DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[Rduke55]

[ 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.

[Rduke55]

[ 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.

[Rduke55]

[ 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.

[David Steele]

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

Crossover plays a more dramatic role in variation than mutation.

D.

[tolbiny]

[ 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.

[Rduke55]

[ 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.

[tolbiny]

[ 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?).

[bluesbassman]

[ 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.

[Borodog]

[ 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 ]

[bluesbassman]

[ 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.