B
buffalo
Guest
It would be best to see what the top evo’s say about this. The modern synthesis is a big problem.
Recent peer reviewed paper overturns Neo Darwinian mathematical model
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
One is observed, the other not. Macro does not happen. They are not the same thing.
B
buffalo
Guest
That is what they sell you.
N
niceatheist
Guest
No it’s not. You are misrepresenting some published work where even the authors don’t make that case.niceatheist:
It would be best to see what the top evo’s say about this. The modern synthesis is a big problem.
N
niceatheist
Guest
We have observed speciation (hence macroevolution).
I think it’s time for you to put down the AIG nonsense and actually read some research for understanding, rather than for quote mining.
I think it’s time for you to put down the AIG nonsense and actually read some research for understanding, rather than for quote mining.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Macro has been created the laboratory.
N
niceatheist
Guest
I’d say, more fundamentally, asserting there is a difference between microevolution and macroevolution, at best, demonstrates an intense ignorance of evolutionary theory and the nature of reproduction at the genetic level.
B
buffalo
Guest
Speciation is devolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
Designed? What experiment?
B
buffalo
Guest
You know better.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Sorry, just no. In evolutionary biology, there’s no such thing as devolution.niceatheist:
Speciation is devolution.
B
buffalo
Guest
There is now. Look up the dictionary definition.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Sorry, no. You have a problem with evolutionary theory, I don’t. Macro versus micro is not an issue in evolutionary theory at all.niceatheist:
You know better.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Which has nothing to do with biology. Rhetorical games are not science, and dictionaries are descriptive, not proscriptive.niceatheist:
There is now. Look up the dictionary definition.
B
buffalo
Guest
You can see it in the dictionary definition as I posted earlier.
Now you can see it in biology. There are many examples of the term being used.
Speciation is a loss of an ability once had. This is devolution.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Evolution has no goal, therefore your notion of “devolution” is not in biology. There may be specific cases of loss of function (ie. some cave-dwelling species losing a large part of the visual function), but no one refers to that in terms of devolution.niceatheist:
You can see it in the dictionary definition as I posted earlier.
Now you can see it in biology. There are many examples of the term being used.
Speciation is a loss of an ability once had. This is devolution.
And your final statement is reiteration of a rather tired pseudo-scientific argument about evolution being a loss of information. Clearly that’s not the case, so again it’s just a rhetorical game where you try to forcefit what really is a rather general definition of a word to far more nuanced and complex scientific explanations.
There is no goal in evolution. Populations evolve to survive and take advantage of ecological niches. Whether that means new traits and functions evolve, or some traits and functions are reduced or disappeared, it’s just a continuum. We and chimpanzees split somewhere around 7 million years ago, chimps evolved to live in largely jungle environments, where they are highly successful (or were until poaching and deforestation started destroying their habitat), whereas we evolved to become savanna dwellers. Two related species moving to occupy different ecological niches.
B
buffalo
Guest
Survival is not a goal?
N
niceatheist
Guest
Not as such, no. It’s just the nature of living populations. And not all of them do survive. In the long run, no species survives, it either adapts and evolves, or goes extinct.niceatheist:
Survival is not a goal?
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Don’t know the name of the experiment off the top of my head. Long story short, scientists were able to, through selective breeding, create a new species of fruit fly.
To clarify definitions, to create a new species in this sense is to breed them to the point where the experimental group can reproduce within itself but cannot reproduce with the control group.
To clarify definitions, to create a new species in this sense is to breed them to the point where the experimental group can reproduce within itself but cannot reproduce with the control group.
R
Rabbi
Guest
Thank you for the sincere response and open-mindedness. I usually have to deal with those with much arrogance and it gets tiring (not to say we don’t have our own). I see your point about not being sure if there’s a G-d out there, and how there is no real empirical evidence to prove either side, but that we shouldn’t hide from such conversations as it disables learning and growth. I am in full agreement with you on all that.
Regarding evolution, you’re right. The ancient Greeks said we came from fish (from the sea). The rabbis mentioned Adam having a tail and that there were other people who lived before he was born, who looked very different and acted as if they had no soul or reason (Nachmanides gives a fair description of one such creature). The Kabbalists have also pointed to an evolution in spirit, as well as quoting some midrashim which say G-d made many worlds full of different creatures but then destroyed them. There is even an argument for Rabbi Yitzchak of Acco’s calculation for the age of the universe using certain psalms and the Sefer HaTemunah.
To my recollection, all giraffes use their long necks for fighting for mates, they actually eat bushes and low trees. You are so correct about Darwin’s father and Alfred Wallace.
Regarding evolution, you’re right. The ancient Greeks said we came from fish (from the sea). The rabbis mentioned Adam having a tail and that there were other people who lived before he was born, who looked very different and acted as if they had no soul or reason (Nachmanides gives a fair description of one such creature). The Kabbalists have also pointed to an evolution in spirit, as well as quoting some midrashim which say G-d made many worlds full of different creatures but then destroyed them. There is even an argument for Rabbi Yitzchak of Acco’s calculation for the age of the universe using certain psalms and the Sefer HaTemunah.
To my recollection, all giraffes use their long necks for fighting for mates, they actually eat bushes and low trees. You are so correct about Darwin’s father and Alfred Wallace.
Last edited:
- Status