The 5 Divisions of Evolution

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 




Speciation can't be seen in macro-evolution in a lifetime.


Yes it can, and has been observed many times (this link contains a non-exhaustive list of speciation events approaching 30 in number).

Your definition of speciation is extremely simplistic by the way, and biologists have just about given up on the term as being useful in any meaningful way. For more information on this see the article linked above.

edit on 14/1/2012 by rnaa because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


There is no real difference between microevolution and macroevolution, they are the same process. The perceived difference is merely a matter of TIME. In other words microevolutionary changes can happen with each new generation, if you fast-forward a few thousand generations the species will have undergone so many changes that they might be radically different. Creationists only separate the two because even they cannot deny the existence of small genetic variations between one generation and the next, by conceding that ground, however, they automatically lose.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by addygrace
 


There is no real difference between microevolution and macroevolution, they are the same process. The perceived difference is merely a matter of TIME. In other words microevolutionary changes can happen with each new generation, if you fast-forward a few thousand generations the species will have undergone so many changes that they might be radically different. Creationists only separate the two because even they cannot deny the existence of small genetic variations between one generation and the next, by conceding that ground, however, they automatically lose.
When have ID supporters ever said adaptation or small changes from one generation to the next was not a fact? So, no they don't concede the point. They know this as fact. They didn't just one day say, "Oh I get it, now Charles Darwin. I'll concede that but now prove this."

No, the problem has always been extrapolation and having nature be the guiding force.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 




When have ID supporters ever said adaptation or small changes from one generation to the next was not a fact? So, no they don't concede the point.


I think you're confused about the definition of the word concede. To concede that microevolution occurs is to admit that microevolution does occur.. The issue is that creationists separate micro and macro evolution when the only difference is the amount of time or generations that have passed in a population. Microevolutionary changes add up to be the supposedly "macro" evolutionary changes that creationists claim are impossible.

Obviously nature drives evolution there's plenty of evidence for that. Whether something supernatural might also guide evolution is a claim that needs to have some evidence to back it up before science will even take it seriously.



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by addygrace
 

I think you're confused about the definition of the word concede. To concede that microevolution occurs is to admit that microevolution does occur
To concede is to grudgingly admit something, or to admit something that you don't really want to admit. That is the exact opposite of what creationist say about micro evolution.


The issue is that creationists separate micro and macro evolution when the only difference is the amount of time or generations that have passed in a population. Microevolutionary changes add up to be the supposedly "macro" evolutionary changes that creationists claim are impossible.
Creationists didn't make up 'macroevolution'. Here's the problem. Taking adaptation and small change and adding a long time, isn't a sound way to do science. Even evolutionists notice problems with this. Scientists don't know if small change and adaptation are enough to cause the diversity in life. There are evolutionists who think it should be enough. There are some who don't.


Obviously nature drives evolution there's plenty of evidence for that. Whether something supernatural might also guide evolution is a claim that needs to have some evidence to back it up before science will even take it seriously.
Obviously nature drives small change. The problem is we don't know what exactly caused all the diversity of life we see today. What mechanism caused the Cambrian Explosion?




posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 




To concede is to grudgingly admit something


Not necessarily grudgingly. Ground in a debate can be conceded without any ill will.



What mechanism caused the Cambrian Explosion?


The internal debates you're talking about between Evolutionists are talking primarily about how evolution works, not whether it works. Some have suggested that evolution can happen faster or that bigger changes can occur in fewer generations than was once thought. None of these finds cast any doubt on the basic process of evolution, merely on what drives it, how fast it can take place, etc.

The Cambrian Explosion needs an explanation certainly but a supernatural one, even an extraterrestrial one, would make a poor explanation. Also keep in mind that this "explosion" took place over MILLIONS of years, quickly in terms of evolution but no need to leap to Gods or aliens as an explanation.

Some Creationists keep trying to find a gap, any gap, any area that we haven't quite grasped or where debates among scientists still occur and simply force their God into the mold as a one-size-fits-all answer, it doesn't work that way.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by addygrace
 

Not necessarily grudgingly. Ground in a debate can be conceded without any ill will
I grudgingly concede this point for the sake of getting past the intent of the word.



The internal debates you're talking about between Evolutionists are talking primarily about how evolution works, not whether it works.
I agree all evolutionists believe in evolution.

Some have suggested that evolution can happen faster or that bigger changes can occur in fewer generations than was once thought. None of these finds cast any doubt on the basic process of evolution, merely on what drives it, how fast it can take place, etc.

The Cambrian Explosion needs an explanation certainly but a supernatural one, even an extraterrestrial one, would make a poor explanation. Also keep in mind that this "explosion" took place over MILLIONS of years, quickly in terms of evolution but no need to leap to Gods or aliens as an explanation.

Some Creationists keep trying to find a gap, any gap, any area that we haven't quite grasped or where debates among scientists still occur and simply force their God into the mold as a one-size-fits-all answer, it doesn't work that way.
The Cambrian Explosion isn't a gap. On one hand you have the theory of evolution. On the other you have intelligent design. Evolution theory makes the prediction, the fossil record should show all kingdoms having a common ancestor. ID makes the prediction all kingdoms should appear separate from each other. The fossil record shows up to 100 phyla showing up at the same time( within 5 to 10 millions years of one another). That is instantly in geologic terms. Now you can ignore this fact, if you want, but it's still a fact that goes against the theory of evolution. Everybody always says evolution is the best theory we have, but the fossil record says otherwise.

This paradox is too huge to ignore. The Cambrian Explosion was a huge problem for Darwin, and it's a huge problem today.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


The Cambrian Explosion isn't a gap. On one hand you have the theory of evolution. On the other you have intelligent design. Evolution theory makes the prediction, the fossil record should show all kingdoms having a common ancestor. ID makes the prediction all kingdoms should appear separate from each other. The fossil record shows up to 100 phyla showing up at the same time( within 5 to 10 millions years of one another). That is instantly in geologic terms. Now you can ignore this fact, if you want, but it's still a fact that goes against the theory of evolution. Everybody always says evolution is the best theory we have, but the fossil record says otherwise.

You're claiming that creationism is based on a lack of evidence in the fossil record. This is the very definition of a God of the gaps argument. To paraphrase Tyson, if that's how you want to invoke your evidence for a creator, then your creator is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Every Precambrian metazoan fossil that we find that shows ancestry to a Cambrian phyla or a point of divergence between phyla (and if you think we haven't then you're not keeping up with thirty year old research much less current research) just makes that pocket get smaller and smaller and smaller.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 




This paradox is too huge to ignore.


But not big enough to abandon evolution and insert God or aliens into the uncomfortable gap in our knowledge. The Cambrian Explosion did take place quickly in context of how we understand evolution currently, but you'll recall I did mention internal debates among scientists arguing over whether evolution might happen much faster than previously understood. We're dealing with a period of over 70 million years, not a few hundred generations, not even a few thousand generations, more like a few million or MORE depending on the reproduction rate of the organisms involved.

The Cambrian Explosion presents no big challenge to evolution, if anything it presents simply a better chance to study evolution. Even if it were entirely unexplained there would still be no reason to invoke a God. Even if the science were completely WRONG, even if evolution were proved false tomorrow, there still wouldn't be cause to throw up our hands in ignorance and declare that God simply explains it all.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by addygrace
 




This paradox is too huge to ignore.


But not big enough to abandon evolution and insert God or aliens into the uncomfortable gap in our knowledge. The Cambrian Explosion did take place quickly in context of how we understand evolution currently, but you'll recall I did mention internal debates among scientists arguing over whether evolution might happen much faster than previously understood. We're dealing with a period of over 70 million years, not a few hundred generations, not even a few thousand generations, more like a few million or MORE depending on the reproduction rate of the organisms involved.

The Cambrian Explosion presents no big challenge to evolution, if anything it presents simply a better chance to study evolution. Even if it were entirely unexplained there would still be no reason to invoke a God. Even if the science were completely WRONG, even if evolution were proved false tomorrow, there still wouldn't be cause to throw up our hands in ignorance and declare that
God simply explains it all.
I'm not invoking God because we don't know what happened in the Cambrian. I believe life was designed, if this is true then we should see life arising all at once, and not gradually over time.



posted on Jan, 29 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by addygrace
 


Well we don't see life arising ALL AT ONCE, unless the tens of millions of years over which the Cambrian Explosion took place counts as "all at once" to you - and of course there's the fact that the Cambrian Explosion didn't exactly give rise to ALL species.

I see no sign of design when I look at life and certainly no evidence of it. We don't even have any evidence of intelligence tampering with natural selection, at least not until mankind began domesticating animals and artificially selecting certain characteristics in crops.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Ah, ok. I get this thread now. It was never actually intended to be about "divisions" of evolution, more like "faulty assumptions about it by ID advocates". Environment drives evolution (more notably the rate of it). If there is a big change in the environment it is usually followed by the dominance of a new species. The earth was more likely than not covered by ice on most of the surface during that time, so what seems logical to me is that it began melting and warming up the earth, hence the relatively "quick" (10-60 million years is quick lol) adaptation and extinction of creatures that relied on that environment. To put that in perspective, humans have only been a species for 200,000 years. 10-60 million years certainly is not quick. The entire hominid line (Ardi to today)evolved in around 7 million years. It's also possible a comet hit the earth around that time, possibly bringing new materials to change the existing life on earth. There's a lot we don't know, but there's also a lot we do know. Saying there are 2 competing theories on life, isn't true by a long shot. Evolution is the only one with evidence to support it. Finding one thing that scientists aren't completely sure about doesn't prove the whole thing wrong, it warrants further study.

Also, the Cambrian explosion certainly isn't evidence of ID. I'm not sure which version of god you subscribe to, but creation to explain one transition of species does not make a whole lot of sense. So where did the organisms come from that were there before the explosion? So let me get this straight. It took roughly 1 billion years to go from single cell to multi-cell, so god just sat back and watched it for a billion years, then decided to take 10-60 million to create an explosion of life, then sat back again and let it all develop for another 500 million years. Personally, I think that if creation is true we'd see all life instantly appearing at once, rather than slowly over millions of years, and we simply do not see this at all in the fossil record.
edit on 30-1-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join