• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Macroevolution vs Variation within Kinds - What's the difference really??

Call Me Emo

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Call Me Emo"/>
Written by; Emotionally Stunted Emoticon

Argument: "There's no evidence for Macroevolution or Macroevolution is impossible" - Standing For Truth

SFT seems to have no problem accepting Microevolution as he usually labels it "variation with kinds", but he doesn't accept Macroevolution and argues that not only is there no evidence to support it, but also that it cannot happen.
But SFT also accepts speciation, and Macroevolution starts with speciation, which means that he already accepts Macroevolution….. Right???
Wrong,.....SFT attempts to redefine Macroevolution to mean biological change from one "Kind" to another "Kind" of organism, and since we've never witnessed the evolution of a new "Kind" he can easily dismiss any observed evidence of Evolution as being microevolution.

During a debate I had last year with Bill Morgan, I argued that macroevolution can be indirectly confirmed the grafting of different plant species, since only closely relay plants that are capable of Grafting successfully [2], to which I then showed that for example Tomatoes and Tobacco can be be grafted. So SFT and RawMatt later did a "response" to my opening statement of that said debate, and strangely enough, both SFT and RawMatt accepted that plants which can be grafted to each other are related [1], and even went as far as to accept that all of the members within each of three plant families (Solanaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Poaceae) are related "the same kind"........ But regardless of the actual diversity present within each of the families [figure 1-3], because they're now regarded as being of the same "Kind", SFT/RawMattt only consider it as being microevolution.
Screenshot_20200315-212918.png
Figure 1: Various Species with the 'Nightshade Kind'.

Screenshot_20200315-212927.png
Figure 2: Various Species within the 'Cucurbitaceae Kind'.

Screenshot_20200315-213020.png
Figure 3: Various Species within the 'Grass Kind'.

What is obvious here is that because SFT never defines or give criteria as to what he would accept as Macroevolution, he can easily lump any number of species within the same "Kind" regardless of how different they are, and argue that the differences between them are only microevolutionary changes because they're still the same "Kind".

At the end of the day, SFT doesn't get to redefine words in biology that were invented by Biologists. He either uses the terminology in the way they're meant to be used, or invent his own. The grafting of closely related yet vastly different plant species is a testament to the fact that Macroevolution can and has occurred, regardless of what Creationists have to say about it. And quite frankly I fail to see how someone could accept that Tomato and Tobacco, or Corn and Bamboo are related and argue that this STILL doesn't count as Macroevolution. I suspect the only reason why it doesn't count as Macroevolution is because "its still a plant" and not a fucking frog.

Question For Standing For Truth
What are your most minimum criteria for what counts as Macroevolution, and explain how it is different from the variation you already accept within "Kinds"??


  1. Creationist Camp - Emotionally Stunted Emoticon gets educated (part 1) [Time stamp 27:35]
  2. Plant Grafting, Charles W.Melnyk et al. 2015 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215000603
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
How do evolutionists determine criteria for Macroevolution and how are species defined?
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
So it's somewhat arbitrary. There is no real set test to determine "species" other than whatever test we feel like like using to catagorize things.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
So it's somewhat arbitrary. There is no real set test to determine "species" other than whatever test we feel like like using to catagorize things.

As long as one is consistent with their definition of species they are using, one cannot change it in the middle of a study.
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
I sorta think the term gets thrown around too much. It's like we just call "something" "something" because we say it's "something".. I dunno..
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Evolution is a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive genertations through parental gene expression.

It is a stand-alone word. To add to it or break it down is a superficial and false add-on, often with connotations or motives.

We don’t talk about a person’s micro or macro growth and in any case it would or might imply that both are separate entities, when they are merely man-made constructed expressions to point to one or more parts. Like a microscope, magnifying glass and telescope show the same thing but from a different perspective. Growth is growth and evolution is evolution. It is a constant, seamless event and never intended to be broken up, down or apart. In fact there is no natural point of division or point where small meets large, as in micro and macro.

If you ask where one (living) thing turns into something completely different, this never happens unless you step back and see the whole or the wood for the trees. Nothing gives birth to something different, only something virtually exactly the same. This is not contradictory to evolution but exactly what it predicts and happens. If this were not the case, it would demonstrate something other than evolution.

Babies don’t turn into adults instantly. Babies don’t give birth to adults and adults don’t give birth to adults. A baby IS the same adult it turns into and it is particularly noticeable if you only see it once every ten years, but living with such a person, you don’t notice as it happens so slowly. We can map and trace the history of a person with DNA, witnesses, location markers, photos, marks on the body etc.

To suggest, imply or say that one sort or kind or species turns into another is to lie or so grossly misrepresent what evolution is that it shows a huge lack of understanding or huge deception. Many will know this from a very early stage and be told or reminded of it, so anyone who engages in discussions or reads the literature, knows.

Speciation (if we define it here simply by ability to interbreed) occurs through populations rather than individuals. No organism gives birth to a new or different species or anything much different to itself. Usually, centuries or millennia or more would pass before different populations became genetically different enough to not (be able to produce viable offspring, but other factors (like lifestyle) might restrict or limit breeding too, meaning that genetically it may still be possible, but it would not tend to occur in nature.

Ring species are a good example of this process and the limit of genetic interbreeding might also be just about at the cusp between humans and chimpanzees and between African and Asian elephants.

If you want to know the point at which something becomes something else, I’ll just present this picture of a gradient and leave you to find it. I could have equally presented a picture of a human growing from a baby into an adult and ask you to point to when one turned into the other. If you want to talk about certain parts of a human’s development that is defined purely (and not in any natural way) for helpful discussion purposes, like before birth or before it can walk, fine, but this is still and always a subsection and part of the wider cycle of life and development. To use micro/macro (in a debate for example) is to accept evolution but only to a point which you cannot define, or ask when or if you have stopped beating your mother and merely serves to infect others with something or an idea that does not exist – ‘a bit of evolution’.

The phylogeny challenge is available for those who hold to a created kinds barrier, as is the challenge to define a created kind or a detailed baraminology or show any of this on the tree of life. This far and no further. Blue meets red.

blue red evolution.png
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
The "Phylogeny Challenge" is a good thing. I think it's probably the smartest question Atheists have ever asked of creationism.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Yes, it is a great chalenge though it can equally be asked by Christians, it is more a question askede by science, not a theistic question or a question for just non theists. There are probably more Christians that accept evolution than Young earhn creation. Most Christians are evolutionists and most evolutionists are Christians.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
There's a better approach to this, which is to talk about how macroevolution is discussed in the literature. To do otherwise is to risk running into difficulty due to ambiguity. A shining example of this is how, by treating macroevolution as the accumulation of micro, it paints a misleading picture of what macroevolution actually is.

Here's a snippet of my blog post on evolution, wherein I treat these terms as the terms of art they are, properly defining them as they're used in the primary literature, and giving clear observed examples of how this works in the biosphere:

Evolution is defined as variation in the frequencies of alleles, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene...

there are many, many instances in which different organisms carry exactly the same allele. For example, if you compare the gene coding for histone in humans and chimpanzees, you'll find that they're identical.

Microevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles below species level, in a population of organisms. Macroevolution is defined as variations in the frequencies of alleles at or above species level, or in populations of species.


To put flesh on this (pun intended), there's a common trope that humans are one chromosome away from being chimpanzees. That's a glib (and slightly misleading) way of saying that we have very many genes in common, which is accurate. What's not immediately obvious unless you're really paying attention is that macroevolution actually occurs with every new birth and death of either a chimpanzee or a human, because it constitutes a variation in the frequencies of alleles above species level.

I go on to talk about how extinction is macroevolution in and of itself, because all the alleles in a given species vary from 'some' to 'none', which is a variation at species level.

There's actually value in thinking of extinction as the primary driver of speciation.

There's always been an issue with oversimplification when it comes to a lay understanding of scientific principles. This is one of the most glaring. We talk about large-scale morphological change and speciation as actually being macroevolution when they're simply the logical conclusion of the genuine macroevolutionary processes that lead to this one thing.

Also, it's a sop to the deniers. It lends validity to their preposterous notions of how evolution operates in meatspace. Better explanations flow naturally from better, more rigorous definitions (as an aside, note that what I'm doing here is engaging in the proper application of semantics;).

If you want more depth to this, you can find my piece here:


It's not groundbreaking by any stretch, nor was it meant to be. I do think, however, it's in the running for the most concise exposition of evolutionary theory you're likely to find, and it's almost entirely rooted in defining terms as they're used in the literature, terms such as 'random', which is more problematic than you might suppose.
 
Back
Top