Evolution by Natural Selection is a fact

[outhouse]

Okay...in all fairness...I didn't read the entire thread.
looks to be another deny God for the sake of science argument, anyway.

So we are certain that God....the Creator...The Almighty....
doesn't have what it takes to tweak a molecule whenever He sees fit?

YEs there is no place or evidence at all! a magic sky daddy who evolved. ever had his hand in ANYTHING in nature

 

[painted wolf]

There would have to be allot of things that would need to be demonstrated such as non somatic irreversible major organ and systems change.

You mean like the Pod Mrcaru lizards that developed a new digestive organs while in isolation on islands.
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

Or the evolution of cold tolerance in "ice fish"
When bad things happen to good fish: the loss of hemoglobin and myoglobin expression in Antarctic icefishes

And so on...

There is recent research into gene expression. When I can post links I may talk about it. There was an 83% difference in the sample of I think it was over 250 genes from chimpanzee and human. I am expecting this field of research to perhaps provide much clarity.

I'm really curious about your source for this information.
If you could provide the paper title and the journal name it would be really helpful.

wa:do

 

[mycorrhiza]

There would have to be allot of things that would need to be demonstrated such as non somatic irreversible major organ and systems change.

Could you dumb that down a bit? English is not my main language .

 

[Pleroma]

Wrong... Macroevolution includes speciation, but is not limited to it.

Macroevolution is evolution between separate populations. Generally happening at the species level or higher... thus, the mutations that are making American Red Foxes different from European Red Foxes are Macroevolution as are the mutations that make Red Foxes different from Grey Foxes and so on.

In strict terms Speciation is associated with Reproductive Isolation. To say that speciation includes macroevolution you need to define what macroevolution is first. You do realize that Natural Selection acts at various levels. Macroevolution doesn't necessarily mean speciation.

 

[Thief]

YEs there is no place or evidence at all! a magic sky daddy who evolved. ever had his hand in ANYTHING in nature

And your denial is noted ....again....
even as you participate in a religious forum.
Here's two for you.

 

[painted wolf]

In strict terms Speciation is associated with Reproductive Isolation. To say that speciation includes macroevolution you need to define what macroevolution is first. You do realize that Natural Selection acts at various levels. Macroevolution doesn't necessarily mean speciation.

Macroevolution is defined as evolution between separate populations rather than within a single population (ie separate gene pools). This includes speciation and changes between higher levels of taxa. Thus, yes... by definition speciation is macroevolution.

So, macroevolution can be differences between horses and halibut or between lions and tigers or between American Red Foxes and European Red Foxes.

As soon as you have separate gene pools evolving in unique directions you have macroevolution.

Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hope this helps.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Could you dumb that down a bit? English is not my main language .

It seems to be mostly jargonistic.

Nonsomatic means changes that are passed down to other generations... Cancer is generally a somatic mutation and a father with melanoma won't pass melanoma onto his offspring.

Irriversible... I'm guessing they mean changes that aren't just the result of phenotypic plasticity or can be back bred out of a gene pool.

Major organ or system change is a bit odd... There isn't a lot of difference between a human and a chimpanzee in terms of our major organs or systems... our brains are bigger, but that's about it.
If you look at the digestive systems of whales, monkeys and birds you see a huge amount of variation within each group. I suppose each subgroup could be a unique "kind" but that seems excessive.

wa:do

 

[Mazzyhere]

I dov't need a link, yo can just give me journal name and the title of the paper.

A link has been put up by someone. I gave the title of the paper and writers.

I think you need to read more broadly than a single paper. It's a very poor way to defend a position.

I really don't think I should need to defend this position as it is known and accepted by your researchers. I really never expected evolutionists on forums to suggest otherwise. Yes I will be able to provide more links that also say that speciation/adaptation to the point that one would say the change would be considered macroevolutionary has not beeen observed. None of the links provided give examples of macroevolution and none of the papers presented even claim to have.

Here is one paper if you can find it.

Macroevolution: Change above the species level
NABT 2006 Evolution

This paper also says macroevolution cannot be observed or experimentally manipulated.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cooki

The first link is not about anything being observed. It is about the evolution of grasses. Of course I will be able to provide many links where it is clear that macroevolution has not been observed and does not relate to the examples produced so far.

Adaptation Reviewed: A Phylogenetic Methodology for Studying Character Macroevolutio'

This link does not give any examples of observed macroevolution either. It talks about how they may define it. Given that researchers are still talking about it in 2009 I think it is not resolved. That link says nothing about macroevolution having been observed in the lab or in nature.

Researchers say the fossil record is required to present the case for macroevolution. In other words, macroevolution is not seen in observed examples of natural selection and adaptation, nor merely in the (micro) speciation that brings about small changes within species level.

ttp://blogimages.bloggen.be/tsjokfoto/attach

This link is about drosophila and again only demonstrates observed change within species level.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here...

See the above referenced papers.

Please clarify what you mean by "quite a bit of trouble" and provide examples.

I'm aware the finer details of some phylogenies are still being debated but I don't know any that are "in quite a bit of trouble".

I can't post links. I do see the above links and they say nothing that contradicts anything I have said.

However the nested hierarchhy of birds being within theropods is being seriously challenged. In relation to whale phylogenies there is contradiction. DNA, a combination of DNA and morphology and morpholgy alone indicates different results and phylogeny. I'll post them later if you like. Have you heard of these?

And again you seem to be limiting observation to first hand real time events.
If this is so then you must discard every branch of science including medicine.

Adaptation as you are using it is evolution. Evolution is changes in allele frequencies over time.

Here is another example


wa:do

Sorry to have to delete the nice pictures and mess your links.

Yes evolution can be defined as change in allele frequency over time and yet researchers have not seen sufficient allele frequency change in any organism above species level, still.

No, I do not think I have to discard every branch of science and medicine to suggest that macroevolution has not been observed.

The horse ancestry that you posted is no longer valid. The assumption of gradual increase in size has been falsified according to evolutionary researchers. I have some very nice pictures of the old and new versions together.

Wiki "Evolution of the horse" makes mention of an article also.

"The change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Hyracotherium to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of facial fossae, and only in retrospect can certain evolutionary trends be recognized"

 

[mycorrhiza]

It seems to be mostly jargonistic.

Nonsomatic means changes that are passed down to other generations... Cancer is generally a somatic mutation and a father with melanoma won't pass melanoma onto his offspring.

Irriversible... I'm guessing they mean changes that aren't just the result of phenotypic plasticity or can be back bred out of a gene pool.

Major organ or system change is a bit odd... There isn't a lot of difference between a human and a chimpanzee in terms of our major organs or systems... our brains are bigger, but that's about it.
If you look at the digestive systems of whales, monkeys and birds you see a huge amount of variation within each group. I suppose each subgroup could be a unique "kind" but that seems excessive.

wa:do

Thanks! That clears things out. I recognize the concepts, but I only knew the Swedish terms for them

 

[Mazzyhere]

You mean like the Pod Mrcaru lizards that developed a new digestive organs while in isolation on islands.
Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

Or the evolution of cold tolerance in "ice fish"
When bad things happen to good fish: the loss of hemoglobin and myoglobin expression in Antarctic icefishes

And so on...

I'm really curious about your source for this information.
If you could provide the paper title and the journal name it would be really helpful.

wa:do

Painted Wolf, these changes are somatic changes and are within species level of change. The lizards had identical DNA to the original population despite the cecal valve.

Here is some information about gene expression links..

This one under the title "Differences in Genetic Sequence" it looks at chromosome 22 and 21 and 231 genes that have an 83% difference in protein expression.
Lessons from Chimpanzee-based research into human disease: 2011 Jarrod Bailey.

and
Gene Expression Differences Among Primates Are Associated With Changes in a Histone Epigenetic Modification - Carolyn E. Cain, Ran Blekhman, John C. Marioniand,Yoav Gilad

It will be interesting to see this field of research develop.

 

[outhouse]

And your denial is noted ....again....
even as you participate in a religious forum.
Here's two for you.

dont take it personal that your theism has no place in a science thread :slap:

 

[Mazzyhere]

Could you dumb that down a bit? English is not my main language .

I see you have a response. I'll give you my response seeing as you asked and I'd like to hit my 15 posts.

Basically it means change above species level has not been observed. Painted Wolf explained some of it well. However, one needs to look to the fossil evidence to see evidence of major change that is considered macroevolutionary.

If a change is not somatic, it is not reversible. and vica versa eg Eskimos have not evolved a fur coat and chimps have not lost theirs in hot climates.

As for man and chimp well it is about the "Myth of 1%". Actually chimps are 10 times different than humans are to each other, the comparison is qualitively and quantitativly unquantifiable due to deletions of huge chunks of genomic information, recombinations, insertions, reloctions etc, every body proportion is different to each other, mankind does not have fur, the gut, mankind can make meaning of the world etc. Most importantly I guess is that even evolutionary scientists know that a chimp and human are different species and cross the genus boundary as arbitrary as it is.

Once again one needs to look to the fossil record to present the case for this macroevolutionary case.

That is why I say that macroevolution, change above species level, has not been observed first hand in a lab or in nature.

 

[camanintx]

I think natural selection/adaptation demonstrates that if any organism does not have some ability to adapt and gain immunity it will not survive. In this way we adapt over a lifetime and we need to.

Are you familiar with the phrase "populations evolve, not organisms"? While any organism has the ability to adapt, that ability is constrained by it's genetics. A fish cannot adapt to breath air unless it has the genetic capacity in the first place. If an individual adapts to a new environment but that capacity is not passed down to successive generations, then it cannot be said to have evolved.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Basically it means change above species level has not been observed. Painted Wolf explained some of it well. However, one needs to look to the fossil evidence to see evidence of major change that is considered macroevolutionary.

There is evidence in the fossil evidence for major changes over time. Ask any paleontologist.

As for man and chimp well it is about the "Myth of 1%".

That the difference between humans and chimps is just 1% has been debunked by scientists, yes.

Actually chimps are 10 times different than humans are to each other, the comparison is qualitively and quantitativly unquantifiable due to deletions of huge chunks of genomic information, recombinations, insertions, reloctions etc, every body proportion is different to each other, mankind does not have fur, the gut, mankind can make meaning of the world etc.

Ten times more different than what? Do you mean that the difference between humans and chimps are about ten times as great as the average difference between two humans?

I'm not quite following you (especially on the quantitativly unquantifiable part). No one in the scientific community is denying that chimps and humans are different, but they aren't too different from eachother. Both humans and chimps are part of the hominini tribe (above genus, but below family). We wouldn't expect too great similarities as the lines towards humans and chimps diverged a long time ago.

Once again one needs to look to the fossil record to present the case for this macroevolutionary case.

And that's what biologists and paleontologists have done. It supports evolution.

That is why I say that macroevolution, change above species level, has not been observed first hand in a lab or in nature.

Because it is a slow process that cannot be directly observed in a few generations. If only direct observation was valid, then several fields of science would be invalid.

 

[camanintx]

As for man and chimp well it is about the "Myth of 1%". Actually chimps are 10 times different than humans are to each other, the comparison is qualitively and quantitativly unquantifiable due to deletions of huge chunks of genomic information, recombinations, insertions, reloctions etc, every body proportion is different to each other, mankind does not have fur, the gut, mankind can make meaning of the world etc. Most importantly I guess is that even evolutionary scientists know that a chimp and human are different species and cross the genus boundary as arbitrary as it is.

So two random humans differ by about 3 million base pairs while humans and chimps differ by about 45 million base pairs. What mechanism prevents the 100 or so mutations each individual carries from accounting for this difference over 5 million years?

 

[Mazzyhere]

There is evidence in the fossil evidence for major changes over time. Ask any paleontologist.

Well, you may be right, but that would be a stray from the point, being, macroevolution has not been observed first hand it must be sought in the fossil record. Natural selection may be a demonstration of speciation, but in itself is not evidence of macroevolution.

That the difference between humans and chimps is just 1% has been debunked by scientists, yes.

Ten times more different than what? Do you mean that the difference between humans and chimps are about ten times as great as the average difference between two humans?

Yes, that is what I meant.

I'm not quite following you (especially on the quantitativly unquantifiable part). No one in the scientific community is denying that chimps and humans are different, but they aren't too different from eachother. Both humans and chimps are part of the hominini tribe (above genus, but below family). We wouldn't expect too great similarities as the lines towards humans and chimps diverged a long time ago.

If you look up a paper called "The myth of 1%" written by evolutionists it explains it well. When I can post links I will get to it if you still want it, just ask and remind me.
I can also produce research that places the split at 4.1mya.

I don't think I have time to try to uproot every aspect of evolutionary theory and that is where the conversation appears to be going.

All I came on this thread to say is that natural selection is a demonstration of microevolution and is not proof of evolution in itself because macroevolution by this means has not been observed first hand. It is assumed based on evolutionists interpretation of the fossil evidence, that has not been particularly stable.

I think it really depends on the weight one puts on any empirical evidence that is presented. Obviously creationists are not going to put allot of faith in many of evolutionists interpretations and computer models. Creationists can reinterpret data and fossils to support their view as well.

And that's what biologists and paleontologists have done. It supports evolution.

Well, I agree the majority of researchers support TOE. I dispute they have any credible basis to do so.

Because it is a slow process that cannot be directly observed in a few generations. If only direct observation was valid, then several fields of science would be invalid.

Rather research based on what is not observed is only as good as the assumptions it is based on. I would not even call most of it empirical evidence because some is in such dispute. If I could post links I would show you some.

I understand what you see and I disagree that your interpretations are correct. It is not a big deal to me!

So again as you say, macroevolution, change above species level, has not been observed in labs and nature, (not enough time) which is what I said in my very first post in the first place. Like I said I do not understand evolutionists disagreeing with this point and how it relates to observed natural selection

 

[painted wolf]

Painted Wolf, these changes are somatic changes and are within species level of change. The lizards had identical DNA to the original population despite the cecal valve.

No, these aren't somatic changes... it's an inherited trait not acquired during the individuals life.

and they aren't identical. They are very close to one another, but not identical.

Just like American Moose and European Moose are very close to one another but not identical. They still have significant genetic variation between them due to reproductive isolation.

Here is some information about gene expression links..

This one under the title "Differences in Genetic Sequence" it looks at chromosome 22 and 21 and 231 genes that have an 83% difference in protein expression.
Lessons from Chimpanzee-based research into human disease: 2011 Jarrod Bailey.

You seem to be making a category math error...

83% difference in 231 genes within two chomosomes is not 83% difference in our total genetics.

Just like 83% difference in the sum of 2 sets of numbers isn't going to be the same percentage of difference when comparing 40 sets of numbers.

and
Gene Expression Differences Among Primates Are Associated With Changes in a Histone Epigenetic Modification - Carolyn E. Cain, Ran Blekhman, John C. Marioniand,Yoav Gilad

It will be interesting to see this field of research develop.

It will be interesting... but it doesn't go against evolution in any way. In fact it supports evolution by showing what changes happened to produce the differences in our species.

Eppigenetic evolution is still evolution.

Plus, it shows how very minor mutations (even eppigenetic ones) can have significant effects on a species evolution.

Differences in gene expression are a primary example of evolution.

wa:do

 

[Thief]

dont take it personal that your theism has no place in a science thread :slap:

Please note where you are....
Religious forum....
evolution vs creationism....
evolution by natural selection is a fact.

Selection implies intelligence.

Two more for you.
:slap:

And this as well.

 

[painted wolf]

A link has been put up by someone. I gave the title of the paper and writers.

I really don't think I should need to defend this position as it is known and accepted by your researchers. I really never expected evolutionists on forums to suggest otherwise. Yes I will be able to provide more links that also say that speciation/adaptation to the point that one would say the change would be considered macroevolutionary has not beeen observed. None of the links provided give examples of macroevolution and none of the papers presented even claim to have.

What is this "your researchers" stuff?

Here is one paper if you can find it.

Macroevolution: Change above the species level
NABT 2006 Evolution

This paper also says macroevolution cannot be observed or experimentally manipulated.

I'm skeptical that you read this... as it's not a paper at all but a symposium made up of several talks about the fact of evolution.

The first link is not about anything being observed. It is about the evolution of grasses. Of course I will be able to provide many links where it is clear that macroevolution has not been observed and does not relate to the examples produced so far.

It is full of observations.

This link does not give any examples of observed macroevolution either. It talks about how they may define it. Given that researchers are still talking about it in 2009 I think it is not resolved. That link says nothing about macroevolution having been observed in the lab or in nature.

Actually the paper is all about observing macroevolution.

Researchers say the fossil record is required to present the case for macroevolution. In other words, macroevolution is not seen in observed examples of natural selection and adaptation, nor merely in the (micro) speciation that brings about small changes within species level.

Which "researchers" are these?
Be careful using vague statements like this...

This link is about drosophila and again only demonstrates observed change within species level.

Change at the species level which produces a new species is macroevolution.

I can't post links. I do see the above links and they say nothing that contradicts anything I have said.

However the nested hierarchhy of birds being within theropods is being seriously challenged. In relation to whale phylogenies there is contradiction. DNA, a combination of DNA and morphology and morpholgy alone indicates different results and phylogeny. I'll post them later if you like. Have you heard of these?

I have heard no serious challenge to the dinosaur-bird phylogeny.
There are some vague attempts from a couple of allied ornithologists, but they have yet to provide any supporting evidence. Such as a viable alternate phylogeny.

Sorry to have to delete the nice pictures and mess your links.

Yes evolution can be defined as change in allele frequency over time and yet researchers have not seen sufficient allele frequency change in any organism above species level, still.

Of course we have... we can observe the changes between any modern groups and a growing number of extinct ones. The comparison between the mammoth and the modern elephant genomes is a perfect example.

No, I do not think I have to discard every branch of science and medicine to suggest that macroevolution has not been observed.

You do if you insist that something has to be witnessed in real time and first hand in order to have been observed.

The horse ancestry that you posted is no longer valid.

Do provide a better one.

The assumption of gradual increase in size has been falsified according to evolutionary researchers. I have some very nice pictures of the old and new versions together.

Wiki "Evolution of the horse" makes mention of an article also.

I suggest you look at my picture again then... because you seem to be making assumptions about what it shows. Rather than paying any attention to it's actual content.

wa:do
"The change in equids' traits was also not always a "straight line" from Hyracotherium to Equus: some traits reversed themselves at various points in the evolution of new equid species, such as size and the presence of facial fossae, and only in retrospect can certain evolutionary trends be recognized"[/quote]

 

[mycorrhiza]

Well, you may be right, but that would be a stray from the point, being, macroevolution has not been observed first hand it must be sought in the fossil record. Natural selection may be a demonstration of speciation, but in itself is not evidence of macroevolution.

Natural selection is a process, not a demonstration of speciation. Speciation is a form of macroevolution, but even so, there is no genetic barrier that allows for speciation once, but not for evolution further than that. If you do believe that there is, I made a topic for the point of providing evidence for such a genetic barrier. It's in this subforum, so you can easily locate it.

And once again, indirect observation is still observation. If we must see everything happening for it to be valid, then we need to scrap several fields of science.

If you look up a paper called "The myth of 1%" written by evolutionists it explains it well. When I can post links I will get to it if you still want it, just ask and remind me.
I can also produce research that places the split at 4.1mya.

I can't find it on a non-subscription site, so it would be nice if you could link it to me when you're able to. No scientists are claiming, as far as I know, that there's just a 1% difference between humans and chimps. Yup, the split took place about then.

I don't think I have time to try to uproot every aspect of evolutionary theory and that is where the conversation appears to be going.

I don't think you've uprooted a single one . I've yet to see any creationist do so.

All I came on this thread to say is that natural selection is a demonstration of microevolution and is not proof of evolution in itself because macroevolution by this means has not been observed first hand. It is assumed based on evolutionists interpretation of the fossil evidence, that has not been particularly stable.

Once again, natural selection is a process in evolution. It is however, one of the things we should see if evolution is true (as there needs to be a process to change the allelle frequency). It is not just assumed. Science is not simple guesswork. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, just on two different scales. Saying that microevolution is possible, but macroevolution isn't is like saying that we can walk five meters, but it's impossible to walk ten.

I think it really depends on the weight one puts on any empirical evidence that is presented. Obviously creationists are not going to put allot of faith in many of evolutionists interpretations and computer models. Creationists can reinterpret data and fossils to support their view as well.

They can interpret it that way, yes, but that doesn't mean that they are right. Creationist interpret it so that there are no transitional fossils, because they claim that every transitional fossil is a complete species, showing a quite serious misunderstanding of what a transitional fossil actually is. The creationist interpretation of the fossil record is based on ignoring evidence and forcing the pieces to fit where they don't.

Well, I agree the majority of researchers support TOE. I dispute they have any credible basis to do so.

Why would 99,9% of all scientists in the relevant field just skip all need for evidence on this particular subject? What makes you doubt that there's a credible basis for evolution? Is it just the lack of direct observations of huge changes?

Rather research based on what is not observed is only as good as the assumptions it is based on. I would not even call most of it empirical evidence because some is in such dispute. If I could post links I would show you some.

Once again, we would need to scrap several fields of science if it only relied on direct observations. Indirect observations are observations too. Science is not guesswork.

So again as you say, macroevolution, change above species level, has not been observed in labs and nature, (not enough time) which is what I said in my very first post in the first place. Like I said I do not understand evolutionists disagreeing with this point and how it relates to observed natural selection

And that it hasn't been directly observed doesn't really change anything about the validity of evolution.