if you believe that the universe is 6000 years old you can fall back on that argument.

But aren't there also a lot of theists who accept a 5 billion year old earth and still think that macro evolution hasn't occurred even though they admit micro evolution has?

I believe that these people take this inconsistant stance because they feel that they must oppose all macroevolution so that they can believe that God created man. But it is unnecessary to do this and it makes them look foolish (given they accept microevolution and an old earth).

The thing is that the truth of macroevolution doesn't mean that some species weren't directly created by God. It just means some weren't.

Furthermore, even if the physical human being evolved from monkeys it still doesn't screw up thiests concept of their relationship with God. Because even though we are physically and DNA wise 97% equivalent to a chimp, we are light years away from one when it comes to contemplating death or understanding Bertrand Russel's barber paradox.

If God let evolution take its natural course with the one exception that he infused man with the ability to understand those two things I just mentioned and other stuff like it, everything else scientists say should be irrelevant to theists.

PS I didn't use the barber paradox lightly. World class physicist Roger Penrose, and others, claim that human's unique ability to understand Godel's proof makes them way beyond animals. The barber paradox is a simpler version.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think it's a position adopted through logical deduction. Descending from monkeys and ultimately from slime is disgusting to some people and inherently debased or undignified. Someone in the habit of forming beliefs based on their desires may easily adopt the position that it didnt happen.

I would speculate that, given they are confronted with evidence of microevolution (so much so that it is undeniable), they have to concede micro but deny macro - not because they have any good reason, but due to a psychological need.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Well, I think you could make a pretty strong argument that many of the stories in the Bible simply DO NOT WORK as fables, and MUST be based on actual, real events. Things like the ressurection, the crucifixion, the virgin birth, the Fall. If these were not real events but merely metaphor and allegory, then they are pointless. We cannot base a religion on Aesop. MOST Biblical stories work just fine as allegories, stuff like Abraham almost killing his son, Cain and Abel, that stuff doesn't have to have ever happened. We get the point. But if Eve never existed, ball game.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also making the assumption that people read and pay attention to every story in the Bible. How many Christians know all the stories in the Bible all that well? How many actually think about all the "historical facts" it contains? They don't have any bearing on how many of them think or act. I think we had this conversation before about how you can't just attribute Christians with what you think they should believe based on their Bible.

I was also objecting to the claim that the theory of evolution pertains to these stories. You could make the argument that other scientific discoveries have cast doubt on or falsified many claims in the Bible, but not necessarily evolutionary theory.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. They could just watch other social animals, like chimpanzee,s, buddhists, and europeans to pick up the basics and think through the fine tuning. What mind blowing humanistic lesson is available in the bible that isn't available from lots of other sources? What humanistic lesson did it reveal to the world that prior writers hadn't covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying the Bible is essential, necessary, or sufficient for these things. Just that many people use it for that. People grow up in a certain tradition and they use it to make sense of the world. I'm not really claiming anything fantastical. You could easily claim that it's not the best source, but it is a major source nonetheless.

[ QUOTE ]

If you have a book full of nonsense about the natural world, is this the book you want to turn to for good advice about obvious and naturally arrived at humanistic advice? On the grounds it's proven it's credibility?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe I claimed it necessarily contains the best advice or even good advice.

[ QUOTE ]

Wrapping your self-worth in any cult and our evolved social characteristics will produce similar results. It's like a super stockholm syndrome. DS is looking for a rational explanation, when the answer is a psychological explanation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that it is a psychological explanation. That doesn't mean that it can be easily dismissed or done away with.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

this threads been going for a day and NotReady still hasn't weighed in. Hes the only one Ive seen one here that accepts micro but not macro evoluciotn

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. They could just watch other social animals, like chimpanzee,s, buddhists, and europeans to pick up the basics and think through the fine tuning. What mind blowing humanistic lesson is available in the bible that isn't available from lots of other sources? What humanistic lesson did it reveal to the world that prior writers hadn't covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying the Bible is essential, necessary, or sufficient for these things. Just that many people use it for that. People grow up in a certain tradition and they use it to make sense of the world. I'm not really claiming anything fantastical. You could easily claim that it's not the best source, but it is a major source nonetheless.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be arguing for my point. Except your first sentence and last are a bit confusing.
I was going easy on the topic, here's the larger point - They don't use it to form their moral judgement, they get that from other sources just like the rest of us, some of it rather innate ( certain personalities will lean to certain interpretations, of anything, not just the bible). The bible is merely interpreted to fit their view. If it were possible to get any moral guidance out of the bible there wouldn't be such 180o views finding 'support' in it.
Reading the bible for moral guidance is like reading Nostradamus for history lessons and accomplished in much the same way.

Stating that they use the bible as their source for moral grounding simply has it rather backward. Watching a leaf fall from a tree can be 'read' as delivering a moral lesson, that doesn't mean it is doing that. the message comes from the watcher. We shouldn't fall for their bs about what the source is, even if some of them have ( not as many as they make out. NR, for instance, knows what he is doing).

luckyme

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would argue that most theists look to the Bible for humanistic concerns

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting. They could just watch other social animals, like chimpanzee,s, buddhists, and europeans to pick up the basics and think through the fine tuning. What mind blowing humanistic lesson is available in the bible that isn't available from lots of other sources? What humanistic lesson did it reveal to the world that prior writers hadn't covered?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying the Bible is essential, necessary, or sufficient for these things. Just that many people use it for that. People grow up in a certain tradition and they use it to make sense of the world. I'm not really claiming anything fantastical. You could easily claim that it's not the best source, but it is a major source nonetheless.


[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to be arguing for my point. Except your first sentence and last are a bit confusing.
I was going easy on the topic, here's the larger point - They don't use it to form their moral judgement, they get that from other sources just like the rest of us, some of it rather innate ( certain personalities will lean to certain interpretations, of anything, not just the bible). The bible is merely interpreted to fit their view. If it were possible to get any moral guidance out of the bible there wouldn't be such 180o views finding 'support' in it.
Reading the bible for moral guidance is like reading Nostradamus for history lessons and accomplished in much the same way.

Stating that they use the bible as their source for moral grounding simply has it rather backward. Watching a leaf fall from a tree can be 'read' as delivering a moral lesson, that doesn't mean it is doing that. the message comes from the watcher. We shouldn't fall for their bs about what the source is, even if some of them have ( not as many as they make out. NR, for instance, knows what he is doing).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I think maybe you misunderstood my initial claim. I was simply saying that the reason many Christians look at the bible was for humanistic concerns and not for history/science lessons. I didn't claim that's actually where they derived their morality, just that it's where they believe they are getting it.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm confused about the specific category of theists who say that there is microevolution within a species but never macroevolution from species to species.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a way to get around the fact that gene pools obviously change, like the famous British moths that changed colour in a few generations as pollution darkened the trees.

The argument goes like this: microevolution is a change in the frequency of genes already present in a population. This CAN occur, according to the rap. So if there are genes for darker moths in existence, they can become predominant as the environment changes. In fact, the moths really are a case of micro-evolution, not macro.

But they continue to insist that species cannot evolve into new species, because entirely new traits are statistically impossible, allegedly. Mutations are too random and usually deleterious, therefore they cannot be coordinated to give forth genuinely new features. (An early version of Behe's irreducible complexity argument.)

So the frequency of already-present traits can change (micro-evolution). But mutation cannot lead to functional, novel traits (macro-evolution), because they say so.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

Just to get some clarification.

So a species has within it's species genepool/DNApool (I don't know which one 'works' so I will refer to it/them as a species' 'pool' from here on in.) the range a,b,c,d,e,f and g. But the predominant features within the species are all in the d range.

Something happens that makes the e range predominant. But the overall range does not shift. Correct?

Is there also the assumptiun that h can ever develope as part of the pool? Or z? (as a wraparound gene straight.)

I have struggled with a suitable analogy, and my wording. Sorry.

I think that if you accept micro but not macro, you have to agree with my points above. Does that sound right?

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

Most organisms have a large number of genes in their chromosomes that are not ordinarily expressed. Many phenotypic ("observable") changes can be the result of which genes are expressed and how they're expressed, rather than which genes actually exist in the DNA.

However, it's pretty much established that mutations sometimes occur - when the DNA is being replicated, "errors" happen that result in new genes altogether. The new genes then create new proteins that didn't exist in the parent(s). Thus, traits "h" and "z" can appear.

The main argument of the educated "micro but not macro" crowd is simple. They say that in order for a new useful function to appear, traits "h," "j," and "p" all have to be present. The idea is that any one of these traits is bad, but all of them combined is good. Therefore, in order for them to evolve they all have to appear at the same time. And the likelihood of that happening is extremely low.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to get some clarification.

So a species has within it's species genepool/DNApool (I don't know which one 'works' so I will refer to it/them as a species' 'pool' from here on in.) the range a,b,c,d,e,f and g. But the predominant features within the species are all in the d range.

Something happens that makes the e range predominant. But the overall range does not shift. Correct?

Is there also the assumptiun that h can ever develope as part of the pool? Or z? (as a wraparound gene straight.)

I have struggled with a suitable analogy, and my wording. Sorry.

I think that if you accept micro but not macro, you have to agree with my points above. Does that sound right?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not what actually happens, this is his representation of the farce that evolution-deniers are trying to suggest.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most organisms have a large number of genes in their chromosomes that are not ordinarily expressed. Many phenotypic ("observable") changes can be the result of which genes are expressed and how they're expressed, rather than which genes actually exist in the DNA.

However, it's pretty much established that mutations sometimes occur - when the DNA is being replicated, "errors" happen that result in new genes altogether. The new genes then create new proteins that didn't exist in the parent(s). Thus, traits "h" and "z" can appear.

The main argument of the educated "micro but not macro" crowd is simple. They say that in order for a new useful function to appear, traits "h," "j," and "p" all have to be present. The idea is that any one of these traits is bad, but all of them combined is good. Therefore, in order for them to evolve they all have to appear at the same time. And the likelihood of that happening is extremely low.

[/ QUOTE ]

And chromosomes double, leading to a whole new batch of useless (and therefore free to 'experiment' on) base pairs. And chromosomes halve, and translocate, and invert.

And there are insertion mutations too, not just deletion mutations.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to get some clarification.

So a species has within it's species genepool/DNApool (I don't know which one 'works' so I will refer to it/them as a species' 'pool' from here on in.) the range a,b,c,d,e,f and g. But the predominant features within the species are all in the d range.

Something happens that makes the e range predominant. But the overall range does not shift. Correct?

Is there also the assumptiun that h can ever develope as part of the pool? Or z? (as a wraparound gene straight.)

I have struggled with a suitable analogy, and my wording. Sorry.

I think that if you accept micro but not macro, you have to agree with my points above . Does that sound right?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not what actually happens, this is his representation of the farce that evolution-deniers are trying to suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was saying/asking for comfirmation on.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

How do you define a change in species? Or macroevolution?

Where does Micro end, and Macro begin?

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
How do you define a change in species? Or macroevolution?

Where does Micro end, and Macro begin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, well, thats a really awesome question, and one of my pet peeves/favorite topics, but I'll assume you are interested in the short version. There is no mechanistic or fundamental difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I get in trouble for saying that there is no such thing as micro/macro, because its not TECHNICALLY true, but it is probably more accurate than the divide that the terminology implies to most people.

Basically, speciation is the boundary. Speciation is generally (though not always) defined as the point in the phenotypic divergence of two populations where members of group A can no longer procreate with members of group B. So, speciation could be any number of events. Say you have two groups that are identical, but they separate for some reason. Originally, these animals mate during the morning, ONLY during the morning. For some reason, the animals in group B, over time, start to mate later and later in the day, to the point where now they only mate in the evening. Assume that NO OTHER CHANGES have taken place. They look identical to one another, still. Now, you bring these populations back into contact. They all live together in one big group. But group A animals cannot mate with group B animals. They are two entirely different species. We've just witnessed macroevolution. For all intents and purposes, these two groups will now continue to diverge for eternity, since there will be no mingling of genes between the groups.

The cute part is, these animals in group B could now, over time, go back to mating in the morning, and as long as there weren't any major changes to their physiology or physical make-up, they could ONCE AGAIN become the same species. I'm not sure if this has ever happened (and I think I would have read about it if it ever had) but it is at least theoretically possible. Let the macro-deniers chew on that one.

EDIT: And yes, that was the short version. If you have more questions I'll do my best, and Rduke can probably be summoned to answer anything I can't. Madnak, Phil and several others are also pretty well-versed.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

Thankyou. I have lots more.

I am kind of stumbling through a subject that many of you seem well versed on, and I thank you for your patience.

Please correct whichever of the following statements is false.

OK,

1) The definition of 'species' is groups of animals that can mate. So, as an easy axample, defferent breeds of domestic dog are the same species.

2) The accepted meaning of 'microevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does not affect what species said animal can mate with.

3) The accepted meaning of 'macroevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does affect what species said animal can mate with.

4) If an entire species modifies it's gentiec makeup, there are no boundries as to how far it can go within the confines of microevolution, as the definition allows us to say it has not undergone macroevolution.

5) We are capable of gentiically modifying some animals to reduce pests. (Again, I am not particularly well versed on the subject. I will state my case as fact (As I believe it is) and allow others to correct.) In the case of some insects we can make it so we can introduce GM'd parents that produce offspring that cannot reproduce, thus driving down the numbers of a species. Have these offspring have gone through macroevolution as they can no longer mate with the same species.

Like I said, I am just stabbing around, looking for answers.

I took mate to mean reproduce.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

2 and 3 are wrong, and I think 4 is by extension.

Microevolution is simply change in allele frequencies within a population. Alleles are the different versions of a given gene. Macroevolution typically deals with larger scale evolutionary phenomena. An example given on wiki is how feathers appeared from birds when they diverged from one group of dinosaurs.

Speciation isn't really a micro/macroevolution question. It occurs on both levels, depending on how you look at it. It is of course related to changes in allele frequencies, as these changes alter the reproductive capabilities of the animals. And it's related to macro as well b/c you're looking beyond a single simple population.

I'm not sure I understand #5. What does "GM'd parents" mean? If you're wondering if the offspring are "separate species", the answer is no because they cannot interbreed at all.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thankyou. I have lots more.

I am kind of stumbling through a subject that many of you seem well versed on, and I thank you for your patience.

Please correct whichever of the following statements is false.

OK,

1) The definition of 'species' is groups of animals that can mate. So, as an easy axample, defferent breeds of domestic dog are the same species.

2) The accepted meaning of 'microevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does not affect what species said animal can mate with.

3) The accepted meaning of 'macroevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does affect what species said animal can mate with.

4) If an entire species modifies it's gentiec makeup, there are no boundries as to how far it can go within the confines of microevolution, as the definition allows us to say it has not undergone macroevolution.

5) We are capable of gentiically modifying some animals to reduce pests. (Again, I am not particularly well versed on the subject. I will state my case as fact (As I believe it is) and allow others to correct.) In the case of some insects we can make it so we can introduce GM'd parents that produce offspring that cannot reproduce, thus driving down the numbers of a species. Have these offspring have gone through macroevolution as they can no longer mate with the same species.

Like I said, I am just stabbing around, looking for answers.

I took mate to mean reproduce.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I said mate, I should have been more careful, reproduce is the correct term. For the most part that all seems fine. Its hard to say EXACTLY what is meant when people say microevolution and macroevolution since, for the most part, whenever you hear those two terms, the person using them is being intentionally dishonest and trying his best to obfuscate. As far as there is a scientifically accepted definition of those terms, however, you've pretty well nailed it.

You do hint at another interesting point in that micro and macro don't REALLY have anything to do with the extent of the changes. Micro evolution could result in modern humans being three times the size or having twice as many limbs or something crazy as ancient humans, but they could still be the same species. It also hints at the true problem with the species designation: species are convenient for animals that are seperated spatially or geographically. The absurdity of the definition comes when we consider that all animals are separated TEMPORALLY as well. If human beings continue to thrive for the next 2 million years, its entirely possible that Vhawk the 200,000th or whatever could not reproduce with someone today. But it would be very difficult to know for sure, and there would be a seamless, unbroken string of people between me and him, all of whom could mate with all other contemporary humans. Under these conditions, the term "species" seems ludicrous, doesn't it? He can't mate and reproduce with Jessica Alba, he might look entirely different than I do (thus his having no shot at Alba, LDO) but there would never be a point where he would not be considered human.

All organisms are actually like that, we just have the good fortune of all the links in the chain being dead and gone, and no fossils existing. If we had fossils for every individual of every species that ever lived, we probably would have to entirely scrap the concept of species. It would be self-evidently absurd. But that isn't the case, and the term obviously does have some usefulness. Just be very aware of the limitations and artificial nature of "species" whenever you have a discussion with some creationists. It is a crucial sticking point.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
2 and 3 are wrong, and I think 4 is by extension.

Microevolution is simply change in allele frequencies within a population. Alleles are the different versions of a given gene. Macroevolution typically deals with larger scale evolutionary phenomena. An example given on wiki is how feathers appeared from birds when they diverged from one group of dinosaurs.

Speciation isn't really a micro/macroevolution question. It occurs on both levels, depending on how you look at it. It is of course related to changes in allele frequencies, as these changes alter the reproductive capabilities of the animals. And it's related to macro as well b/c you're looking beyond a single simple population.

I'm not sure I understand #5. What does "GM'd parents" mean? If you're wondering if the offspring are "separate species", the answer is no because they cannot interbreed at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is two wrong? This is part of why I said "I don't know WHAT people mean when they use the absurd version of the term 'macroevolution.' What makes a "large change" and what represents shifting allelic frequencies? Feathers on birds count but lighter and lighter skin doesn't? Feathers are just the extreme end of the scales scale, pardon the pun.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

So do you disagree with vhawk's post? If you don't then I am missing something.

"GM'd parents" Meant genetically modified parents, but you've allready covered that one.

The problem I am having is in definition then. It is all well and good saying when this animal developed feathers, it went through macroevolution, and when this animal turned brown it went through microevolution. But what are the set in stone, 100%, definitions of the two terms?

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

LOL, I basically made the same post as you vhawk! Maybe there is hope for me yet.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So do you disagree with vhawk's post? If you don't then I am missing something.

"GM'd parents" Meant genetically modified parents, but you've allready covered that one.

The problem I am having is in definition then. It is all well and good saying when this animal developed feathers, it went through macroevolution, and when this animal turned brown it went through microevolution. But what are the set in stone, 100%, definitions of the two terms?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is EXACTLY the point that "there used to be 20% blue eyed people and now there are 28%" and "they used to have scales but now they have feathers" are the same thing. It is only a matter of degree. The ONLY non-arbitrary line between micro and macro is speciation. And although its not arbitrary (Rduke yells at me when I say it is) it is still flawed or at least misleading to the lay public.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

I think #3 is wrong because it's far too specific. Of course microevolution is a subset of macroevolution... at least I mean "subset" in the sense that you need micro in order for macro to occur.

The example on wikipedia actually was talking about the appearance of feathers on birds when/after they diverged from dinosaurs. As I understand it, the reason it is "macroevolution" is because it deals with 2 separate species -- dinosaurs to birds. If it was simply talking about alteration of feathers (due to changes in allele frequency) in one population of birds, then it would not be considered "macro"

This is why changing skin color over time isn't considered under the domain of macroevolution.

It's been a few years since my biology days, but I think the above is reasonably correct.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

So the only ambiguity lies in what is considered 'species change'?

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

Also, to clarify,

[ QUOTE ]
3) The accepted meaning of 'macroevolution' is where a change in an animal's genetic makeup is made, but where that change does affect what species said animal can mate with.


[/ QUOTE ]

is incorrect, in my opinion, because when someone uses the term "macroevolution" they aren't talking about any one, specific, genetic change that alters the reproductive capabilities of an organism. Even microevolution can do this (not every individual has an equal chance of mating with another individual, even of the same species, for instance). When you talk of macroevolution, it typically involves many generations and a large shift in allele frequencies, not any "one" mutation that instantly makes one individual incapable of reproducing with others of his/her species.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So the only ambiguity lies in what is considered 'species change'?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean. Species don't change from one to another. They diverge from one species to two distinct species. Could you clarify?

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So the only ambiguity lies in what is considered 'species change'?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean. Species don't change from one to another. They diverge from one species to two distinct species. Could you clarify?

[/ QUOTE ]

The line is blurred as to when two distinct sepcies have developed. Iow, feathers=new species, lighter skin=no new species, or feathers=no new species, lighter skin=new species.

I am going to take some time away to try and digest it now, so I won't be responding for a few hours. I need to get my head around where we are at, and what I do/don't understand.

Re: Why Is Only \"Micro Evolution\" Acceptable?
 

No no no. You're almost there. Ignore the feathers for now -- sorry for making it confusing.

The feathers example was just to illustrate a purely random question regarding the development of a phenotype (physical characteristic) after a species diverges. Basically, the point was "Here is an evolutionist examining the development of feathers from a bird's ancestors. He is thinking in terms of "macroevolution" when he questions it from a dinosaur to bird perspective". The feathers aren't the reason they are considered different species. The reason they are different species is because no members of the bird population can successfully breed with a member from the dinosaur population (or whatever that dinosaur population evolved into).

So basically, the feathers was just a side point showing that this is a question a biologist might ask, and how it can be framed as a macroevolution question.