Macro evolution as domonstrable fact.

[Bunyip]

In all of the threads discussing creation/evolution the same fallacies regarding macro evolution seem recurr.

Generally the claim is made that macro evolution is not proven, and so I would like discuss it further.

Science defines macroevolution as evolutionary transitions at or above the species level. So according to science when one species diverges enough to become two or more groups that are no longer cross fertile - then macro evolution has taken place.

So this means that when a single species of drusophila fly becomes two or more species, then macro evolution has been demonstrated.

Creationists generally deny this by claiming that macro evolution needs one 'kind' of animal directly observed to transform into another - a cat to a dog being a popular example. Now such an event is not possible according to evolution. Science has not observed any such events and the ToE argues that it could not happen anyway.

So the example being demanded is not something that evolution argues for.

Now if creationism is true, and all modern species came from the biblical 'kinds' aboard the ark - then speciation must have occured, and at an astonishingly fast rate.

How can there be a barrier to speciation when it must have occured incredibly quickly if the creation story is true?

In just a few thousand years science would not expect dogs to evolve into anything other than a dog, even a speciation event would be very unlikely over such a short time.

So how can creationists belive in the incredibly rapid macro evolution necessary if the story of the Ark is true - but deny the far slower and more gradual macro evolution argued for by science?

 

[Ouroboros]

So how can creationists belive in the incredibly rapid macro evolution necessary if the story of the Ark is true - but deny the far slower and more gradual macro evolution argued for by science?

And even faster than that.

There's been 5 huge extinction events in the history. Each one of them eradicating the majority of species. All those species must've evolved, then destroyed in large events that were never recorded in the Bible, and then new species evolve again. Some of these events lasted for thousands of years. (And more. The Permian was two events, that together lasted for millions of years.) So how can that fit into the ark story and the anti-evolution propaganda? 98% or more of species are gone from these events.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events

 

[Revoltingest]

As soon as a fly gives birth to a dog, I think they'll jump on board the macro bandwagon.
But as long as 2 species of fly look pretty much alike, you're preaching to the choir.

 

[Bunyip]

As soon as a fly gives birth to a dog, I think they'll jump on board the macro bandwagon.
But as long as 2 species of fly look pretty much alike, you're preaching to the choir.

Pretty much alike? Like a chimp and a human?

 

[Ouroboros]

Or cats and dogs. They're different, but not by much. Both have fur. There are some dogs that have hair and no fur. So fur dogs are more "same kind" to cats than hair dogs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pretty much alike? Like a chimp and a human?

Yeah, especially if you ever met me IRL.

 

[Bunyip]

Or cats and dogs. They're different, but not by much. Both have fur. There are some dogs that have hair and no fur. So fur dogs are more "same kind" to cats than hair dogs.

I always found Hovind's career long theme of dogs giving birth to non dogs was interesting in that with that example it has already occured in dogs.

We have two distinct dog species, Lcaon pictus and Canis lupus. I love to ask him about that - when he gets out of jail that is.

 

[Bunyip]

Yeah, especially if you ever met me IRL.

Sadly I am pretty much the shape of a strategically shaven middle aged chimpanzee.

 

[Skwim]

In all of the threads discussing creation/evolution the same fallacies regarding macro evolution seem recurr.

Generally the claim is made that macro evolution is not proven, and so I would like discuss it further.

Science defines macroevolution as evolutionary transitions at or above the species level. So according to science when one species diverges enough to become two or more groups that are no longer cross fertile - then macro evolution has taken place.

Actually, different species are known to successfully hybridize, with ability of the hybrids to produce normal and normally functioning offspring. The wolf, Canis lupus and the coyote, Canis latrans is one such example.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually, different species are known to successfully hybridize, with ability of the hybrids to produce normal and normally functioning offspring. The wolf, Canis lupus and the coyote, Canis latrans is one such example.

Sure. In the example of the African hunting dog as I understand it they can not hybridise with Canis lupus.

I understand that the term 'species' does not present a barrier, it is a continuum. However the goal posts can surely only move so far? A dog would still not need to have evolved into anything other than a dog in order for a seperate, non cross fertile new dog species to emerge via macro evolution.

In fact dogs could evolve into new genus of dogs and remain dogs. Dogs could evolve over the next billion years to fill all manner of ecological niches - where they range from the aquatic to the arboreal, and still be dogs.

 

[Ouroboros]

We have two distinct dog species, Lcaon pictus and Canis lupus. I love to ask him about that - when he gets out of jail that is.

If you even can get two coherent sentences out of that guy. He's a machine-gun talker. A professional monkey-poo slinger.

 

[Skwim]

Sure. In the example of the African hunting dog as I understand it they can not hybridise with Canis lupus.

Quite correct, unlike the wolf, whose genus is Canis, that of the african hunting dog is Lycaon.

I understand that the term 'species' does not present a barrier, it is a continuum.

In a sense. Species is only a rank that includes an organism or organisms so different from others that they can stand alone under a specific genus.

However the goal posts can surely only move so far?

What goal posts are you talking about?
FWIW, species are poorly served by any definition based on fertility as the distinguishing characteristic. There are quite a few organisms that don't reproduce by mating.

A dog would still not need to have evolved into anything other than a dog in order for a seperate, non cross fertile new dog species to emerge via macro evolution.

But if it evolved into a dog how does this "non cross fertile new dog species" arise? I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying here.

In fact dogs could evolve into new genus of dogs and remain dogs.

Sorry, but that's not how taxonomists and systematics work. Any organism that achieves a new species status, to say nothing of a new genus, no longer retains the identity of its progenitor. IOW, because they are different enough to merit their own species taxon they cannot retain the label of the species from which they arose. Just consider the common dog. Zoologists consider it an off-shoot of the wolf, but because it appeared so different from the wolf, Canis lupus, it was classified it in the wolf genus Canis under the species taxon of familiaris. However, because of recent DNA evidence the American Society of Mammalogists has reclassified it as Canis lupus familiaris, a mere subspecies of wolf. (The wolf was reclassified as Canis lupus lupus.)

Dogs could evolve over the next billion years to fill all manner of ecological niches - where they range from the aquatic to the arboreal, and still be dogs.

Perhaps, but if they evolved to the point where science determines they no longer share enough distinguishing characteristics with dogs, they would be booted out of Canis lupus familiaris, and given their own subspecies, or maybe species, taxon. And such classification is always followed with a new label. There's good reason we look at evolutionary changed organisms as something different from their progenitors, They are different.

 

[Bunyip]

Quite correct, unlike the wolf, whose genus is Canis, that of the african hunting dog is Lycaon.

In a sense. Species is only a rank that includes an organism or organisms so different from others that they can stand alone under a specific genus.

What goal posts are you talking about?
FWIW, species are poorly served by any definition based on fertility as the distinguishing characteristic. There are quite a few organisms that don't reproduce by mating.

But if it evolved into a dog how does this "non cross fertile new dog species" arise? I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying here.

Sorry, but that's not how taxonomists and systematics work. Any organism that achieves a new species status, to say nothing of a new genus, no longer retains the identity of its progenitor. IOW, because they are different enough to merit their own species taxon they cannot retain the label of the species from which they arose. Just consider the common dog. Zoologists consider it an off-shoot of the wolf, but because it appeared so different from the wolf, Canis lupus, it was classified it in the wolf genus Canis under the species taxon of familiaris. However, because of recent DNA evidence the American Society of Mammalogists has reclassified it as Canis lupus familiaris, a mere subspecies of wolf. (The wolf was reclassified as Canis lupus lupus.)

Perhaps, but if they evolved to the point where science determines they no longer share enough distinguishing characteristics with dogs, they would be booted out of Canis lupus familiaris, and given their own subspecies, or maybe species, taxon. And such classification is always followed with a new label. There's good reason we look at evolutionary changed organisms as something different from their progenitors, They are different.

But of course that is how taxonomy works - take the original mammal, no matter how much mammals diversified - they remain mammals.

Some mammals evolved into canines, but they remain mammals. Just as the taxonomic term 'canis would remain even though future dogs diversify.

So you do retain the classification of the progenitor.

In your example of the dog and the wolf, the progenitor classification Canis remains - only the sub classification changes.

 

[sun rise]

Sadly I am pretty much the shape of a strategically shaven middle aged chimpanzee.

I'm presumably a bit older than you depending on how you define "middle aged" but echo that wise statement of yours with a hearty ook ook.

 

[Skwim]

But of course that is how taxonomy works - take the original mammal, no matter how much mammals diversified - they remain mammals.

That's because they retain their position in their class taxon Mammalia.

FYI, here's the taxonomy of the dog.

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Carnivora
Family: Canidae
Genus: Canis
Species: C. lupus
Subspecies: C. l. familiaris​

Some mammals evolved into canines, but they remain mammals. Just as the taxonomic term 'canis would remain even though future dogs diversify.

Yup, because even if this evolved dog of yours eventually merited its own genus, which would necessarily be something other than Canis, Canis would likely remain the genus of the following animals.

• Canis adustus
• Canis aureus
• Canis latrans
• Canis lupus
• Canis mesomelas
• Canis rufus
• Canis simensis

And as I intimated, should this evolved "dog" end up in its own genus it would be wholly inappropriate to call it a "dog" because that label only applies to those animals classified as Canis lupus familiaris.

So you do retain the classification of the progenitor.

All the way down to the genus rank (Canis in this case.) but not at the subspecies level, and maybe not at the species level either.

In your example of the dog and the wolf, the progenitor classification Canis remains - only the sub classification changes.

As well as the species taxon lupus in this particular case: the dog went from the species taxon familiaris, which was eliminated, and put into the wolf species taxon lupus.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Perhaps, but if they evolved to the point where science determines they no longer share enough distinguishing characteristics with dogs, they would be booted out of Canis lupus familiaris, and given their own subspecies, or maybe species, taxon. And such classification is always followed with a new label. There's good reason we look at evolutionary changed organisms as something different from their progenitors, They are different.

They would likely always be considered dogs, even if, like said already, if they filled nearly every ecological niche ranging from gliding dogs to marine dogs to grazing herbivorous dogs.

It's just that "dog" would be considered a class of it's own. And I imagine if dogs ended up this successful, it would mean most other mammals would be extinct and the mammalian clade would lose it's rank and would just be considered an unranked clade, much like how synapsid or therapsid has no taxonomic rank.

At one time, birds were just another species or small genus of dinosaurs among other groups. But birds became very successful and diversified and are a class of their own, like mammals.

There's large flightless birds, there's marine birds(penguins), there's predatory birds etc... but all are still birds.

 

[Skwim]

They would likely always be considered dogs, even if, like said already, if they filled nearly every ecological niche ranging from gliding dogs to marine dogs to grazing herbivorous dogs.

"They" being laymen, So, perhaps, perhaps not.

It's just that "dog" would be considered a class of it's own.

I assume you mean the layman's use of "class," and not that of science. And this just may be the case. Lay people often pay little attention to the dictates of science, and label things as they choose.

And I imagine if dogs ended up this successful, it would mean most other mammals would be extinct and the mammalian clade would lose it's rank and would just be considered an unranked clade, much like how synapsid or therapsid has no taxonomic rank.

I don't believe you understand the concept of clade.

"A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor.
Using a phylogeny, it is easy to tell if a group of lineages forms a clade. Imagine clipping a single branch off the phylogeny —
all of the organisms on that pruned branch make up a clade."
​

​

source
​

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

"They" being laymen, So, perhaps, perhaps not.

"They" is dogs.

I assume you mean the layman's use of "class," and not that of science. And this just may be the case. Lay people often pay little attention to the dictates of science, and label things as they choose.

I mean the taxonomic rank, class.

I don't believe you understand the concept of clade.

"A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor.
Using a phylogeny, it is easy to tell if a group of lineages forms a clade. Imagine clipping a single branch off the phylogeny —
all of the organisms on that pruned branch make up a clade."
​

​

source
​

I know exactly what a clade is. What in the world did I say that suggested I didn't know what a clade was?

Mammalian is a clade. Therapsid is a clade. Dogs are a clade. Endotherms are not a clade. Pelycosaurs are not a clade. I know exactly what a clade is.

 

[Skwim]

"They" is dogs.

Of course. My bad misreading.

I mean the taxonomic rank, class.

In order for this "dog" to rise to the position of class would take an enormous amount of evolutionary development. It would first have to achieve recognition as a genus of Mammalia, then as a family of Mammalia, then as an order of Mammalia, after which it could be separated from the mammals as a ??????

I know exactly what a clade is. What in the world did I say that suggested I didn't know what a clade was?

"it would mean most other mammals would be extinct and the mammalian clade would lose it's rank and would just be considered an unranked clade, much like how synapsid or therapsid has no taxonomic rank."
​

Please explain why Mammalia would disappear simply because most other mammals went extinct. Moreover, clades aren't ranked, although they will embrace all members of a specific taxon.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

In order for this "dog" to rise to the position of class would take an enormous amount of evolutionary development. It would first have to achieve recognition as a genus of Mammalia, then as a family of Mammalia, then as an order of Mammalia,

Obviously. I thought that went without saying. No one said dogs could just jump from being a small group to an extremely diverse group.

after which it could be separated from the other mammals .

No it wouldn't. Despite the diversity of mammals today, they're not separated from the therapsid group or any grander clade. Birds, strictly speaking, aren't separated from dinosaurs either.

Any marine varient of a dog or arboreal gliding dog would still be considered a dog.

"it would mean most other mammals would be extinct and the mammalian clade would lose it's rank and would just be considered an unranked clade, much like how synapsid or therapsid has no taxonomic rank."
​

Please explain why Mammalia would disappear simply because most other mammals went extinct. Moreover, clades aren't ranked, although they will embrace all members of a specific taxon.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying here.

We were talking about a hypothetical scenario where dogs gained a very high level of diversity comparable to the current diversity to mammals or birds.

Usually when a group gains this level of diversity, it's because other groups of animals went extinct and left previously occupied niches vacant.

It would be very difficult for dogs to gain this level of diversity while other mammals are still extant and still filling those niches. Thus, in such a scenario, I would think most mammals would be extinct and would lose it's assigned rank. It would never stop being a clade though.

No body said clades are ranks. Seriously listen to what people are posted.