AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 7  

post #241 of 430
4/4/05 at 1:45pm
There seems to be a problem with definitions here.

What is macro and micro evolution to you? Especially the diffrence between the two.
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #242 of 430
4/4/05 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei
There seems to be a problem with definitions here.

What is macro and micro evolution to you? Especially the diffrence between the two.

micro == within an existing species
macro == speciation...the emergence of a new species...a biologically reproductively isolated entity (or I guess set of entities otherwise asexual reproduction would be required for at least the second generation).

That's what mine are anyway.
post #243 of 430
4/4/05 at 1:51pm
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=microevolution

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=macroevolution
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #244 of 430
4/4/05 at 1:53pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
correct me if I have this wrongly understood but this is indeed an instance of microevolution not macroevolution.

I will grant you that microevolution does take place. It works within the genetic potential of what is already coded within the genome of given species.

Fellows

Yes, and what happens if you take all the Swedes, put a bloody big fence around them and only allow them to reproduce with eachother. Leave them for a million years, come back and introduce a black man into Sweden.

Probable Result.

Black man is reproductively Isolated from Swedish Woman, because over the million years, each has undergone thousands/millions instances of microevolution along different branches, the genes are not mixed to ensure continuation of reproductivity, and thus Black Man and Swedish women are different species.

In another million years, Swedish woman has grown full body hair because it is cold in Sweden, reverted to walking on all fours because it was an advantage in cold slippery cimates, and shrunk half the size, because it saves energy , and reverts to eating berries.

Hey isn't that macro?
post #245 of 430
4/4/05 at 1:54pm
ok, if there are changes within the species, could the accumulation of changes passed down to a portion of the population at some point prevent the inter-breeding.

Could these big changes, speciation, be an accumulation of small changes?

That's what macro-evolution is. It is not fundamently different from micro-evoltion. It is only when viewed from affar that they appear like "big changes".

At some point the small changes become too much to reproduce with the rest of the population. This happens when there was no mingling of the two population during that time because thet were probably isolted geogrphically somewhat.
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
Matvei


"they want to be on 'God's' good side; they want to be saved; want 70 virgins, or raisins, or whatever . . ." -Pfflam
post #246 of 430
4/4/05 at 1:54pm
Steven M. Stanley (then at Johns Hopkins University), Macroevolution (W.H.Freeman,San Francisco,1979)p.96:"...The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid. "

Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996). Behe reports that the Journal of Molecular Evolution during 25 years published about 1000 papers per decade on molecular evolution. Not one paper even attempts step-by-step to describe how evolution could "create" any complex biochemical system, of which there are thousands in living cells. A survey of the hundreds of articles on the same subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences yields the same barren result. Behe shows how such molecular structures and biochemical systems as the chemistry of vision, the Bombardier Beetle, cilia, the motorized bacterial flagellum, the human immune system and the biosynthesis of amino acid molecules all require "minimal function" and possess "irreducible complexity" that deny the possibility of stepwise development from a "proto-system." Each system requires all its parts to have any value (pp. 18-36, 45-46, 130-131, 59-97, 117-139, 143-161, 165-183).

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #247 of 430
4/4/05 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Matvei
There seems to be a problem with definitions here.

What is macro and micro evolution to you? Especially the diffrence between the two.

yes, super-duper-macro-evolution. Cows Pigs. A strawman created to deny the fact that reproductive isolation is pretty much the correct definition macroevolution.
post #248 of 430
4/4/05 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Yes, and what happens if you take all the Swedes, put a bloody big fence around them and only allow them to reproduce with eachother. Leave them for a million years, come back and introduce a black man into Sweden.

Probable Result.

Black man is reproductively Isolated from Swedish Woman, because over the million years, each has undergone thousands/millions instances of microevolution along different branches, the genes are not mixed to ensure continuation of reproductivity, and thus Black Man and Swedish women are different species.

In another million years, Swedish woman has grown full body hair because it is cold in Sweden, reverted to walking on all fours because it was an advantage in cold slippery cimates, and shrunk half the size, because it saves energy , and reverts to eating berries.

Hey isn't that macro?

It may be macro as you fram it but something tells me it is not reality

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #249 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
A strawman created to deny the fact that reproductive isolation is pretty much the correct definition macroevolution.

I am certainly not denying this (nor do I think is Fellows). But you have to be careful about what "reproductive isolation" means...there can be various forms: biological, geographical and social (soci-economic?).

The first is the only one that really counts here. The other two are simply "we're too far away...we can't" and "i don't really want to with you". These are not new species. Per your previous example...Swedes and blacks can inter-breed...they produce a new human being...that likely shares some of the traits of both parents. But the child is not a new species.
post #250 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
It may be macro as you fram it but something tells me it is not reality

Fellows

whatever.
post #251 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:01pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Swedes and blacks can inter-breed...they produce a new human being...that likely shares some of the traits of both parents. But the child is not a new species.

You and I agree with this. I have to wonder about some of the others here.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #252 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:02pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
whatever.

I just don't want you to stray off too far

You know I love you too...

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #253 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla


Per your previous example...Swedes and blacks can inter-breed...they produce a new human being...that likely shares some of the traits of both parents. But the child is not a new species.

How long did it take to evolve an adversion to understanding what I wrote and not what you think you'd like me to say?

Come on, to misunderstand that example is to simply troll with a capital T.R.O.L.L.
post #254 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Steven M. Stanley (then at Johns Hopkins University), Macroevolution (W.H.Freeman,San Francisco,1979)p.96:"...The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid. "

Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: the Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1996). Behe reports that the Journal of Molecular Evolution during 25 years published about 1000 papers per decade on molecular evolution. Not one paper even attempts step-by-step to describe how evolution could "create" any complex biochemical system, of which there are thousands in living cells. A survey of the hundreds of articles on the same subject in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences yields the same barren result. Behe shows how such molecular structures and biochemical systems as the chemistry of vision, the Bombardier Beetle, cilia, the motorized bacterial flagellum, the human immune system and the biosynthesis of amino acid molecules all require "minimal function" and possess "irreducible complexity" that deny the possibility of stepwise development from a "proto-system." Each system requires all its parts to have any value (pp. 18-36, 45-46, 130-131, 59-97, 117-139, 143-161, 165-183).

Fellows

May I refer you to the eye abstract I posted on the previous page. A bit wordy, I admit, but it is a complex topic. It makes for a compelling story.

I think Mr. Behe is behind the times, I'mno expert on all those fields, but from what I have read there are many compelling stories for each of those examples. I don't know why you get hung up on macro evolution if you cna accept microevolution. It is hundreds of years versus millions and billions of years.
post #255 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
How long did it take to evolve an adversion to understanding what I wrote and not what you think you'd like me to say?

Come on, to misunderstand that example is to simply troll with a capital T.R.O.L.L.

I'm trying really hard to avoid your typical flame-bait.

Please explain how you think my statement ("Swedes and blacks can inter-breed...they produce a new human being...that likely shares some of the traits of both parents. But the child is not a new species.") is incorrect?
post #256 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
You and I agree with this. I have to wonder about some of the others here.

Fellows

I would hope you are not suggesting that anyone in this discussion has suggested that people of two different ethnicities having a child constitutes the creation of a new species, for better or for worse. Not a single person has to my knowledge.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #257 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I just don't want you to stray off too far

You know I love you too...

Fellows

suddenly, you're showing a very clear understanding of evolution, which demonstrates, that at least you've had the decency to realise that intentionally lying is not favourable.

Seeing as it's you, and I strangely do have time for you, do I need to explain to you why my example IS totally based in the reality of the evolution of species in the world, or in your heart, and only God knows if you're being willfully ignorantly deceptive again, do you understand the allegory I was making as the 'naturalistic' truth?
post #258 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
May I refer you to the eye abstract I posted on the previous page. A bit wordy, I admit, but it is a complex topic. It makes for a compelling story.

I think Mr. Behe is behind the times, I'mno expert on all those fields, but from what I have read there are many compelling stories for each of those examples. I don't know why you get hung up on macro evolution if you cna accept microevolution. It is hundreds of years versus millions and billions of years.

Actually I did take the time to read what you posted and it was interesting. A few words did catch my attention that while it is refreshing to see the candid usage of the words for a change did leave trouble for the overall thrust of their statements.

"Because dinoflagellates are commonly found as symbionts in cnidarians, the dinoflagellates may have transferred their photoreceptor genes to cnidarians."

"may"

This is still speculation not fact. It is wishful description not actual observance.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #259 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:14pm
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
I would hope you are not suggesting that anyone in this discussion has suggested that people of two different ethnicities having a child constitutes the creation of a new species, for better or for worse. Not a single person has to my knowledge.

No I can not say any perticular person has said such a thing but stranger things have been thrown around from time to time on the boards.

I certainly did not mean any disrespect. I was just slightly concerned that it could even be possible.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #260 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:17pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm trying really hard to avoid your typical flame-bait.

Please explain how you think my statement ("Swedes and blacks can inter-breed...they produce a new human being...that likely shares some of the traits of both parents. But the child is not a new species.") is incorrect?

Because GOD DAMN IT, I explicitly stated that the probable result of 2 groups of the same species being reproductively isolated (BY THE BIG FENCE! - IE A SHIFTING CONTINENTAL PLATE) for a million years would result in the occurance of different branches of MICROEVOLUTION for each group, because they were not mixing GENES - that would leave them BIOLOGICALLY REPRODUCTIVELY ISOLATED.

I then was at pains to demonstrate that after the occurance of REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION, the two groups would FOREVER be a DIFFERENT species that would ADAPT to the ENVIRONMENT they were in by successive microevolution until they resembled what would appear to be a completely different creatures.

But of course, an analysis of their DNA would reveal a COMMON ANCESTOR.
post #261 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Actually I did take the time to read what you posted and it was interesting. A few words did catch my attention that while it is refreshing to see the candid usage of the words for a change did leave trouble for the overall thrust of their statements.

"Because dinoflagellates are commonly found as symbionts in cnidarians, the dinoflagellates may have transferred their photoreceptor genes to cnidarians."

"may"

This is still speculation not fact. It is wishful description not actual observance.

Fellows

Somethimes I think you expect a proponent of evolution to present a photo of one species physically handing over a suitcase of traits over to another to be conviced something is "fact."

When discussing evolution, particularly the evolution of extinct animals/organisms, all you will ever have is "may have", "probably", "likely" etc. Particularly because these things can not be observed to be taking place anymore amongst those lifeforms in question. But while these shortcomings are ridiculed endlessly when they are put within the context of evolution, they are completely overlooked when they are put within the context of immaculate creation, intelligent design, etc.

Where is this demand for proof of the other forms of explainantion?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #262 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK


But of course, an analysis of their DNA would reveal a COMMON ANCESTOR.

Yeah they would still be human....

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #263 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
No I can not say any perticular person has said such a thing but stranger things have been thrown around from time to time on the boards.

I certainly did not mean any disrespect. I was just slightly concerned that it could even be possible.

Fellows

Fair enough, but it really shouldn't have been brought up within the context of this discussion, as no such things had been suggested. But it was worded to sound like that might have been the case.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #264 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:23pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
Because GOD DAMN IT, I explicitly stated that the probable result of 2 groups of the same species being reproductively isolated (BY THE BIG FENCE! - IE A SHIFTING CONTINENTAL PLATE) for a million years would result in the occurance of different branches of MICROEVOLUTION for each group, because they were not mixing GENES - that would leave them REPRODUCTIVELY ISOLATED.

I then was at pains to demonstrate that after the occurance of REPRODUCTIVE ISOLATION, the two groups would FOREVER be a DIFFERENT species that would ADAPT to the ENVIRONMENT they were in by successive microevolution until they resembled what would appear to be a completely different creatures.

But of course, an analysis of their DNA would reveal a COMMON ANCESTOR.

Okay. Fine. If you are assuming that these populations can no longer inter-breed...biologically, we'd agree. I am saying show me the examples (NOTE: As stated earlier I will be reading the article posted by Carson O'Genic..but I am not holding out much hope there for anything but examples of social reproductive isolation rather than biological).
post #265 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:24pm
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
Somethimes I think you expect a proponent of evolution to present a photo of one species physically handing over a suitcase of traits over to another to be conviced something is "fact."

When discussing evolution, particularly the evolution of extinct animals/organisms, all you will ever have is "may have", "probably", "likely" etc. Particularly because these things con not be observed to be taking place anymore amongst those lifeforms in question. But while these shortcomings are ridiculed endlessly when they are put within the context of evolution, they are completely overlooked when they are put within the context of immaculate creation, intelligent design, etc.

Where is this demand for proof of the other forms of explainantion?

I think this has to do with the notion of many educators and scientists claiming "evolution" as truth and fact.

It is fuzzy. Well yes on the one hand microevolution is True

What is not so well known for absolute certainty if the truth be told is if macroevolution is something which has been a fact even just once. This is where scrutiny comes into play.

If it were just tossed around as a possibility then I think the scrutiny of the belief would be less intense.

Trust me this is no different than any other belief.

It is the nature of most belief systems.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #266 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Yeah they would still be human....

Fellows

Well humans are mammals just like whales are. Are they not different species? Just because they fit into a particular label together, does not mean they are then automatically the same species.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #267 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
but I am not holding out much hope there for anything but examples of social reproductive isolation rather than biological).

You act as if "social" and "biological" must exist independant of each other.

Penguins hang out with penguins. Geese hang out with geese. They are socially isolated from each other for several reasons, one of which being they are biologicalkly isolated from each other.

A penguin isn't going to try and mate with a goose because it can't do so successfully. So why bother?
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen. - Albert Einstein

I wish developing great products was as easy as writing a check. If that were the case, then Microsoft would...
post #268 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Actually I did take the time to read what you posted and it was interesting. A few words did catch my attention that while it is refreshing to see the candid usage of the words for a change did leave trouble for the overall thrust of their statements.

"Because dinoflagellates are commonly found as symbionts in cnidarians, the dinoflagellates may have transferred their photoreceptor genes to cnidarians."

"may"

This is still speculation not fact. It is wishful description not actual observance.

Fellows

Scientists are very careful about their use of words. "May" can mean a lot from a silly idea to most people think this is true. If your'e looking for firm language, I wouldn't be reading scientific writing.

My intention in posting that abstract was to first get away from the idea that the eye in all its complecity just poped up in half a million years as was suggested by earlier posts coming from that movie clip. The foundation of the eye starts with light-sensitive cells and build from there. It didn't happen quickly.

I think this is important to understand, because many folkd seem to have trouble with macroevolution because they look at the final complex body part and say how did that get there without spending the time to look at all the stuff that came before it. Once you dig a little deeper, it doesn't seem so unplausible.
post #269 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:38pm
It doesn't matter if you are Socially (willfully) or Geographically (unintentionally) isolated,

IF you are not mixing Genes, eventually, because of microevolution, you will become "Biologically Isolated".

That you might still, look like the common ancestor does not mean that MacroEvolution has not taken place.

Given enough time, you will not look like the Common Ancestor either because of further microevolution.
post #270 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I think this has to do with the notion of many educators and scientists claiming "evolution" as truth and fact.

It is fuzzy. Well yes on the one hand microevolution is True

What is not so well known for absolute certainty if the truth be told is if macroevolution is something which has been a fact even just once. This is where scrutiny comes into play.

If it were just tossed around as a possibility then I think the scrutiny of the belief would be less intense.

Trust me this is no different than any other belief.

It is the nature of most belief systems.

Fellows

I posted somewhere at the beginning that my view is that the evdience that evolution occured is quite obvious, even if we haven't watched it happen. The "belief" you speek of can take two forms as far as I can tell. Either you believe the obvious happened or you believe that God made it look obvious that it happened.
post #271 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally posted by rageous
You act as if "social" and "biological" must exist independant of each other.

Penguins hang out with penguins. Geese hang out with geese. They are socially isolated from each other for several reasons, one of which being they are biologicalkly isolated from each other.

A penguin isn't going to try and mate with a goose because it can't do so successfully. So why bother?

Yes, but your example is much different than saying that "Red Penguins" and "Blue Penguins" will not reproduce because of "mating ritual" (Red's don't like the Blues)...but if they were to get drunk one night and "go for it"...would still produce a penguin (albeit probably a purple one......not anything else.) Blues and Reds can mix (well...not in American politics, but that is a debate for another time.) The penguins and gees (in your example) cannot produce any offspring with each other...this is the boundary of each species.

At some point for speciation to be valid...there must be an entity that would be considered a "bridge" or "branch" species...one that likely has one foot in both camps...it reproduces within its own (new) kind...say Blue...but cannot reproduce with the old kind from which it came. The Blues are a new species...slightly different in some manner...perhaps a minor step towards something "more different". They are now biologically reproductively isolated.

This isn't about cows berthing chickens. No one is really expecting that kind of evidence. But it also sort of is in a micro sense.

Don't confuse this with "micro evolution" which is variation within a species (note the variations are all still able to inter-breed...they are not biologically reproductively isolated.)
post #272 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Okay. Fine. If you are assuming that these populations can no longer inter-breed...biologically, we'd agree. I am saying show me the examples (NOTE: As stated earlier I will be reading the article posted by Carson O'Genic..but I am not holding out much hope there for anything but examples of social reproductive isolation rather than biological).

So were agreed that the correct definition of Macroevolution IS Biological Isolation and has nothing to do with Frogs turning into Cows, or Pigs giving birth to Elephants. Lets just check that before I provide you the links.

Do you agree or Not?
post #273 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:44pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
It doesn't matter if you are Socially (willfully) or Geographically (unintentionally) isolated,

IF you are not mixing Genes, eventually, because of microevolution, you will become "Biologically Isolated".

Maybe. This is where we disagree. This is certainly a possibility. Perhaps a highly probable possibility. But there is not evidence that makes it a certaintly.
post #274 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:45pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
So were agreed that the correct definition of Macroevolution IS Biological Isolation and has nothing to do with Frogs turning into Cows, or Pigs giving birth to Elephants. Lets just check that before I provide you the links.

Do you agree or Not?

I never said or suggested anything about "Frogs turning into Cows, or Pigs giving birth to Elephants"...you brought that in.
post #275 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Okay. Fine. If you are assuming that these populations can no longer inter-breed...biologically, we'd agree. I am saying show me the examples (NOTE: As stated earlier I will be reading the article posted by Carson O'Genic..but I am not holding out much hope there for anything but examples of social reproductive isolation rather than biological).

It is speciation if all females of a species won't have anything to do with all males of another. Genetic isolation whether due to a mountain range or different concepts of what is sexy is still genetic isolation.

Indeed, a taste for the odd and unusaul by female fruit flies appears to have lead to massive speciation by Drosophil in the Hawaiian islands. The girls just like the wierd boys.
post #276 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I never said or suggested anything about "Frogs turning into Cows, or Pigs giving birth to Elephants"...you brought that in.

DO YOU AGREE OR NOT?
post #277 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:51pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
It is speciation if all females of a species won't have anything to do with all males of another. Genetic isolation whether due to a mountain range or different concepts of what is sexy is still genetic isolation.

No it really isn't. Oh...and if what you suggest happens, there won't be any speciation at all, but extinction instead.
post #278 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Maybe. This is where we disagree. This is certainly a possibility. Perhaps a highly probable possibility. But there is not evidence that makes it a certaintly.

OK you can have that, "Will" was not the correct word as it is a definitive statement that may not apply in every single case.

Apologies.
post #279 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Originally posted by MarcUK
DO YOU AGREE OR NOT?

Stop shouting (and being a jerk).

"the correct definition of Macroevolution IS Biological (reproductive) Isolation"

Yes.
post #280 of 430
4/4/05 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No it really isn't. Oh...and if what you suggest happens, there won't be any speciation at all, but extinction instead.

You're not getting it Chris.

Teh fish in the example didn't want to breed with each other because they looked different and had different mating rituals.

In the case of the fruit flies, the females had thier choices of males. They picked the ones with undusal looks or behaviors. Over time (not that much time in this case) many different species evolve
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism