There have been numerous examples of observed speciation (see for example http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Even in larger mammals, several populations of wolves, for example, are arguably now distinct species. The whole concept of species is pretty nebulous though - the "classical" definition of species taught in school is pretty outdated.
For more significant changes, albeit with human help, just look at dogs and all the different varieties that have been created by breeding for specific traits. While they aren't "natural", they do illustrate the types of mechanisms and change that can occur - just accelerated and directed when compared to "natural" evolution.
"Arguably" is the key word. Those wolves are still wolves. Those dogs are still dogs. No one is debating the concept of micro-evolution which is substantiated and seen everywhere today.
EDIT: If you want evolution at a higher level, like dinosaurs to birds or amphibians to reptiles then you need a lot more time and you won't observe that in a lab in real time. But the other evidences all tell the same story of evolution and common descent.
Ah, right. You need faith.
If you can show a process results in micro-evolution over a short period of time, and logic dictates that, if the same process is extended over a much, much longer time frame, it will result in macro-evolution, it isn't faith to assume that is what actually happens unless there is compelling reasons to believe the short term results couldn't actually be expected to continue.
Birds evolving from dinosaurs would be an example of macro-evolution, something that scientists still haven't been able to replicate in the lab with any plants or animals.
Micro-evolution would be small changes within a species levels. Breeding dogs to suit, or Darwin's finches that adapted as the climate changed. Ultimately, the dog is still a dog, a finch is still a finch.
The difference between micro and macro evolution is artificial; they're terms ID proponents came up with. There is no difference in reality. We may still call both a chihuahua and a german shepherd dogs, but there eventually comes a point when the accumulated differences over millions of years become to great to still call two species the same thing.
Photon, I'm not close-minded. Although I believe in ID, it doesn't mean I don't continue to read and research new journals. I'll give those two books a read.
Ok, post if you have questions about what they're saying or you read interesting points that would be worth talking about.
Incidentally ID's biggest proponents actually accept evolution at above a species level, common descent, and an old earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
For life to form from cosmic ejaculate billions of years ago, entirely new species would have to be created.
Not only new species, but new forms at every level of classification. But it's like a tree, the changes at each stage set the stage for all the subsequent changes. Mammals only evolved once, and all mammals now are descended from that first population that branched off. The differences along each step aren't that significant, but they add up.
You speak of a genetic barrier, but there isn't anything to prevent those changes from continuing. That in my mind should be a line of research for any ID proponent, finding the genetic mechanism to stop change. Finding that would be huge for them. But if they are looking for that, they're certainly keeping it quiet (or I suspect they aren't because understanding genetics means understanding that such a thing doesn't exist).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
What we have today is proof of evolution below a species level which, doesn't prove anything at all about the origin of life.
We have evidence far beyond the species level.
And the origin of life is irrelevant in a discussion about evolution. For the purposes of a discussion about evolution it doesn't matter if we say the first life arose naturally, was created by some deity, or was planted on earth by advanced aliens. A discussion about the origins of life is separate.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Birds evolving from dinosaurs would be an example of macro-evolution, something that scientists still haven't been able to replicate in the lab with any plants or animals.
As has been mentioned already, that takes millions of years. Recorded (scientific) history has been what, 200? 250? There is no possible way that could be recorded. But luckily we have fossils, geological layers, carbon dating, etc.
And as was just mentioned, the evolutional cycle of the dog has been changed with help from humans. Quite distinctly. Same with many plants. Look at the banana. As close as different species as you could do in such a short time.
Look at it this way, 1000 years is 1% of 1,000,000 years! So less than one thousand years is even less than hundreds of millions or billions of years!
If we could do that in a couple hundred years, imagine what could be done in a billion. We've had a percent, of a percent of perhaps another percent.
I think your having a hard time imagining millions and billions of years.
If you can show a process results in micro-evolution over a short period of time, and logic dictates that, if the same process is extended over a much, much longer time frame, it will result in macro-evolution, it isn't faith to assume that is what actually happens unless there is compelling reasons to believe the short term results couldn't actually be expected to continue.
Because the micro-evolutionary changes stop at the species-level and can't go any further. Despite decades of mutation research.
Not really, since we actually have multiple lines of independent evidences that all tell the same historical story.
The only "faith" that's required isn't really faith, it's just the assumption that some agent isn't going around deliberately altering the physical evidence to mislead to untrue conclusions.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
If you can show a process results in micro-evolution over a short period of time, and logic dictates that, if the same process is extended over a much, much longer time frame, it will result in macro-evolution, it isn't faith to assume that is what actually happens unless there is compelling reasons to believe the short term results couldn't actually be expected to continue.
Exactly. It's faith to assume that there's some process to prevent the changes from accumulating past a certain point when none has been found or even proposed.
Actually that's not faith either, that's just making stuff up to try to confirm a pre-held bias.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Like many IDers, the claim that the human eye is an example of irreducible complexity and that it cannot have evolved has been repeatedly and easily dis proven.
Ok, post if you have questions about what they're saying or you read interesting points that would be worth talking about.
I will, thanks suggesting those books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
That in my mind should be a line of research for any ID proponent, finding the genetic mechanism to stop change.
It goes both ways. It has to be proven that there isn't a limit to the changes genetics affords.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
And the origin of life is irrelevant in a discussion about evolution. For the purposes of a discussion about evolution it doesn't matter if we say the first life arose naturally, was created by some deity, or was planted on earth by advanced aliens. A discussion about the origins of life is separate.
Wasn't a religious guy banned right when I joined? calgaryborn/raised or something? Shades reminds me of him.
Calgaryborn is still here.
Not sure about this raised guy. I get on for long periods, than am away for long periods.
And religious people aren't banned for being religious or speaking out. Rude people or people who break the rules are banned, regardless of what circles they come from.
There have been people banned from the 'conspiracy' side and the 'science' side as well.
"Arguably" is the key word. Those wolves are still wolves. Those dogs are still dogs. No one is debating the concept of micro-evolution which is substantiated and seen everywhere today.
Even with macro-evolution, anything descended from a wolf will always be a wolf.
At every level there was a common ancestor. We may look very different than other mammals, but we're still mammals.
Before I head out to find those books, a question: shouldn't the fossil record show billions upon billions of different fossils in various stages along the billions of billions of years of macro-evolutionary changes? Why has everything found been essentially as we know species today, with only the minor micro-evolutionary changes seen?
Because the micro-evolutionary changes stop at the species-level and can't go any further. Despite decades of mutation research.
What stops the changes? For the changes to stop there has to be a mechanism to do the stopping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
It goes both ways. It has to be proven that there isn't a limit to the changes genetics affords.
You can't prove a negative like that, all you can say is that there's no indication that there is a limit or a mechanism to enforce that limit.
It's like saying 1+1=2, 1+1+1=3, but that if you add up enough numbers that eventually there's a limit where addition stops working. Prove to me there isn't a limit.
Remember each individual's genetic code is what it is, it doesn't know what other individuals' genetic code is.
If you have a printing press that prints a 10,000 page book, but the press is prone to errors every so often, Book A and Book B will each be different, and Book A and Book B have no way of knowing what the other books' text is.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Before I head out to find those books, a question: shouldn't the fossil record show billions upon billions of different fossils in various stages along the billions of billions of years of macro-evolutionary changes?
Ideally sure, but in practice fossilization is actually an uncommon process, so while we do have tons of fossils (it's a big planet and there's lots of time), the nature of the processes means that there will never be a 100% complete record for every extant species.
Despite that there are lots of great fossil sequences, like whale evolution. Evolving from a land hippo like animal to a whale is clearly beyond the species level.
And that's why I suggested Shubin's book, even if there wasn't a single fossil, the genetic evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shades
Why has everything found been essentially as we know species today, with only the minor micro-evolutionary changes seen?
That's not true though, the are tons of fossils of species that do not exist today. Species appear and disappear through the geological record, and the geological record appears exactly as evolution would predict; from a few simple forms to more and more complex and diverse forms. You don't find out of order forms at all; when chordates were evolving if you found fully formed mammals that would disprove evolution easily, but we never find that.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
I'm going for dinner, but Photon can you find him the link to hhmi's free DVDs, the Ken Ham lecture on evolution and ID is on there, its a great DVD and I'm sure shades would enjoy it, ITS FREE
What stops the changes? For the changes to stop there has to be a mechanism to do the stopping.
Because mutations have never increased the amount of genetic information available. There is loss of information, variation, or copies of genetic information but nothing that actually added information. That's why mutations have a set limit and macro-evolution (above the species level) isn't possible.
