Do you believe in macroevolution?

Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum

Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Does macroevolution occur?

  • Yes

    Votes: 94 82.5%
  • No

    Votes: 18 15.8%
  • I'm not sure

    Votes: 2 1.8%

  • Total voters
    114
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blue what you need is an "i" device. iPhone and iPad (and I daresay Android devices as well) have a very smart autocorrect system that works out the word that it thinks you meant. Granted stuff like your "waiter/water" example probably wouldn't be picked up but instances of things like "tern/term" seem to get corrected surprisingly accurately
 
Things like subspecies, race (the use of which is going out of fashion), adaptive radiation, the founder effect and similar processes are part of the evolutionary process. The defining attribute of biological evolution is the production of new species from previously existing species. The title to Darwin's book was "On the Origin of Species".

We are all well aware that evolutionary change is a continuum. It is complicated by the existing variation within any identified population. We should also be aware that the concept of a species is something mankind has applied to the natural world to explain his observations and to give it order.

The term "species" is arbitrary as you acknowledge, Blue. Evolutionary change certainly is a continuum, so making distinctions is subjective and arbitrary. But that means that "the production of new species from previously existing species" cannot be the defining attribute of biological evolution since the term "species" is a man-made construct. The fact that Darwin's work was called On the Origin of Species does not give credence to your view that the defining attribute of evolution is the production of new species.

Certainly, given long geological periods of evolutionary change then the net change in one or more interbreeding populations (dependent on whether we are talking about speciation or phyletic extinction) may constitute what modern taxonomists would call new "species". But there is no difference between microevolution and macroevolution (the uses of which are going out of fashion) except that the latter is the temporal extrapolation/accumulation of the former. Of course the production of vast genetic differences is vital, but it most certainly isn't the defining feature of evolution. Any net difference is an example of evolution, and so that is the defining characteristic of evolution, Blue.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Saximus.
So long as the auto-correct is not likely to tell me that I want a feed of fish, when I actually "want to get stuck into some herping".

Blue
 
Just out of interest, how many people here have some sort of science/biological degree? Not that it changed how valid all of your opinions are, so don't go hating again :)

I started it just didnt finish uni.

Blue what you need is an "i" device. iPhone and iPad (and I daresay Android devices as well) have a very smart autocorrect system that works out the word that it thinks you meant. Granted stuff like your "waiter/water" example probably wouldn't be picked up but instances of things like "tern/term" seem to get corrected surprisingly accurately
woohoo were derailing again. Auto spell wanted me to say detailing
 
Last edited:
Surroundx,
I am sorry but I never said the term "species" is arbitrary. It most certainly is not. It can be called artificial because it is something invented by mankind. However being an artificial construct does not make it arbitrary or less applicable to the natural world. It is a descriptor applied to natural phenomenon and is clearly defined in that respect. The fact that there are some instances that render its application difficult does not invalidate the term. For the term to be applicable in all cases is what required the introduction of the notion of a "species complex".


The original biological definition of species has not always been amenable to the practical application required in museums and similar institutions, where identification of specific species takes place. However, use of genetic data is now helping to overcome that shortfall. If there is inter-breeding between individuals of populations, this shows up in the genetic profiles. Hence decisions can be made on whether populations are interbreeding or not in nature. There is nothing arbitrary about this. It is a clear and concise requirement of the definition of a species that the individuals do not breed with other populations under natural conditions.

I think the difference in our viewpoints may come about due to the common language meaning of evolution as something which undergoes change. I have only been referring to the biological definition, which relates exclusively to how new species arise or how existing species arose. It most certainly is a process of change – slow, accumulated change. What makes it different from the common term is what it applies to – the development of new species. If you remove that single aspect, then you are no longer dealing with biological evolution.

I must say that it sounds like we agree on the use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution. I have never used these terms. I believe that all they do is compound and confuse that which should be relatively straight forward.

I suspect we are more on the same page than our academic discussion would indicate.


Blue
 
I am sorry but I never said the term "species" is arbitrary. It most certainly is not. It can be called artificial because it is something invented by mankind. However being an artificial construct does not make it arbitrary or less applicable to the natural world. It is a descriptor applied to natural phenomenon and is clearly defined in that respect. The fact that there are some instances that render its application difficult does not invalidate the term. For the term to be applicable in all cases is what required the introduction of the notion of a "species complex".
Sorry, Blue. I completely agree that "species" is artificial, but that does not mean that the term has no applicability. Obviously my utilization of the term "arbitrary" has caused some confusion between us. And I think I know where this has come from. I believe that we are looking at evolution from two different angles, though not completely so (hopefully that will make sense in a minute). I believe that you are looking at this more from the point of view of a modern-day observer, looking at the differences, both phenotypic and cryptic (as molecular studies are now elucidating), in contemporary species. You are looking at this from a taxonomic point of view, whereas I am looking at this from a different angle:

When I say that the term "species" is arbitrary, what I am referring to is that over geological time the changes within a species, which accumulate (eventually producing large-scale differences if the species persists for long enough) may produce a new species. But this process occurs so slowly that it is arbitrary to make distinction as to when one species has become another. Let me take a simple case of phyletic extinction (that is, one species becomes extinct because it evolves into another, for those who don't know), whereby species "A" evolves into species "B". Since all evolutionary change is gradual, there is no better place to make the "divide" between species "A" and species "B" than any other place. Any point at which we make the divide is rather arbitrary. That is what I mean, Blue.

I agree that in both taxonomic and conservation contexts (though you never mentioned the latter), the term is vital. To start with the latter, on several occasions that I'm aware of, what was once considered to have been a single geographically wide-ranging species has turned out to be a species-complex of several genetically distinct species. This can have immediate conservation implications if these newly described species only have relatively small geographic distributions. And again, in the context of taxonomy, the idea of species certainly isn't superfluous. But I think that you will find that there is an overlap between when various taxonomists classify a population as a subspecies of a species, or as a species in its own right. The fact that the term "species" has utility in a taxonomic context does not help your case in arguing that the production of new species is the defining feature of biological evolution, if you were so inclined to that view.

The original biological definition of species has not always been amenable to the practical application required in museums and similar institutions, where identification of specific species takes place. However, use of genetic data is now helping to overcome that shortfall. If there is inter-breeding between individuals of populations, this shows up in the genetic profiles. Hence decisions can be made on whether populations are interbreeding or not in nature. There is nothing arbitrary about this. It is a clear and concise requirement of the definition of a species that the individuals do not breed with other populations under natural conditions.
Unfortunately it is not quite as simple as that, Blue. There are many hybrid-zones between different species belonging to the same genus. The biological species concept (BSC), like all others proposed, does not have sufficient generality to be applicable under all circumstances.

I think the difference in our viewpoints may come about due to the common language meaning of evolution as something which undergoes change. I have only been referring to the biological definition, which relates exclusively to how new species arise or how existing species arose. It most certainly is a process of change – slow, accumulated change. What makes it different from the common term is what it applies to – the development of new species. If you remove that single aspect, then you are no longer dealing with biological evolution.
I am meaning evolution in a purely biological sense too, Blue. I find the term to be wholly invalid when applied to other areas such as the "evolution" of the universe. What you seem to be saying is that the production of new species is what separates biological evolution from other types of "evolution". But my own definition of evolution fills exactly the same need! Only living organisms (or deceased ones) have alleles. So your grounds for arguing that the production of new species is the defining element of biological evolution are untenable. There are plenty of other differences between biological and any other process which has been given the (misleading) name "evolution".

I must say that it sounds like we agree on the use of the terms microevolution and macroevolution. I have never used these terms. I believe that all they do is compound and confuse that which should be relatively straight forward.

The two terms certainly do confuse many people. By using two different terms people get it into their heads that micro- and macroevolution are fundamentally different, which they most certainly aren't.

I suspect we are more on the same page than our academic discussion would indicate.
I agree, Blue. The only difference between our views seems to be what the defining feature of evolution is, which really is quite a small difference on the scale of differences. But hopefully what I have written above will give you a better idea of where I am coming from compared with my previous posts. Perhaps I still do not fully understand where you yourself are coming from, but no doubt you will set me straight if I have it wrong. And so the discussion can move forward.
 
Last edited:
I believe in the matrix... thought I might put that into the argument.
 
I guess if we're following the movie the Matrix (and using that as the basis for the science) was it not us that built the machines?

But you're 100% right - it didn't have to be us that evolved - mice could have done the same job!

What I don't understand (entirely) is why didn't the matrix use 'cows' - would the matrix then be easier to be believable? The machines still could have done it behind our backs and then wiped out humans and kept cows alive.

My guess is that cows wouldn't have started an uprising but would have been happy to be artificially milked and fed grass daily on a far more simple platform of the matrix.

Hence - the circular argument remains - someone had to evolve in order to create the matrix....

PS - not sure what the movie would look like if that matrix had decided to use cows instead.... But I can imagine the opening scene with a cow jumping over the moon would certainly be part of it (not sure if the dish would run away with the spoon though - that's inter-species erotica that shouldn't really be talked about in evolution.... A doon would be formed? Or would it be a spish? And how would we use this spish or doon anyway?)
 
I guess if we're following the movie the Matrix (and using that as the basis for the science) was it not us that built the machines?

But you're 100% right - it didn't have to be us that evolved - mice could have done the same job!

What I don't understand (entirely) is why didn't the matrix use 'cows' - would the matrix then be easier to be believable? The machines still could have done it behind our backs and then wiped out humans and kept cows alive.

My guess is that cows wouldn't have started an uprising but would have been happy to be artificially milked and fed grass daily on a far more simple platform of the matrix.

Hence - the circular argument remains - someone had to evolve in order to create the matrix....

PS - not sure what the movie would look like if that matrix had decided to use cows instead.... But I can imagine the opening scene with a cow jumping over the moon would certainly be part of it (not sure if the dish would run away with the spoon though - that's inter-species erotica that shouldn't really be talked about in evolution.... A doon would be formed? Or would it be a spish? And how would we use this spish or doon anyway?)

Oh Slimey, your mind is so feeble when considering options other than those that come to your mind first! Considering that the dish and the spoon share the same habitat, anthropomorphicalogical niche and corresponding growth rates (saucer and teaspoon, soup spoon and bowl, dinner plate and spoon right through to ladel and pot) until firther research is done i think we need to consider the possibility of the dish and the spoon being examples of sexual dimorphism.
 
In order to get there in the first place, would we not have had to evolve?

Just making your argument cyclic....

No, because in this multiverse reality time is only an illusion, it's the autobots, who were always there, that made this matrix. Your not really a person, your just a complex quantum code floating in their advanced computer.

Problem solved. Your evolution theory does not comply :D
 
What I don't understand (entirely) is why didn't the matrix use 'cows' - would the matrix then be easier to be believable?
Agent Daisy doesn't have the same ring to it ;) You are, of course, right and it is something I have thought of too. There are a couple of plausible explanations A/ Revenge. Instead of wiping out humans they inflict pain on them via a virtual nine to five job. You have to admit that the concept is pretty evil.B/ The matrix was not developed by machines but by humans with the idea of intentionally living a virtual life and the machines did not or could not adapt it to a bovine paradise. If, for example, your only options were

a/confined to a wheelchair or bed and your primary skill was dribbling out of your mouth or

b/in a virtual world battling herds of tyrannosaurus with a bevy of surgically enhanced Raquel Welch look alikes inadequately dressed in animal skins

which would you choose ( I've attached a picture of RW to help you decide )?

raquel-welch021b2-275x450.jpg


This is actually an old sci-fi concept where people retire to virtual worlds and was covered in Star Trek: TOS
Hence - the circular argument remains - someone had to evolve in order to create the matrix....
The circular argument holds true for all creation hypothesis and myths. If the FSM ( or your personal deity) exists then how did he come about? Did he just appear fully formed and omnipresent in an cosmic explosion of bolognese sauce (and lets face it, that highly unlikely) or was he created by something else, possibly a creator creator. Then how did the creator creator come about. Did he ... and so on

Of course they could have evolved.
that's inter-species erotica that shouldn't really be talked about in evolution....
Actually viable hybridisation is a part of evolution, normally it is very difficult ( otherwise we would have lots of examples from New Zealand ;) ) but it does occur and if the selection process favours the result then...
 
Last edited:
I agree, Blue. The only difference between our views seems to be what the defining feature of evolution is, which really is quite a small difference on the scale of differences. But hopefully what I have written above will give you a better idea of where I am coming from compared with my previous posts. Perhaps I still do not fully understand where you yourself are coming from, but no doubt you will set me straight if I have it wrong. And so the discussion can move forward.
I have done a bit of checking out of the modern usage of the term. Evolution as the passing on of accumulated change from generation to generation is the most frequently utilised. I am definitely old school with my definition. Probably not surprising when I consider the advances made in the interim. I reckon we can leave the discussion there, heavily in your favour. Lol. And I shall update accordingly.

Blue
 
Scientists have proven that the world has been here for 340 million years when it was created on that tuesday in spring so the thought that it was created 6000years ago is rediculous the world is still flat i suppose to. There is a tree in northern england and the same dna is found on opposite ends of a five acre wood. the plant has continually dropped its branches into ground and continued growing in different directions and now covers five acres, one tree. It has been core dated to be 7500 years old and is the worlds largest tree and also the oldest and in religious veiws it means the world must have been created around this tree as it was here first. Evolution is easy to see, Dinosaurs were here then they were wiped out, then more dinosaurs were here 50 million years later then they were wiped out, now humans and stuff are here and the way were going soon we will be wiped out and something else will evolve. I hope its dinosaurs again because i really want a raptor.
I havent read through all 9 pages yet but will start adding to stuff as i see it. I have always been scientifically minded from school to uni, and yes I did believe in evolution and it made sense because that is what the academic system drums into us as soon as we get to school. I have since opened myself to other ideas and have done a fair bit of research into the possibility that evolution is based on a lot of fallible assumptions. The first and possibly most important of which is the assumption that carbon dating is an accurate and reliable way of telling age. If you don't believe me do your own research on the problems and faults of carbon dating. Then you have problems like irreducible complexity , the problems of his so called "SIMPLE CELL" and the unfathomable statistical unlikelyhood of the probability of any cell forming by chance of the amino acids it consists of. Then after all these things you still have to put them together in some meaning to create life forms....They never tell you these things at school because they choose not to. I have come across some really interesting articles on these things. I do believe in microevolution and species adaptation and diversity in general, but not macroevolution. Yes i am a creationist, but I did not get hear blindly.
 
the problems and faults of carbon dating.
Yeah, carbon dating is but ONE of the methods used to deduce the age of the earth. They have had sufficiently consistent results using other radioactiver isotopes that have longer half lifes, which all point to the earth being over 4billion years old.

hen you have problems like irreducible complexity , the problems of his so called "SIMPLE CELL" and the unfathomable statistical unlikelyhood of the probability of any cell forming by chance of the amino acids it consists of. Then after all these things you still have to put them together in some meaning to create life forms

Given the number of planets, it is actually incredibly likely that it would happen on at least one...which it did.

Yes i am a creationist, but I did not get hear blindly.

How 'bout deafly? ;)
 
If everything was created why would something or someone be sick enough to create Mosquitoes, Tapeworm, Fleas and Ticks. Why would it/they create viruses and disease's spread by these four that kill and mutilate millions of children and adults each year. Why are we classed as the dominant species when we are easily killed of by the tiniest of single cell organisms. If the earth and universe was created the thing/person that created it must be cruel and sardistic to want so much pain and suffering from all forms of life.

Dominant species? Lol I thought we were "God's Children...made in the exact image of God our savior"

And lets remember...This current time period is the BEST and most prosperous time period for human beings in history(thanks ONLY to science and technological advances) if you think the world is depressing now....thing about what it was like 2000 years ago when the death and disease rates were astronomically higher than they are now...where a HUGE amount of women died in simple child birth...When only like 1 out of ever 5 children survived to age 5....The world we are living in today ( 1st world countries only!) is a fluke....Were not supposed to live like this and in this much luxury...it's a fluke because of science...but make no mistake about it Human beings are supposed to live like we did in the past...with the threat of death and disease everywhere....This of course completely ties into religion...It's nothing more than a psychological flaw for our species, homo sapiens...A flaw that other creatures have no concept of because of course they are unaware of their own eventual morality.

This pretty much sums up my exact thoughts on man made religion..

Adam Carolla on Atheism - YouTube
 
Last edited:
I havent read through all 9 pages yet but will start adding to stuff as i see it. I have always been scientifically minded from school to uni, and yes I did believe in evolution and it made sense because that is what the academic system drums into us as soon as we get to school. I have since opened myself to other ideas and have done a fair bit of research into the possibility that evolution is based on a lot of fallible assumptions. The first and possibly most important of which is the assumption that carbon dating is an accurate and reliable way of telling age. If you don't believe me do your own research on the problems and faults of carbon dating. Then you have problems like irreducible complexity , the problems of his so called "SIMPLE CELL" and the unfathomable statistical unlikelyhood of the probability of any cell forming by chance of the amino acids it consists of. Then after all these things you still have to put them together in some meaning to create life forms....They never tell you these things at school because they choose not to. I have come across some really interesting articles on these things. I do believe in microevolution and species adaptation and diversity in general, but not macroevolution. Yes i am a creationist, but I did not get hear blindly.

Nice to see you have done your research and come up with your own ideas rather than the old its in the bible so it must be right theories. I dont mind discussing or even arguing as long as im doing it with someone with knowledge such as yourself. As i said before even a creationist must believe in some form of evolution cheers james
 
Nice to see you have done your research and come up with your own ideas rather than the old its in the bible so it must be right theories. I dont mind discussing or even arguing as long as im doing it with someone with knowledge such as yourself. As i said before even a creationist must believe in some form of evolution cheers james

Trust me, there is no research in the bollocks Mr. Nuts is saying. All he is doing is listening to the young Earth creationists from the Bible Belt and ignoring the science. If he did any research he would know that they aren't flaws at all and even if they were they do not prove creation or disprove evolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top