I love links as you know so I couldn't help myself.....
Opening words to your article.....
"Macroevolution and Behavior (in blue)
Macroevolution results in phenotypic differences that can be observed at the species level or above."
Where is the evidence that phenotypical differences have been observed above the species level?
For example, an appendage or a new behavior for feeding that is not observed in related taxa might be seen as evidence for speciation or higher scale divergence.
"
Might be seen as evidence"? Or it "
might" not.
Changes in morphology are much easier to observe over evolutionary time than changes in behavior because morphological structures are preserved in the fossil record.
What is observed in the fossil record that scientists haven't already interpreted to fit their theory? Whatever is "preserved in the fossil record" is the human voices of creatures who can't really tell us much. Scientists can make these fossils say whatever they want them to. Who is going to argue back?
The fossil record rarely preserves evidence of behavior, although we can make inferences about how a structure might have been used on the basis of what is known about current morphology.
"We can make
inferences about how a structure might have been used"....how? by comparing "
what is known about current morphology". So what is morphology? According to Wiki....
- the study of the forms of things, in particular:
a particular form, shape, or structure.
So morphology is the assumption of how evolution happened based on what an organism looks like.
So here we have the accepted evolution of a whale depicted in a chart, supposedly based on fossils.
"Starting about 50 million years ago, they gradually lost their limbs, evolving a body dedicated to swimming rather than walking. Many lineages of whales evolved and thrived and eventually became extinct. All living whales descend from two lineages that split from each other about 40 million years ago, known as baleen whales and toothed whales."
Now I look at that chart and see creatures supposedly millions of years apart with nothing but the suggestion that what started off as a four legged furry land dweller, somehow morphed into all those different creatures over millions of years because scientists saw "similarities" in their skull structure....or more explicitly, in an ear bone.
Was pakicetus really the same size as an orcha though? Looks like that is suggested in the chart.
So a small land animal the size of a dog transformed itself into an aquatic creature, about a third the size of a football field....because scientists assumed that this is what
must have happened because evolution demands that it did?
How big was pakicetus?.....and yet look at what science assumes happened with whales.....
Do you notice something missing in the first graphic that is pictured in the second? The size difference between the first "ancestor" and the last. Compare man and a dog, to the size of a whale. And you have no problem with that? But yet you balk at the mention of a Creator as if it is somehow more of a stretch....?
"Because we cannot see how ancient organisms behaved, we must use a phylogenetic approach to studying macroevolution of behavior."
And who invented the phylogenetic approach? Scientists of course....based on what? Evidence or assumption? Since there is no conclusive evidence, it must be based on assumption.
"Tracing the long-term evolution of behavior requires the availability of well-described traits for a group of related species and a reliable phylogeny for the group.
Where do these ideas come from? Who proposed that "well-described traits" for a "related species" must provide a reliable phylogeny? Oh yeah...scientists who already believe that evolution is a given and base all their findings on what they assume must be true.
Fortunately, an increasing number of published phylogenies is making this approach feasible for many taxa.
Published by whom? And who deems it to be feasible? Same people.
However, the lability and complexity of behavior, coupled with poor information on its genetic basis, have deterred many systematists from using behavior as a phylogenetically informative character. Yet behavior can be as useful as morphology in constructing phylogenies."
So....."the lability and complexity of behavior, coupled with poor information on its genetic basis, have deterred many systematists from using behavior as a phylogenetically informative character."
Shame about that. But isn't it good to know that "behavior can be as useful as morphology in constructing phylogenies"......
Reconstruction is such a complex process......but of course, no one constructed the originals.
Why can't you provide evidence that the wall does
not exist? You are the ones with all the science and the mountains of evidence...? We have faith.....but the lab experiments do not go above species level....so where are these observations in real life? Where do we see among the many varieties of one species, one becoming a different creature altogether? Where is there real evidence that branching ever happened? There is just as much real evidence for individually created organisms IMO.
What did you produce metis? What can science provide apart from an invented scenario that cannot possibly be proven.....so there is the stalemate....one belief system is up against another belief system masquerading as scientific evidence. That is about the only real fact in this topic.
