Let's start at the beginning? maybe?

[LuisDantas]

Like the numbers between 1 and 1000 being fiction, then? Arbitrary?

Numbers are actually artificial constructs which, while being incredibly useful, can not be proven to correspond to anything in reality. It is easy to overlook it, but their use comes with a duty to accept the responsibility of verifying whether they are any good for practical purposes.

To the best of my knowledge the matter is not quite settled; it can be argued that natural numbers exist on their own, for instance.

 

[Pogo]

Because they are arbitrary and meaningless. They serve no clear purpose beyond the attempt to sustain the idea of distinct biological "kinds" that would not drift into others.

Only in the sense that creationists wish to create a strawwman of evolution in order to make themselves less uncomfortable, for less rigid thinkers it is useful for conveying less, more concepts.

 

[Balthazzar]

Numbers are actually artificial constructs which, while being incredibly useful, can not be proven to correspond to anything in reality. It is easy to overlook it, but their use comes with a duty to accept the responsibility of verifying whether they are any good for practical purposes.

To the best of my knowledge the matter is not quite settled; it can be argued that natural numbers exist on their own, for instance.

Processes accumulate and with the accumulations come a greater mass.

 

[Pogo]

Numbers are actually artificial constructs which, while being incredibly useful, can not be proven to correspond to anything in reality. It is easy to overlook it, but their use comes with a duty to accept the responsibility of verifying whether they are any good for practical purposes.

To the best of my knowledge the matter is not quite settled; it can be argued that natural numbers exist on their own, for instance.

That is true of pretty much everything in language, a system of constructs that we use in internal logic whether to physical or conceptual "things".

 

[Pogo]

Processes accumulate and with the accumulations come a greater mass.

Gee, I wish paying bills would increase the mass in my bank account.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe that was the point being made, the crossing being less definable than the steps taken to that undefined point of when micro turns to macro. I hadn't considered this.

If the line is drawn at speciation, we find there is no specific number of steps that result in a new species. It could be as few as one change in the genome or many.

And should it be established that the micro-evolution transitions to macro-evolution at the species level? What about genera or higher taxonomic categories?

And there is no set timeframe for changes to take place given that they are random and driven by the environment.

These terms came out of the obscurity of science, but have been subsumed by creationists in what I can only describe as an effort to acknowledge evolution and deny it at the same time. The "we accept change within species, but fish are still fish" or something like that.

 

[Balthazzar]

If the line is drawn at speciation, we find there is no specific number of steps that result in a new species. It could be as few as one change in the genome or many.

And should it be established that the micro-evolution transitions to macro-evolution at the species level? What about genera or higher taxonomic categories?

And there is no set timeframe for changes to take place given that they are random and driven by the environment.

These terms came out of the obscurity of science, but have been subsumed by creationists in what I can only describe as an effort to acknowledge evolution and deny it at the same time. The "we accept change within species, but fish are still fish" or something like that.

Fish are still fish. Homo Sapien sapiens are still homo sapiens - Neanderthal to Cro magnon to Homo Sapien are all still part of the human gene pool. The differences evident enough at macro levels to acknowledge the differences from past to present, which is, I'm assuming how it will happen or be acknowledged moving forward.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What I've noticed is people comparing apples to spinach, and approaching evolution as if an apple is going to draw from the spinach genus pool for development. As it concerns humans, humans evolve within their own kind as humans through natural reproduction, their own gene pool. Our diversity makes this evident, as does the differences in how we've developed over many generations separately. Things like stronger immune systems, hair color, skin tone, eye color, etc. These are micro evolutionary steps. Macro evolution takes quite a lot longer, but happens through these micro changes over longer periods of time. As we adapt to environmental changes, we change if only in small ways, but if given a couple few million years, these small changes give birth to a new identity or new species type.

The mode of evolution is not fixed.

By now, I'm sure that many may be aware of my favorite example of the rapidity of speciation that is demonstrated by the cichlid super-flock of Lake Victoria in Africa. Over the course of about 15,000 years, one or a very few ancestral species evolved into as many as 700 endemic species of cichlid.

The evidence shows us that prior to 15,000 years ago, there was no Lake Victoria. The impoundment of a grassland stream resulted in the formation of the lake and generation of numerous niches that existing species rapidly diversified to fill.

The creation of many new niches or the opening of previously unavailable niches can result in very rapid speciation and even to the evolution of new genera in a comparatively short span of time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fish are still fish. Homo Sapien sapiens are still homo sapiens - Neanderthal to Cro magnon to Homo Sapien are all still part of the human gene pool. The differences evident enough at macro levels to acknowledge the differences from past to present, which is, I'm assuming how it will happen or be acknowledged moving forward.

The line of "fish are still fish" is a smokescreen. It says nothing that isn't obvious or has any impact on the theory of evolution. It is a variation of the often chanted creationist mantra of "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

The stronger case from the evidence supports that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were cousins with a common ancestry rather than Neanderthal being ancestral. But I agree, we share an ancestral gene pool or common ancestry if you like.

We can delineate modes of evolution based on the establishment of some arbitrary level in order to keep track of things, but that is a manmade construct subjectively applied. If you accept that small changes occur and lead to the diversification of populations over time under the unguided direction of the environment, evolution has been accepted as the explanation regardless of where that line is drawn.

 

[Balthazzar]

The mode of evolution is not fixed.

By now, I'm sure that many may be aware of my favorite example of the rapidity of speciation that is demonstrated by the cichlid super-flock of Lake Victoria in Africa. Over the course of about 15,000 years, one or a very few ancestral species evolved into as many as 700 endemic species of cichlid.

The evidence shows us that prior to 15,000 years ago, there was no Lake Victoria. The impoundment of a grassland stream resulted in the formation of the lake and generation of numerous niches that existing species rapidly diversified to fill.

The creation of many new niches or the opening of previously unavailable niches can result in very rapid speciation and even to the evolution of new genera in a comparatively short span of time.

I wasn't aware of the rapidity potential. I was always under the impression, that it takes upwards of a million years or better to produce a new specie type. Cool info.

 

[Balthazzar]

The line of "fish are still fish" is a smokescreen. It says nothing that isn't obvious or has any impact on the theory of evolution. It is a variation of the often chanted creationist mantra of "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

The stronger case from the evidence supports that Homo sapiens and Neanderthals were cousins with a common ancestry rather than Neanderthal being ancestral.

We can delineate modes of evolution based on the establishment of some arbitrary level in order to keep track of things, but that is a manmade construct subjectively applied. If you accept that small changes occur and lead to the diversification of populations over time under the unguided direction of the environment, evolution has been accepted as the explanation regardless of where that line is drawn.

I'm not suggesting that humans did not originate from the waters, quite the contrary actually. We know this about ourselves from our evolution in the womb. Our gene pool from water to land has taken us to present day homo sapiens, and so the future of our species is still unclear. Survival is the driving force, so we adapt to our environments in order to survive quite naturally. I find it hopeful that we are adaptable in this way as living organisms.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wasn't aware of the rapidity potential. I was always under the impression, that it takes upwards of a million years or better to produce a new specie type. Cool info.

It is an example of one of the fastest rates of evolution known. The other extreme is something like coelacanth that has existed without great morphological change in a very stable environment for millions of years. Other factors apart from natural selection become significant in driving change. Under such conditions morphology and other characteristics become highly conserved based on that evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not suggesting that humans did not originate from the waters, quite the contrary actually.

Sorry if it seemed like I was commenting that direction. My comments were directed to the general misinformation and twisted contrivances often offered by creationists to deny the evidence and explanations.

We know this about ourselves from our evolution in the womb. Our gene pool from water to land has taken us to present day homo sapiens, and so the future of our species is still unclear. Survival is the driving force, so we adapt to our environments in order to survive quite naturally. I find it hopeful that we are adaptable in this way as living organisms.

The only proviso I would mention is the use of "gene pool" in reference to ancestry. While accurate enough in the usage I have seen it applied here, it may add confusion to those less knowledgeable given its common and contemporary reference is often limited to the immediate populations where the term is applied. For instance, while we share an extended gene pool with our ancestral lineage, when speaking of the human gene pool in current terms, it is often just the existing variety of the many human populations that are under consideration.

I noted your reference to the degeneration of the human Y-chromosome. I have been recently reading up on that subject and it is a fascinating bit of human evolution that has possible implications on an evolutionary time scale isn't really that much, but for us here and now, is far in the future. Some wonder if such change in sex determination could lead to multiple mechanisms in various populations that would effectively limit interbreeding and result in multiple human species.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Like the numbers between 1 and 1000 being fiction, then? Arbitrary?

What? Where on earth did that come from? Each number has a successor and a predecessor -- that is in the nature of the numbering. The predecessor to 842 is 843 -- but 842 and 843 are not the same. The predecessor to the child is the parent, but they are not the same thing. The predecessor to a creature with a very small change is a parent without that small change -- they are not the same thing, but one follows directly from the other.

 

[Balthazzar]

It is an example of one of the fastest rates of evolution known. The other extreme is something like coelacanth that has existed without great morphological change in a very stable environment for millions of years. Other factors apart from natural selection become significant in driving change. Under such conditions morphology and other characteristics become highly conserved based on that evidence.

Natural selection would seem most effective and the path most natural to us. Forced survival-driven morphing of a species may occur but is this any less natural than natural selection? I'm curious, do new species require a less natural-selective event to be birthed? I don't know, but the idea intrigues me.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Maybe that was the point being made, the crossing being less definable than the steps taken to that undefined point of when micro turns to macro. I hadn't considered this.

There is no "small point where micro becomes macro." But in a long (say 1,000) string of micros, the 980th is a long way from the 3rd -- there are 976 small changes between them. They might be quite noticeably different.

 

[Balthazzar]

Sorry if it seemed like I was commenting that direction. My comments were directed to the general misinformation and twisted contrivances often offered by creationists to deny the evidence and explanations.

The only proviso I would mention is the use of "gene pool" in reference to ancestry. While accurate enough in the usage I have seen it applied here, it may add confusion to those less knowledgeable given its common and contemporary reference is often limited to the immediate populations where the term is applied. For instance, while we share an extended gene pool with our ancestral lineage, when speaking of the human gene pool in current terms, it is often just the existing variety of the many human populations that are under consideration.

I noted your reference to the degeneration of the human Y-chromosome. I have been recently reading up on that subject and it is a fascinating bit of human evolution that has possible implications on an evolutionary time scale isn't really that much, but for us here and now, is far in the future. Some wonder if such change in sex determination could lead to multiple mechanisms in various populations that would effectively limit interbreeding and result in multiple human species.

That's exactly how I was using the term, even applied to neanderthal man. From the gene pool present in that era homo sapiens evolved into our own type. I wouldn't disagree with your latter statement. I have a feeling multiple human species is a necessitated certainty.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Processes accumulate and with the accumulations come a greater mass.

I was thinking about this and how it fits with the conversation.

At one time there was no New York City.

A camp that became a settlement that became a village that became a town, that became a city.

It illustrates what you are saying, but there is no established rate of formation that must occur and no defined state to know when a village transitions to a town and a town to a city. We can apply arbitrary designations, but there is no natural cutoff defining those transitions. They would be defined by many factors used as evidence for their establishment. And how that evidence is used and weighed, various proponents could argue for different arbitrary cutoffs.

That is pretty much the same situation we find ourselves in with micro- and macro-evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's exactly how I was using the term, even applied to neanderthal man. From the gene pool present in that era homo sapiens evolved into our own type. I wouldn't disagree with your latter statement. I have a feeling multiple human species is a necessitated certainty.

I agree with your use of the term and was rather pleased to see what is a novel application to my knowledge. My only thought was to the potential confusion it might cause some that already exhibit a very tenuous understanding of the available information.

Any change would be dependent on the environment and how that would effect gene flow between populations. In today's world, with travel occurring daily to almost any point on the globe, it could still happen I suppose. But that flow would limit the number of potential speciation events and maybe completely eliminate them depending on how persistent and long lasting that gene flow is. Other factors to be considered could be differences in populations. Some selection might protect and conserve the Y-chromosome and others might increase the rate of divergence.

Unfortunately, based on the rate derived from the available evidence, none of us will be here to see what happens. I think the last estimate I read was something like 11 million years if degeneration continues as it has.

 

[LuisDantas]

Processes accumulate and with the accumulations come a greater mass.

Sure, that happens. When it does, which isn't always.