Is there a difference between micro- and macro-evolution?
From WhyNotWiki
Amazon.com: Customer Discussions: Fair Treatment of Evolution Begins With Its Definition (http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Treatment-Evolution-Begins-Definition/forum/FxZ58KVEERYS5E/TxZ3SMZJCF16UR/1/ref=cm_cd_n_gssMsg/103-4318025-6808616?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdItems=25&cdAnchor=0596527179).
James D.,Apr 6, 2007 8:52 PM PDT
Part of the problem with the current debate on evolution is the lack of a true definition of evolution itself. Some teachers of the subject (myself included) are aware of the mass "bait & switch" tactics used in the defense of evolutionary ideas, and are trying to bring this to attention. But, more often than not, the neck hairs of those who oppose a 'clarification' bristle at the mere mention of an idea that challenges their 'evolution god', and the discussion immediately stops. I say 'god' because of the blind faith so many people give to their own supposed origin.
The most popular text to do just this is Campbell & Reece's overpriced "Biology" text. It is full of evolution, but it is also full of bait and switch tactics. For example, the text reads about how evolution is THE main principle that surrounds biological science, and then gives numerous examples of "microevolution" to demonstrate these claims as valid. Only very rarely is true macroevolution, or speciation, even analyzed. It is simply assumed, with the evidence of macroevolution given in microevolutionary term. It's a classic bait and switch tactic! One can only assume a willful ignorance on the part of the authors (and many if not most readers) as to both the fallaciousness of this type of argument, and to the massive amount of evidence that challenges macroevolution. Biology authors like Campbell & Reece are 'spontaneous generationists' [...]! This is the essence of macroevolution--spontaneous generation. And, any honest person of science has to admit that this is impossible, and was proven as such over 120 years ago by Pasteur, Redi, and others. If the evolution discussion truly began with an honest definition of what evolution is as fact (microevolution--measurable, observable, and tested), and what is fancy (macroevolution--built up from a foundation of spontaneous generation, never observed, and so therefore never tested--so it becomes a 'god' believed with blind faith), all people of science with an open and honest heart might make some progress into this important discussion.
My comment:Well said!
Okay, what proof from "Pasteur, Redi, and others" are you talking about?
A. Zetetic,Apr 10, 2007 7:53 AM PDT
One has to wonder which hypothesis Mr. Dorais would offer in place of the biological "evolution god", as he terms it. Clearly it couldn't be Divine Creation, since he takes issue with the notion that anything could occur spontaneously and God is the very personification of spontaneity (himself having sprung ex nihilo and created the rest of the universe in similar fashion).
My comment:Actually yes, I think Divine Creation is the alternative he speaks of. We Creationists do believe that creation can occur spontaneously, and did; however, we believe that the divine, God, is the only way it could have happened. We're most certainly not saying spontaneous generation/creation is impossible -- only that it is impossible without a Creator.
Can we prove this hypothesis? Surely not. (Not until the Creator himself returns to this Earth as living proof, at least...) But neither can Evolutionists prove their theory of spontaneous generation... I think that is the point Mr. Dorais was trying to make. That evolutionists shouldn't be laughing at the Creationist theory of origins, which is unprovable, when their own theory is equally laughable and improvable.
Secondly, I don't think it's correct to say that God "sprung ex nihilo", nor to say that we claim that he did. I for one believe he has always existed -- there was not a point in which he "sprang into existence".
"Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am!”" John 8:58 (NLT)
It is somewhat paradoxical, I admit, and I don't claim to understand how God (or time for that matter) could have existed infinitely far back in time. But God is far greater than I and surpasses our understanding; if we understood everything about him, he would not be God.
And I have to note in response to Mr. Dorais' observation that spontaneous generation (of anything, apparently) in Nature was "proven impossible" over 120 years ago by Pasteur, Redi et al, that the Earth was proven to be the center of the universe nearly two thousand years ago by Ptolemy. So convincing was his model that it remained proven for more than 1,300 years until Copernicus came along and proved otherwise. This, of course, is how science proceeds.
My comment:Yes, that is how science proceeds. So where's the proof for your "science" of spontaneous generation that disproves this proof from long ago by "Pasteur, Redi et al"...? Please give me a demonstration and then perhaps I will believe it too.
Christopher J. Dorais,Apr 16, 2007 9:38 AM PDT
In response to Mr. Zetetic's post, spontaneous generation is the ONLY choice given to students in most biology text books, though it is both impossible, illogical, and unobservable. Even if life could have been 'made' in the most sophisticated laboratory, would that "prove" that life could have evolved spontaneously sometime in the Earth's history, or that simply an 'intelligent designer' (the scientists in the lab) was necessary? In either case, the evolutionary spontaneous generationists lose.
But, as Mr. Zetetic ponders, what could be taught in its place? First and foremost, God could be given credit for his creation. Novel idea. But, God is 'out of fashion' these days, and He seems terribly 'unscientific'.
(This is really the ultimate ego trip really, if you carefully reflect on it.
SCIENTIST A: "I can't fully understand the concept of God, therefore I choose not to believe in Him, nor give Him credit for [what] is obviously impossible for man or nature to do on its own."
SCIENTIST B: "Well...if you could FULLY understand God, Mr. Scientist A, then you would have to BE God. I may not know much, but two things are certain: God exists, and you Mr. Scientist A, are not God.")
Clearly Divine Creation is ALL that is possible, since spontaneous generation is clearly impossible. But, even without Intelligent Design in the textbooks, why not simply say "...we do not know how life originated on the Earth." The answer is the same--man's hyper-inflated ego finds such an admission as repulsive, 'unscientific', absurd. And so he chooses to 'believe' the impossible (translation: a lie) instead of embracing the truth (either God did it, or an admission that I do not know).
Brian P. Akers,Apr 18, 2007 7:02 AM PDT
Speaking as a biology professor, our text books are not always the greatest, and most are indeed over-produced and over-priced. Campbell & Reece (which I use) is no exception, but not atypical either.
As for evolution, there is quite a fuss surrounding the whole topic. Many discussions of it are entangled with emotional and ideological biases and baggage, coming from scientists and non-scientists alike. It seems a shame. For further thoughts, see my article "Whether Evolution is Fact: The Terms of a Non-Scientific Debate" (2002, Bulletin of the Center for Theology and Natural Sciences 22: 8-13), and/or various pieces posted online at the website of the Metanexus Institute, a major think tank devoted to the encounter between the boundaries of scientific worldviews and spiritual or religious ones.
As for text books, the following quote (from "Morphology of Plants and Fungi" by Bold, Alexopoulos and Delevoryas, 5th ed.) strikes me as unusual and interesting:
"While there can no longer be doubt that living species are changing constantly and that mutations are being transmitted and selected for in successive generations, it is quite a different matter to trace in detail and with assurance the course of the resulting diversification of species and especially of the larger groups (higher categories) such as genera, families, orders, classes, and divisions or phyla--categories that, by extrapolation, are postulated to have developed by the same mechanisms of change demonstrated at the individual and specific level. Although the evidences for such extrapolation are not as compelling as one might wish, no other satisfactory alternative scientific hypothesis to explain the diversity of living things has as yet been suggested...One difficulty experienced by many students when they first become aware of the hypothesis of organic evolution as an explanation for the diversity of living organisms is the stated or implied mechanistic philosophy of most evolutionists. Mechanistic evolutionists state or imply that the changing manifestations of life have occurred without supernatural cause or intervention. They hold a similar view of the origin of life. To them, all life and living things do not differ fundamentally from inorganic matter and phenomena except in details of physical and chemical structure and activity. These physical and chemical attributes, they are convinced, will ultimately be completely understood as science progresses. Physical and chemical phenomena, they urge, will adequately explain life and all its manifestations. Mechanistic biologists neither require nor postulate final or supernatural causes. The immediate has become the final for them" (p. 5).
James D.,Apr 21, 2007 12:32 PM PDT
Mr. Akers makes some interesting observations in his post, but offers no solutions to the dilemma. [...]
As for the the discussion of life origins, and whether it has a supernatural or natural cause, Mr. Akers laments that such discussions are shamefully entangled with emotional and ideological biases. My question to this comment is simply-"what did you expect?" All people have biases and it is impossible to separate a person's argument from a bias--or better--worldview. It's like the old saying: "We all are brainwashed...the question is, who will you allow to wash your brain?"
Mechanistic evolutionary biologists claim that spontaneous generation of life occurred some time in life's past, and that by natural selection and mutation alone ALL plants, animals, and humans have been generated. This is the foundation upon which all their ideas are based, though spontaneous generation of any type of life has never been done or observed. This is called science?
Some think that this argument does not challenge the supposed fact of a long Earth history (another false ivory tower of academia that is slowly crumbling) and gradual transition of life forms from primitive to advanced, but this thought is absurd. If life forms did advance from primitive to advanced, then you could 'recreate' this in a laboratory. It has been tried, this development of a "Hopeful Monster", but has been a miserable failure. Just look at the research of bombarding fruit flies for 40+ years with radiation, toxic waste, etc. Anything to get a 'positive, fitness-increasing' mutation (hence the term "Hopeful Monster"). The studies were finally almost completely abandoned--not for pity's sake for those poor fruit flies--but because the tests were utter failures. They could not generate a 'fitness-increasing mutation', and yet this is the key to ALL macroevolution. The Metanexus Institute to which Mr. Akers references is complicit in this delusionary belief system of macroevolution and openly state their support of it--while at the same time 'questioning' the topic of origins. But trying to keep a 'middle of the road' position on something that is so plainly black and white is not simply disingenuous, it is cowardly. This is true for any organization, or teacher of biology. A clear, honest appraisal of the origin of life positively points to a supernatural origin. Even a child can understand that a dog comes from a dog, not a pile of trash or primordial stew.
Brandy Gunderson,Jun 3, 2007 7:48 PM PDT
I note that no one has as yet pointed out that the distinction between micro and macroevolution is generally not accepted among biologists, at least to my knowledge. I would further point out that, even should such a distinction be recognized, accumulating microevolutionary changes (variation within a species over time) pile up into macroevolutionary changes (species change). This occurs because, quite simply, species identification is an entirely human, and largely arbitrary, process. Whether any given animal is identified as a member of a given species is due entirely to how we choose to define its species. Consider, for example, that dogs, wolves and coyotes can successfully interbreed. Are they one species or three? As we currently define species, they are three. But there is nothing inherent in the nature of the universe to compel that division. We might just as easily consider them one species. And when you consider that dogs, a species which was entirely created by humans, are currently thought to have separated from wolves sometime between 15,000 and 100,000 years ago (prior to which time there literally were no dogs), we do in fact have evidence for the kind of macroevolution that James D. disputes.
As for fruit flies, let us assume an average lifespan of one month for a fly. Let us further assume a lifespan of 10 years for a dog. So, dogs took 1,500 to 10,000 generations to speciate (rough estimate). At one month per generation, 1,500 fly generations would take 125 years to cultivate while 10,000 generations would take 830 years. Is it any wonder that scientists working for 40 years failed to achieve speciation with their flies? And just what were these scientists using to determine what constitutes a "fitness-increasing mutation"? During the domestication of wolves into dogs, the animals would have been subjected to some fairly explicit selection criteria, most obviously their utility as hunting companions. What criteria were applied to flies? How were they enforced? The domestication of dogs would have occurred in numerous parallel domestication efforts as domestication (and people) spread. Fruit fly research was conducted in how many labs? Pretty much all that this fruit fly research demonstrated is the speciation is neither quick nor easy. Why should this be surprising? And just how is this a challenge to evolutionary theory? While a child may understand that a dog comes from a dog, ultimately dogs came from wolves (which a child likely would identify as a dog).
The same, incidentally, applies to the claims regarding spontaneous generation. Laboratory experiments have simply demonstrated that we don't know how it occurred yet. They have not demonstrated that it could not have occurred naturally. Part of the problem, at least initially, was trying to figure out just what conditions would have been like 4 billion years ago and just what kinds of chemicals might have been naturally produced to serve as raw material for nature to work with in order to generate life. But the number of researchers investigating the origins of life are relatively few and have not been pursuing their research for very long compared to the vast laboratory that nature had available and the vast span of time nature had available. I might further point out that, even should someone manage to create life in a laboratory setting, opponents of a materialistic explanation of life's origins could simply point out that the researcher would only have demonstrated that life could have been produced naturally, not that it had in fact been produced naturally. I would further point out that, if such lab-created life was not exactly like terrestrial life, they could claim that researchers would only have demonstrated that some other kind of life might have occurred naturally, not that terrestrial life had done so.
A further note on speciation: There is no particular reason to think that we would immediately notice the appearance of a new species, as the transition from one species to another is gradual (from a human temporal perspective). The evolution of one species into, or from, another can only be recognized in hindsight. What we currently think of as the dog may, to future generations, be the transitional form linking a past with a future canine species. We could not possibly recognize the transition now as we lack the proper perspective. Just because we, from our present-oriented perspective, insist on categorizing every animal as a member of a given species doesn't mean that future generations, with the benefit of perspective that we lack, will agree with our categorization. Maybe they will decide that were are at the point of diversification when dogs, wolves and coyotes were in the process of diverging into separate species, but hadn't finished the process yet. And perhaps they will decide that, right now, they are all one species after all.
Richter,Jun 14, 2007 10:48 AM PDT
...
[You are] making a claim that a mysterious invisible alien lifeform [God] needed no prior intelligence to exist or self-organize, but life here in this universe or on this planet could not possibly do the same thing. You've granted special privileges to one, and then turned around and denied it to the other. The only question remaining is why?
What is the mechanism preventing life on this planet or in this universe from self organizing? Please don't come back and assert it's improbability. That will do you no good. Rarity does not equate to impossibility. The answer is that no one can produce a mechanism that supposedly prevents life from self organizing/originating within a dynamic universe. There isn't a theist alive that can produce one.
...
It's also worth mentioning that so many religious theists forget that it's not whether life like us humans or other current complex lifeforms can INSTANTLY self organize/originate out of the blue without a prior intelligence, it's whether simple self replicating molecules can self organize out of natural elements within a dynamic universe and without prior intelligence. Which can then organize into cells, which can then organize and produce multicellular life, which in turn has all of their bio-complexity genetically ratcheted up in small incremental steps over time through evolution and natural selection. Which ultimately, produces all the current and complex bio-diversity observed around the planet.
...
Frederick C. Monson,Jun 14, 2007 1:36 PM PDT
In any argument, the most prevalent tactic is to insert a diversion. Neither side of this issue can claim to 'know' whether g(G)od does or doesn't or did or didn't. The discussion of a higher being is a means of deflecting a discussion of how little we understand about the issue of organic evolution itself.
...
Thinking critically about most everything is quite difficult. If one thinks, one gathers info to judge. The discussion about evolution vs special creation is specious, because it compares apples and oranges that very few have the ability to differentiate.
Larry "Laer" Carroll,Jun 15, 2007 5:30 AM PDT
I wouldn't say that evolution is a fact. It's a theory, like every other explanation of science. Facts are publically observable phenomena, which support or refute theories. When a million facts support a theory and none refute it, we feel confident of the truth of the theory. Yet a new fact may confound any theory, at which time a few brave (or foolish, or both) people may start looking for other confounding facts. The essence of science is uncertainty and the courage and intelligence to face an uncertain universe.
As to classical evolution, it can be stated mathematically and translated into both simulated AND REAL systems which display evolution. Here's a paraphrase of the math. As I've had a long day and am tired it's a little rough.
A (classically) evolutionary system is a system made up of the following.
- More than one entity exists.
- There is a way to vary the characteristics of each entity.
- There is a way to create new entities from older entities.
- There is a way for new entities to inherit characteristics from the older entities.
- There is a way to differentially destroy entities based on its characteristics.
As for intelligent design, I find it a perfectly acceptable theory of the origin of species. Those who support it, however, are usually determined to believe that a single entity they call Jehovah or Allah is the creator. They are not interested in seeking facts that support or refute their theory, to show the publically observable mechanisms which the creator used to shape its creations.
...
Richter,Jun 15, 2007 8:54 AM PDT
From Carroll: I wouldn't say that evolution is a fact. It's a theory, like every other explanation of science. Facts are publically observable phenomena, which support or refute theories.
My reply: Evolution is a fact and a theory. To say it is not factual and only a theory is false and an outright lie. It automatically indicates a lack of understanding of what evolution is, and how it is properly defined. Evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. This is not a theory, it an observed, tested, and confirmed fact. (A fact is simply the world's data that has been tested and confirmed to such a degree, we would be astounded to find any evidence to its contrary) Evolutionary theory involves the mechanisms of how it works via mutation, genetic drift, recombination, natural selection, etc.
My comment:Super! A definition of evolution! That's exactly what the original poster in this thread was asking for! With that definition, I think even I or any other Creationist / Intelligent Design believer can agree!
Evolution both fact and theory:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html...
If the origin of species is attributed to some mysterious intelligent and conscious designer, why is it that we can observe speciation occurring naturally without the need of such a hypothetical entity?
My comment:That's easy! Because God created genetics and alleles and the process of evolution which continues to operate on the species he created.
It's not that we "need" a God in order to explain the continuing microevolution and speciation that occurs on this planet -- that can be explained quite well with naturalistic biology theory. Where the need for a Designer/God arises is when we talk about the origin of life -- the origin of the first species. Microevolution, I will again point out, in case you missed that, is not in dispute by Creationists; it is the macroevolution and the spontaneous generation of life when there was no life before (and giving credit to no God) that we take issue with.
Examples of observed Speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htmlThomas A. Lewis,Jun 5, 2007 9:37 PM PDT
As other posters have already pointed out, this micro- but not macroevolution distinction that the ID/creation sympathizers draw is simply a false dichotomy.
The prefixes micro-/ and macro-/ attached to the term evolution refer to time, not limits on the process. Saying that mIcroevolution occurs but mAcroevolution does not is like saying a marble may roll one mm but not ten on an identical slope because we only live long enough to observe the one mm roll.
William Sean Nunn,Jun 16, 2007 9:08 AM PDT
"Saying that mIcroevolution occurs but mAcroevolution does not is like saying a marble may roll one mm but not ten on an identical slope because we only live long enough to observe the one mm roll."
No, actually, saying microevolution occurs but macroevolution does not is more like saying that just because the tide comes in 10 feet in 5 hours doesn't mean it is going to come in 10000 feet in 5000 hours. That is what is known as extrapolation, and it is a notoriously inaccurate to make predictions in science.
The people who seem so anxious to get everybody to believe in evolution could do themselves a big favor if they would simply quit pushing for universal belief in macroevolution, which is nothing more than an unproven hypothesis (although there is evidence to support it). If we would stick to teaching in public schools what science can accurately measure and observe (microevolution), about 99% of the debate over evolution would disappear. Then we could reassign millions, if not billions, of dollars that are currently being wasted on paleoanthropology, etc, for more worthwhile science, like treatment and prevention of cancer, heart disease, AIDS, etc.
