Is evolution a fact?

[DutchLiam84]

A guess of hat he'll say to this evidence: But but but, whales use it to hold their reproduction organs in place....so it's not rudimentary and the atavism is just a bad mutation. It's like polydactyly in cats! Happens in humans too!
OR something that we live in a fallen world and we would expect fuck-ups like this, before sin this would've never happened.
OR something about artists renderings that were false. They made an entire animal just from a jawbone. Even Gingerich himself said they were wrong.
OR there should be way more transitionals than the ones they've found.

NEXT!

p.s. Again...devil's shitty advocate here.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

:facepalm:

Why are you wasting your time using a common dictionary when you should be using a biological textbook for definitions?

so micro evolution : the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to complex form within a species or small group of organisms over a short period of time.

Agree on definition mr. Ra?

Wait, what?

I thought that definition was already established and agreed upon by both parties. I thought the problem you were having was with the definition of macroevolution. And remember, consult a biology textbook/source and not a common dictionary for your definition.

 

[Rumraket]

What he_who_is_nobody said, you already agreed on a definition of microevolution.

Also, the definition you agreed upon to begin with is the proper definition as used by evolutionary biologists. Where at all possible, you should stick to the definitions as scientists use them, not definitions from dictionaries which usually just denote the common vernacular instead of from the professional technical literature.

That also means you should be using the correct technical definition of macroevolution as used by evolutionary biologists. AronRa already gave you that definition in his post.

 

[AronRa]

mi·cro·ev·o·lu·tion
ˌmīkrō-evəˈlo͞oSHən,-ˌēvə-/
nounBIOLOGY
noun: micro-evolution
evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.

Ok that definition. Let's go with it. Now please explain what you mean by an evolutionary change .... Please use an example.

The reason I gave you the definitions that I did is because I know this topic very well, and (no offense) but you literally don't know what you're talking about. For example, It's not "or a small group of organisms"; it's one interbreeding species. That's what 'population' means in this context. The bit about "a short period" is inconsistent too, and I'll explain why later.

If you're going to use common dictionaries, at least use Wikipedia, since that's the only one to provide a sufficiently detailed description, with scientific citations, and is subject to correction. Regular laymen's dictionaries commonly get scientific definitions wrong, and will not make corrections even when notified. Look up 'animal' for example. Every common dictionary gets that one wrong, often in different ways.

Since you asked for an example of microevolution, I'll give you one, but it is going to be according to the definition scientists actually use. An example of microevolution is when one group of organisms becomes temporarily isolated from the parent gene pool. Genetic drift allows unique mutations to accumulate in that group that didn't occur, and aren't controlled or inhibited by the ancestral or sister group. Of course at the same time, the ancestral group is now accumulating unique mutations of their own which are no longer shared with the now isolated group. However the larger the breeding population, the more any new variance will be restricted or inhibited by the dominant gene pool. So the smaller the population, the faster it will evolve; provided it is still large enough that the bottleneck doesn't cause adverse effects of inbreeding. If this isolation occurs as a part of the practice of artificial selection, then the result will eventually be a new 'breed'. Otherwise, such as in the case of natural selection, then the product would be called a sub-species. In either case, it is recognized when every member of one group shares diagnostic traits with every other member of that group, but that are not shared by any member of the other group. Dogs are the best example of this, both for microevolution and for macroevolution, but we'll get to that later. I made a video explaining that, but you already said you're not interested in watching it.

Before I explain any more, do you understand and accept this much?

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding; More

so micro evolution : the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to complex form within a species or small group of organisms over a short period of time.

Agree on definition mr. Ra?

No. Your definition said "the process"; mine specified what that process is: "variance in allele frequencies", "descent with inherent genetic modification". I was very specific about it, much more than your dictionary is. My definition also didn't include errors like yours does.

(1) You don't define something by adding "especially". It either fits the category or it doesn't, and something might fit the 'special' category but not meet the core requirement. And if it meets the criteria except for the special case, then that negates the specialty. I suspect you're going to demand that I prove this to you for certain, so our definitions will have to be defensibly accurate throughout and free from ambiguity or exceptions.

(2) 'Darwinism' refers only to a 19th century understanding of natural and sexual selection, Darwin's own postulations. Our discussion will go well beyond what he knew. If you're speaking with academics in England, it might be OK to say 'Darwinism', and have people understand that you're really talking about the modern synthesis of Mendelo-Darwinian evolution, but in America, 'Darwinism' is a pejorative used by willfully undereducated propagandists to misrepresent evolution as though it were a religious belief. We're going to refer to it accurately. We've already established why scientific positions are either incomparable to, or exactly opposite of religious beliefs.

(3) You're adding unnecessary criteria that don't always apply. For example, (a) there's also no precise metric for how 'gradual' something is. Creationists often pretend that Gould's principle of Punctuated Equilibrium contradicts Darwin's principle of gradualism. In fact all evolution is necessarily gradual; it's just a question of how gradual it is. (b) Evolution isn't always progressive either, another common creationist misconception. Neither is it always more complex; it is often less so, and most often it is not significantly different in that respect.

Not only did you add misleading criteria that shouldn't be included; your definition failed to include what is most needed, the exact process I'm trying to prove to you. As for microevolution and macroevolution, that literally is no more than "small scale" and "large scale" perspectives, whether we zoom in or zoom out. How do we tell the difference? The point of division is whether it occurs within one species or between different species. Otherwise it is the same continuous process -without any evident "limitations within the genome" to establish any imagined boundary from micro to macro. Do you understand and accept this? Do you also accept the definitions I gave you, being the correct ones scientists use rather than incorrect misunderstandings of laymen?

At any point, if you need me to clarify anything for you, I'll be happy to do so.

You might also want to correct your tag line, since Cristina Rad and myself are both Gnostic atheists.

 

[Rumraket]

Hey Bernhard, you scouring the creationist literature for a formula to calculate the quantity of genetic information? I'd really like to see such a formula.

 

[DutchLiam84]

That would be "emergence of new varieties or traits".

Wait a second......so you agree that new traits can arise? Congratulations, you just accepted the theory of evolution.

This discussion is over! :lol:

Let the goalpost shifting begin!!

 

[AronRa]

Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution, the emergence of new varieties or traits within a single species / interbreeding population.
Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution, between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.


These are definitions I can agree with.

I will concede micro evolution as scientifically accurate under this definition. your example is correct isolated species, example squirrels in a woods surrounded by big fields, begin to have idiosyncrasies. That would be "emergence of new varieties or traits".

So under that definition like I said I would concede micro evolution.

Is it ok if we discuss macro evolution only?

There is no distinction in the process from microevolution to macroevolution; I have to treat them as one continuous process. However, since you understand how mutations in an individual can be passed throughout the entire group through population mechanics, that's actually the hardest part to grasp, and you've got that already, so congratulations.

From there, imagine that we've got a population now divided between two distinct groups. If they remain isolated, unique mutations will continue to arise in each group so that they're more and more different as time goes on. The larger gene pool will more likely retain their familiar original form, while the new variant will more likely express novel traits. As mutations accumulate, then in the off chance that members of both groups meet up again, it will be increasingly difficult to interbreed with viable offspring. At first, hybrids will simply be a melding of the two. But as genetic distinctions accumulate, it will get to the point that hybrids are usually sterile, unable to reproduce with members of either group. Eventually it won't even be possible to produce hybrids at all anymore without laboratory assistance. At this point, the two groups are no longer capable of interbreeding, and have become two distinct species. There are multiple ways this can happen, and it doesn't just have to be when they're chemically infertile. Very often two species in the same genus will be similar enough that they can interbreed, but won't under normal circumstances; only when confined in captivity. As the new population grows, it does so without any of the restrictions of the ancestral gene pool, and may acquire even more novel traits as a result. This is the simplest way to describe speciation, the emergence of a new species from a prior species. Do you understand and accept that the emergence of new species is macroevolution?

Another way to understand this is to compare it to language. We know that Spanish, French, Romanian, and Italian all derived from Latin, which is now extinct. As the original Latin spread into other isolated regions, it branched into Spanish, French, and Romanian through a type of macroevolution called Cladogenesis. This happened through the introduction of new words in addition to colloquial slang, slowly corrupting the old tongue into a new one. At the same time, Latin also transformed over time into Italian through Anagenesis. In either case, if you read documents from an intermediate period, (like Don Quixote) they'll be seen as transitional between the original language and the current one. The more distant they are, the harder it is to understand one another, and it would require time travel to pit two Roman citizens together who can't understand the other's native language. The way languages evolve is analogous to the way species evolve. Do you understand and accept all of this so far?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution, between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.

This is the simplest way to describe speciation, the emergence of a new species from a prior species. Do you understand and accept that the emergence of new species is macroevolution?

Yes I understand and no I do not accept.

?

 

[AronRa]

Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution, the emergence of new varieties or traits within a single species / interbreeding population.
Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution, between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.

I think at this point I can agree with your evolution definitions. I concede micro evolution as scientific fact. Genetic variation accross species has been and is and will be observed. Under your definition this would be micro evolution. I pretty much agree that micro evolution= genetic variation within a species. Example poodle- wolf it's all dog.

So I will not be arguing micro evolution... Far as I know we agree on this.

Macro evolution... I define as an increase of genetic information. Eg.. Single called amoeba- complex human requires an increase in genetic information. Not to be confused with an increase of genetic material. .

If you accept that microevolution is "small scale" evolution, limited to the emergence of new varieties or traits within a single species / interbreeding population, then you should know that the actual definition of macroevolution is "large scale" evolution from speciation on. Do you understand and accept this?

I accept the definition of macro evolution. I define micro evolution as variation within the genetics of a species.

Wait, wut? You accept the scientific definition, but you're still using your own wrong definition? No no, that will not do. Gould's Law of Evolutionary Economics has some application here, but your definition is still faulty, because there is no way to measure any imagined limitations or potential extent "within the genetics of a species". So you'll have to change your definition to the real one. Your own personal definition of microevolution also negates your acceptance of the proper definition of macroevolution, because it implies a restriction which scientists obviously do not believe, because none is evident. These are not different processes; it's one continuous one. The only difference between the two is whether they are within or beyond the species level, and thus limited by parent gene pool. Once again, do you accept that microevolution is "small scale" evolution, limited to the emergence of new varieties or traits within a single species / interbreeding population? Do you also accept the definition of macroevolution is "large scale" evolution from speciation on. Do you understand and accept this?

Microevolution: “Small scale” evolution, the emergence of new varieties or traits within a single species / interbreeding population.
Macroevolution: “Large scale” evolution, between different species / populations: The emergence of new taxa at or above the species level.

These are definitions I can agree with.

Do you understand and accept that the emergence of new species is macroevolution?

Yes I understand and no I do not accept.

Now you're contradicting yourself.

Let the goalpost shifting begin!!

That was an astute prediction!

Regardless whether you currently accept this or not, Bernhard, I've already referenced the definition from Wikipedia:
"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population."

Dictionary.com got this one right too:
"major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa."

So did Merriam-Webster:
"Definition of MACROEVOLUTION:
evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)"

But as I said, you can't always trust common dictionaries for laymen. So sticking with scientific sources, I also pointed you to Berkeley University's primer, Evolution 101:
"Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species."

We get the same definition from Duke University:
"Evolutionary patterns and processes at and above the species level;"
and USCB:
"Macroevolutionists study the processes that cause the origination and extinction of species,"
as well as Stanford:
"Microevolution is defined as changes within a species that aren't drastic enough to create an entirely new species. Changes that result in a new species are part of macroevolution.

I could also cite Biology Online: "Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species,"

and evolution for dummies:
"Macroevolution is concerned with evolution on the grand scale, with the branching out of new species and larger groups, like families and phyla."

One would expect creationist sources to misrepresent this, and they all do, but even CreationWiki admits that "Macroevoluion is ...evolution above the species level", and they say this in reference to 'Origin of Species'.

I should also refer you to the evolution discussion group, TalkOrigins.org:
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted. Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels. ...Another way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species "

Other people who have dealt with you before have warned me that you won't admit when you're wrong about anything. If that's so, then this may be a new experience for you, but you're going to have to admit that you're wrong about this. The evolution of new species *is* the first category of mAcroevolution. If you can admit that honestly, we can move on to where I show proof of that and subsequent stages for you. If your adherence to typical creationist dishonesty prevents you from admitting your error, then this conversation stops here -with everyone understanding the obvious reason why.

 

[AronRa]

The way languages evolve is analogous to the way species evolve. Do you understand and accept all of this so far?

Yes I understand, and no I do not accept

Once you admit you were wrong about the definition of macroevolution including speciation, then you'll have to explain exactly what it is that you don't accept and why, so that I can correct the error and prove my point.

All atheists are agnostic therefore since agnostic is not knowing, all atheists are ignorant therefore atheism is the protest of the ignorant.

You'll need to correct this error too. It's wrong for a few reasons. First of all, not all atheists are agnostic.

I'm not agnostic.


Neither is Cristina Rad.


But even if we were agnostic, you'd still be wrong because agnostic atheism isn't a position of ignorance; it's a position of honesty with regard to religious ignorance. I always say that it is dishonest to assert as fact that which is not evidently true, yet that is what all religions do. Philosophy professor Peter Boghossian PhD put it better when he said that "faith is pretending to know things you don't know".



The honest position is not to claim to know anything you can't show that you know. If you can't show that your information is accurate, then it isn't knowledge; it's only a belief. That goes for whatever you believe about gods and souls and miraculous magick; it's all just unsupported assertions assumed without reason and defended against all reason. Without evidence there's no reason to believe it; but when I say that I know what is true about evolution, I can actually prove it. That's why I started this conversation in the first place. So it comes down to whether you want to understand the way things really are, or whether you would rather believe things that can't be true.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Bernhard, I suspect what you want to say is that the theory of evolution is wrong and that evolutionary processes -- while they clearly occur -- are not sufficient to explain the diversity of life.

You would still be wrong but you'd have a position that is somewhat coherent. It also wouldn't require you to ignore scientific definitions of words in favour of vague lay definitions that you can try to abuse.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Bernhard, can you give me an example of a unicellular animal?

p.s. I don't think Aron will agree on that definition since it's not a biological definition. "Kind" does not exist in biology, only colloquially.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

What I'm really looking for I suppose is a definition for evolution that denies creation as possible. That would really get the ball rolling. I just remembered you didn't like the especially part of definition. But then again you don't like any of my definitions even though it's a Google definition. So is it possible you can define evolution to exclude creation?

No one cares what you are looking for. A definition for evolution does not have to exclude anything, especially creationism. The definition exists to describe something that is observed in nature. What you are proposing is a false dichotomy where none exists. There is evolutionary theory and nothing else at this time. In order for one to propose creationism as an alternative to evolutionary theory, one would first have to show evidence that creationism is even possible. No one has done that to date, thus there is no reason to pretend it is a possibility.

In addition, why are you still not using a biological reference for your definitions? You do realize this is a biological discussion, thus lay-definitions will not do. Once again, if your argument rests on using the wrong definitions for words, what does that say about your argument?

 

[Rando]

Now we're going backwards, first, Bernie defined evolution, then, Aron-Ra corrected him, then, Bernie argued about Micro vs Macro, again Aron-Ra corrected him. Now once again Bernie is using the regular definition of evolution again. If you Google "macroevolution," Google, a source Bernie seems to trust, shows Wikipedia, and low and behold it defines it the way Aron says, it even provides the very sources that Aron-Ra quotes to Bernie. If you Google "macroevolution definition," it produces an interesting definition:

mac·ro·ev·o·lu·tion
ˌmakrō-evəˈlo͞oSHən,-ˌēvə-/
noun Biology
noun: macroevolution; noun: macro-evolution

major evolutionary change. The term applies mainly to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time.

Does that sound familiar? Why it's exactly like Aron-Ra has been saying the whole time. What our friend Bernie has done is tried to pull off a sleazy slight of hand, trying to argue about Micro and Macro but giving us the Google definition of evolution instead. This couldn't possibly be an accident, this is Bernie being dishonest...

 

[Rumraket]

What I'm really looking for I suppose is a definition for evolution that denies creation as possible.

Why? Nobody here believes it is impossible for some sufficiently advanced designer to create life. It's just that we don't believe there is good evidence that the life on Earth was designed.

Why would a definition of what evolution IS contain a declaration of the impossibility of creation? That's straight up idiotic.

 

[Mugnuts]

Accepting a definition is not the same as acceptance of that as reality, which is what Bernhard is contesting. I think he feels if he accepts the definition, then it's "aha, you believe in evolution'', which is not the case.

If Bernhard would accept the definition how it is defined in a biological sense as a novelty or "just to move on", then the discussion can begin with Aron presenting why and how the evidence meets that definition. It's that simple, yet it always goes this way.

 

[Inferno]

Perhaps mr. Ra since this argument of defining terms will have no end you can simply just give evidence for evolution?

Perhaps the evidence you present... Will help define the term evolution.

For example Lucy the half ape, the half human... Is that evidence for evolution? Yes? No?

You do not present a contingent answer as to why you do not accept the definitions.
You repeatedly bring in new (incorrect) definitions even after the correct definitions have been provided.
And now you want evidence before we're even clear on what we're talking about? What a joke.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Arguably, everything in biology is a example of evolution.

However, if you're insisting on distinguishing between micro- and macro-evolution, I'd put forward Tiktaalik as a example of the latter.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Perhaps mr. Ra since this argument of defining terms will have no end you can simply just give evidence for evolution?

Why must it go on? You're the one who keeps wanting to redefine it, for what purpose?

Surely it is trivial to agree on a definition. You don't have to accept that evolution happens just because you accept what th3e definition is.

Just like, if you you give me a definition of what Darth Vader is, I can accept that definition, it doesn't mean I also accept that Darth Vader actually exists.

So why can't you just accept the definitions scientists use for micro evolution and macro evolution? Why?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Perhaps mr. Ra since this argument of defining terms will have no end you can simply just give evidence for evolution?

The reason it will have no end is because you refuse to accept that your are wrong about your definitions. AronRa is using the scientifically correct definitions, and since this is a discussion about science, those are the definitions that should be used. One wonders why you refuse to accept this simple fact, could it be all your arguments hinge on your mis-defined terms?

Perhaps the evidence you present... Will help define the term evolution.

Again, you did not create this challenge, please stop trying to change the rules of it. You accepted a free education on evolution and biology from AronRa. That education is contingent on the rules he created.

For example Lucy the half ape, the half human... Is that evidence for evolution? Yes? No?

Lucy is all ape, and so are you, but it is not at all human. However, it is evidence of common descent. Perhaps, if you get passed your insistence on using incorrect terminology, AronRa et al. would be happy to explain that to you.