Evolution is obvious

[Desert Snake]

Evolution is obvious.
By looking at micro-evolution, we can guess at macro-evolution..

Prove me wrong!!

 

[Sabour]

What is micro evolutions? Can we refer to it as adaptation ?

 

[Ouroboros]

Evolution is obvious.
By looking at micro-evolution, we can guess at macro-evolution..

Prove me wrong!!

???

Macroevolution is evident from many different aspects than just microevolution. We can see it in the fossil record. We can see it in physiological features of living beings. We can see it the genetic code. We can see it based on radial distribution of species on the planet. And so on. Macroevolution isn't a guess, but an observation. The theory tries to explain why macroevolution exists and how it works. The theory doesn't postulate that macroevolution is hopefully right, but rather, it's there, now what? How do we explain it? It's there, we can see it in the evidence, now we have to figure out how it works. That's the theory.

 

[Ouroboros]

What is micro evolutions? Can we refer to it as adaptation ?

It's genetic "adaptation". In other words, changes of genotype. Which means phenotype changes as well. Which means, there's no boundary between variation of genes and expression of the same into variation of species.

 

[Sabour]

It's genetic "adaptation". In other words, changes of genotype. Which means phenotype changes as well. Which means, there's no boundary between variation of genes and expression of the same into variation of species.

Thank your for answering.

So basically it is not the change of one kind of species into another ?

So that doesn't necessarily mean that there is macro evolution until you prove it. We can't prove one an jump to other. No ?

 

[Quintessence]

I'll confess I haven't been keeping tabs on the latest developments in evolutionary biology, but aren't the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution becoming dated in the literature?

 

[Ouroboros]

Thank your for answering.

So basically it is not the change of one kind of species into another ?

So that doesn't necessarily mean that there is macro evolution until you prove it. We can't prove one an jump to other. No ?

To be picky, each and every animal, every individual is unique. We are all, each one of us, a new creature. Over many generations, the individuals will have been changed so much that they don't look like the first ones. We, the modern humans, look very different from the early humans.

It's proven by the fact that there are several things that proves it. Facts of evidence that actually shows that macroevolution has occurred. The proof is in the pudding. The pudding exists.

In the fossil record, we can see many transitional forms of animals that don't exist today, but have features that shows that they are related to modern animals (whales, mammals, horses, and much more).

In genetics we can find "spelling errors" in the genetic code that can only be shared through family (sharing moms and dads), and we share unique genetic code with the chimpanzees. It's complicated and takes time to explain precisely, but genetics shows on several levels that macroevolution has happened and is happening.

The radial distribution of the variation of species on this planet is concordance with macroevolution.

And more. The evidence shows that macroevolution is true. The problem is rather how and why it has happened and is happening. That's what the theory explains. The theory of evolution doesn't assume macroevolution. Macroevolution is something we can see, and then have to explain. It's there.

---

The theory of evolution is a science that grew out of the frustration of geologists and paleontologists when they couldn't fit the evidence with the Bible. The evidence in the strata and biosphere just didn't match special creation. Evolution came as an answer to what was found, not the other way around.

 

[Ouroboros]

I'll confess I haven't been keeping tabs on the latest developments in evolutionary biology, but aren't the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution becoming dated in the literature?

I suspect they are. The use of the terms are driven by the antievolution camp mostly. In evolution, you use the term "speciation" and "speciation event".

Macro, micro, kinds, are terms used by the anti's to argue against science. The terms have floating definitions which makes it convenient to avoid any fact or actual science that proves them wrong. They could just as well be "Blargh". Blargh proves evolution wrong, because evolution can't explain blargh. What is blargh? Anything that evolution can't explain. So there. Evolution disproven by blargh argument.

 

[Sabour]

To be picky, each and every animal, every individual is unique. We are all, each one of us, a new creature. Over many generations, the individuals will have been changed so much that they don't look like the first ones. We, the modern humans, look very different from the early humans.

It's proven by the fact that there are several things that proves it. Facts of evidence that actually shows that macroevolution has occurred. The proof is in the pudding. The pudding exists.

In the fossil record, we can see many transitional forms of animals that don't exist today, but have features that shows that they are related to modern animals (whales, mammals, horses, and much more).

In genetics we can find "spelling errors" in the genetic code that can only be shared through family (sharing moms and dads), and we share unique genetic code with the chimpanzees. It's complicated and takes time to explain precisely, but genetics shows on several levels that macroevolution has happened and is happening.

The radial distribution of the variation of species on this planet is concordance with macroevolution.

And more. The evidence shows that macroevolution is true. The problem is rather how and why it has happened and is happening. That's what the theory explains. The theory of evolution doesn't assume macroevolution. Macroevolution is something we can see, and then have to explain. It's there.

I will look at this subject later as there are many concepts which I didn't understand :cover:

 

[Quintessence]

I suspect they are. The use of the terms are driven by the antievolution camp mostly. In evolution, you use the term "speciation" and "speciation event".

I don't know, because when I had my college-level biology coursework (which included coursework in evolution specifically), we did use the "micro" and "macro" terms. "Micro" was connected to things like genetic drift within a biological species and "macro" with changes significant enough to classify something as a different biological species. The term speciation was also used.

But when we get right down to it, the concept of "species" is not as neat and clean as it is sometimes made out to be. It's one of those things I learned in college-level biology that was glossed over by high school biology. Evolution is evolution, whether we call it "micro" or "macro."

 

[Willamena]

We can see it the genetic code. We can see it based on radial distribution of species on the planet.

As an aside, the eruption of the volcano Toba 75,000 years ago wiped out ~90% of human kind. If that eruption hadn't happened, we might be much more homogenous in racial features today.

 

[Revoltingest]

Evolution is obvious to me. But today I leased an office to an engineer (who is smarter than I am) who
says creationism is obvious. We discussed how his loopy belief doesn't interfere with his scientific work.
(Well...."loopy" is my description of his beliefs, not his.) The argument of obviousness is a poor one.

 

[kashmir]

Not to change the subject, but does anyone ponder what life will look like hundreds of thousands of years from now?
Evolution hasn't stopped, it's still happening.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know, because when I had my college-level biology coursework (which included coursework in evolution specifically), we did use the "micro" and "macro" terms. "Micro" was connected to things like genetic drift within a biological species and "macro" with changes significant enough to classify something as a different biological species. The term speciation was also used.

Basically, the micro v macro distinction is a bit fussy. It's like saying "on the small level" v "on a bigger scale."

But when we get right down to it, the concept of "species" is not as neat and clean as it is sometimes made out to be. It's one of those things I learned in college-level biology that was glossed over by high school biology. Evolution is evolution, whether we call it "micro" or "macro."

Agree.

And there's modifications to the taxonomic system constantly simply because it can't completely describe the relationships. Especially now when there's more evidence for crossing of genetic material. It's not a neat tree. It's a mosaic network. More like the street maps of Los Angeles than a nice oak tree.

 

[Ouroboros]

As an aside, the eruption of the volcano Toba 75,000 years ago wiped out ~90% of human kind. If that eruption hadn't happened, we might be much more homogenous in racial features today.

75,000 years ago!? Impossible! The book says the world is only 6,000 years old!!!

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually, there's another place where evolution is obvious AND observable:

If you believe that artificial selective breeding programs are real, you believe in all the physical and biological components necessary for evolution to exist in the natural world. IOW, if you believe in breeding programs, you believe in evolution.

Furthermore, if you still don't believe that this sort of thing can occur naturally, I direct you to the fact that there are instances of children, born to fully African-descended parents living in America, with light-colored skin like a European. albino black person - Kenosha Robinson - people with albinism - Marie Claire This is what happened to European humans roughly 6,000-8,000 years ago via natural selection. Before then, Europeans had dark skin like Africans. But the reason lighter skin was selected for, and dark skin eventually selected out, is because of Europe's climate: foggy, rainy, constantly overcast with very little sun, and long, long, long winter nights. Light skin is better for absorbing vitamin D in such a low-sunlight environment than dark skin, so those who had light skin would have been generally healthier, and thus in a better position to reproduce. (Of course, this carried with it the added effect that people with light skin burn far more easily when exposed to too much sunlight.) Natural selection demonstrated.

No need to go into biological terminology, laws of physics with long, strange words, or the nature of how life began in the first place (which has nothing to do with evolution). It's right there for all to see.

 

[Desert Snake]

Evolution is obvious to me. But today I leased an office to an engineer (who is smarter than I am) who
says creationism is obvious. We discussed how his loopy belief doesn't interfere with his scientific work.
(Well...."loopy" is my description of his beliefs, not his.) The argument of obviousness is a poor one.

Yes, 'obvious' is a bit silly, it's supposed to be.
Just wanted to get some viewpoints.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not to change the subject, but does anyone ponder what life will look like hundreds of thousands of years from now?
Evolution hasn't stopped, it's still happening.

Considering that we're entering into (already entered) artificial hearts, limbs, etc, and perhaps not in the far future brain implants, we're going into a new evolutionary level. A non biological evolution. A borg society is more likely outcome, I think.

 

[Quintessence]

Considering that we're entering into (already entered) artificial hearts, limbs, etc, and perhaps not in the far future brain implants, we're going into a new evolutionary level. A non biological evolution. A borg society is more likely outcome, I think.

Given the present manifestation of civilization is unsustainable, in hundreds of thousands of years, I think humanity is more likely to critically shoot itself in the foot (if it hasn't already) with mismanagement of natural resources than what you're suggesting here. But that is probably neither here nor there.

 

[Leftimies]

There is no reason to question evolution. Case in point, virus infections:
The very reason why vaccines are constantly updated and upgraded is that viruses grow immune. Why do they grow immune? They evolve. Its evolution right there under your nose.