You would know.
I am not a scientist, but I listen to what scientist say, and what they write.
Perhaps you should do that sometimes, instead of making false statements, as though you know what you are talking about... just because they are claims you wish were true.
(I am not using any red ink, which you call green... although you won't tell me if you are color blind. I know someone who is, so I can understand, if that is the case with you. Or something is wrong with your screen. It may be bad, or the gamma may need adjusting. Whatever the case, let's see what your excuse will be. Gish Gallop? I know that posters on here can't be that ignorant, so I know that just a distinctive plea.
These are the
things scientist say...
Richard Goldschmidt, argued that microevolution does not, by the sheer accumulation of small, adaptive changes, lead to novel species. In his words, “the facts of microevolution do not suffice for macroevolution”.
Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Abstract
Recent debates between proponents of the modern evolutionary synthesis (the standard model in evolutionary biology) and those of a possible extended synthesis are a good example of the fascinating tangle among empirical, theoretical, and conceptual or philosophical matters that is the practice of evolutionary biology. In this essay, we briefly discuss two case studies from this debate,
highlighting the relevance of philosophical thinking to evolutionary biologists in the hope of spurring further constructive cross-pollination between the two fields.
For a number of years now, there have been debates in the biological literature about the status (i.e., whether it is necessary) of the so-called extended (evolutionary) synthesis (ES). The idea has been put forth and elaborated by a number of authors (e.g., Pigliucci and Müller 2010 and the references therein) that the time has come for a broad reevaluation of the current standard model in evolutionary biology, known as the modern synthesis (MS), which was crystallized by the classical writings of Dobzhansky, Huxley, Mayr, Simpson, and others during the 1940s and early 1950s (Mayr and Provine 1980).
More recently, the theory has expanded again, it is argued, to the ES, which builds on earlier work previously considered peripheral to the MS (e.g., Simpson 1944, Eldredge and Gould 1972, Gould and Lewontin 1979, parts of Fisher 1999).
This expansion includes new or highly revised concepts such as multilevel selection theory, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, niche inheritance, facilitated variation, evolvability, and a distinction between microevolutionary and macroevolutionary processes, among others.
The sort of vigorous debate briefly sketched above is, we suggest, both typical of many areas of biology (including discussions on species concepts and on a number of ecological theories) and an excellent example of a dialogue at the interface of empirical biology, theoretical biology, and philosophy of biology. These are issues that can be settled decisively neither on empirical grounds (it is hard to imagine what sort of evidence, on its own, could possibly do that) nor even on a theoretical (as opposed to a broader conceptual) level—say, framed in the kind of mathematical terms that are the bread and butter of population genetic theory. The reason for this is that some of the crucial issues are conceptual (i.e., philosophical) in nature and hinge on not just matters of definition (what, exactly, counts as a paradigm?) but also on the entire framework that biologists use to understand what it is that they are doing (e.g., what is the relationship between systems of inheritance and natural selection, or, in multilevel selection theory, what counts as a level and why?). Kuhn (1962) famously referred to this as the “disciplinary matrix” characterizing a given field of inquiry.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...rn_Evolutionary_Theory_Explain_Macroevolution
Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution
Ever since the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s, some biologists have expressed doubt that the Synthetic Theory, based principally on mutation, genetic variation, and natural selection, adequately accounts for macroevolution, or evolution above the species level. Some questions pertain to the history of biological diversity, but the greatest argument has concerned the evolution of major changes in organisms’ form and function. Such changes have been the subject of debate on the nature and phenotypic effect of mutations (especially the role of “macromutations” or saltations), the role of developmental mechanisms and processes, and the importance of internal constraints on adaptive evolution. Bridging the two major macroevolutionary themes, the hypothesis of punctuated equilibria invoked constraints on phenotypic evolution and the role of speciation in both diversification and the evolution of form. This chapter describes the Evolutionary Synthesis and the challenges to it and addresses the extent to which the modern formulation of the Synthetic Theory (ST) adequately addresses the observations that have prompted skeptical challenge.
I conclude that although several proposed extensions and seemingly unorthodox ideas have some merit, the observations they purport to explain can mostly be interpreted within the framework of the Synthetic Theory.
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution - ScienceDirect
Testing hypotheses in macroevolution
Abstract
Experimental manipulation of microevolution (changes in frequency of heritable traits in populations) has shed much light on evolutionary processes. But
many evolutionary processes occur on scales that are not amenable to experimental manipulation. Indeed, one of the reasons that macroevolution (changes in biodiversity over time, space and lineages) has sometimes been a controversial topic is that processes underlying the generation of biological diversity generally operate at scales that are not open to direct observation or manipulation. Macroevolutionary hypotheses can be tested by using them to generate predictions then asking whether observations from the biological world match those predictions.
Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?
Abstract
The “modern synthetic” view of evolution has broken down, at least as an exclusive proposition, on both of its fundamental claims: (1) “extrapolationism” (gradual substitution of different alleles in many genes as the exclusive process underlying all evolutionary change) and (2) nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation. Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different modes of change at its three large-scale levels: (a) variation within populations, (b) speciation, and (c) very long-term macroevolutionary trends. Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps nonadaptive. Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection operating upon groups of species. Individual species generally do not change much after their “instantaneous” (in geological time) origin. These two discontinuities in the evolutionary hierarchy can be called the Goldschmidt break (change in populations is different from speciation) and the Wright break (speciation is different from macroevolutionary trending that translates differential success among different species).
Jeffrey S. Levinton | Department of Ecology & Evolution
Erwin Baur (1919, 1925, 1932)
Erwin Baur was certainly one of the most important architects of the Synthesis. His early death (1933) prevented him from playing a major partin the actual formation of the Synthesis, but his work made him a centralfigure of the preparatory phase:
"If he had lived, he would probably be recognized now as one of the fathers of the synthetic theory of evolution inplants" (Stebbins 1980, p. 140). Baur's very popular genetics textbook Ein-fuÈhrung in die experimentelle Vererbungslehre was probably one of the most influential publications that prepared the ground for the Synthesis in Germany. As early as 1919 (3rd/4th. ed.) Baur presented an evolutionary theory that was based on a synthesis of genetics, the theory of selection and a basic idea of population genetics. He was convinced that the quantity and diversity of mutations in nature is sufficient to guaranty an efficient process of selection (Baur 1919, p. 343). On the other hand,
he had some doubts whether this microevolutionary mechanism is sufficient to explain macroevolution and speculated that new types of mutations might be found (Baur 1919, p. 345).In 1925 Baur presented his most important synthetic ideas in a short paperon the meaning and importance of mutations for evolution (ªDie Bedeu-tung der Mutation fuÈr das Evolutionsproblemº). Here he emphasized thatdifferences between closely related species can be explained by the accumulation of (micro-)mutations (see also Baur 1924; Mayr & Provine 1980;Harwood 1993). He demonstrated that in natural populations sufficientgenetic polymorphism (resulting from random mutations and recombina-tion) for selection to act is present. Baur had no clear notion yet of genepools, gene flow and genetic isolation but he emphasized that the (at thattime dominant) criticism of selection was unproductive. Baur clearly re-jected Lamarckian inheritance.
What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out
what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out
how they happened.
I must be speaking German.