View my recent post to parados.
Can you define this "scientific proof" interpretation?
I argued that evolution cannot be proven
I argued that genetics does not define macro evolution, and it is defined by phylogenetics
I argued that humans are no longer subjected to macro selection pressure, it is suggested that anatomy is no longer variant, such as brain size/density, height, eyes...ect
A species is a population whose members are able to interbreedfreely under natural conditions.
Hardy- Weinberg predicts that a large amount of genetic variation occurs during every mating congress.
Studies on polars and grizzlies show that the females produce chemically different pheromones , while brown bears produce pheromones of very similar nature Hence weve seen some hybridization between these two.
We just measure a significant change in a fossil, measure its mass and metrics, and then carefully try to fit it within a geologic period (plus or minus a chron or three).
Anomie claimed that all the evidence for evolution is "merely" circumstantial. So is the evidence of the theory ofUniversal magnetism and the ATomic theory.
NOTHING REFUTES IT.
Whenever spendi spends time bolstering someone other than himself, I automatically send up my red semaphor.
Again, SO WHAT? It can be evidenced quite well by overlapping and mutually supporting disciplines, ....
I think the polar bear v brown bear data is quite compelling..
A kinder gentler farmerman. He has met up with mortality and its scared the **** our of him so much that he doesnt see the need for incessent debates over relatively minor topics.
My profile is the first thing I ever wrote on A2K and it is unchanged to this day. And will remain so
Does he offer any possible explanations of the causes of the variations
Im sorry that your life is so dull.
Day by day to travel on across an endless sea of sand so remote, so unvisited that for whole weeks no man, not even a wandering Bedouin of the desert, crossed our path. Day by day to see the great red sun rise out of the eastern sands, and, its journey finished, sink into the western sands. Night by night to watch the moon, the same moon on which were fixed the million eyes of cities, turning those sands to a silver sea, or, in that pure air, to observe the constellations by which we steered our path making their majestic march through space. And yet to know that this vast region, now so utterly lonesome and desolate, had once been familiar to the feet of long-forgotten men who had trod the sands we walked, and dug the wells at which we drank.
Armies had marched across these deserts, also, and perished there. For once we came to a place where a recent fearful gale had almost denuded the underlying rock, and there found the skeletons of thousands upon thousands of soldiers, with those of their beasts of burden, and among them heads of arrows, sword-blades, fragments of armour and of painted wooden shields.
Here a whole host had died; perhaps Alexander sent it forth, or perhaps some far earlier monarch whose name has ceased to echo on the earth. At least they had died, for there we saw the memorial of that buried enterprise. There lay the kings, the captains, the soldiers, and the concubines, for I found the female bones heaped apart, some with the long hair still upon the skulls, showing where the poor, affrighted women had hived together in the last catastrophe of slaughter or of famine, thirst, and driven sand. Oh, if only those bones could speak, what a tale was theirs to tell!
There had been cities in this desert, too, where once were oases, now overwhelmed, except perhaps for a sand-choked spring. Twice we came upon the foundations of such places, old walls of clay or stone, stark skeletons of ancient homes that the shifting sands had disinterred, which once had been the theatre of human hopes and fears, where once men had been born, loved, and died, where once maidens had been fair, and good and evil wrestled, and little children played. Some Job may have dwelt here and written his immortal plaint, or some king of Sodom, and suffered the uttermost calamity. The world is very old; all we Westerns learned from the contemplation of these wrecks of men and of their works was just that the world is very old.
Again, SO WHAT? It can be evidenced quite well by overlapping and mutually supporting disciplines,and by means of evidence, it can be used to make predictions. AND, none of the evidence has ever been refuted. GenerallyWe reserve "proofs" for plane geometry .
I have no idea what the hell youre getting at here. If you change the word "phylogenetics" to phylogenesis , then it makes sense. (But even so, I disagree mightily with your statement), while (b) is true, (a) is also demonstrable when we use varying orders of extant life with rapid reproduction cycles.
You may wish to reconsider when you think about STR's that mark for significantly larger lung capacities in Sherpas and SNPs that define sickling.
No, it [micro evolution] occurs on the quantum scale, we are probabilities of particles at given point calculated by wave function.
Why do you not deconstruct further than biology?
Is it because the concept of evolution no longer exists?
Who defines this empirical spectrum, you, the scientific consensus, or the original interpreter?
Also, the theory of how evolution occurs ['gradualism' as an example] is open to interpretation, unless you are attempting to measure evidence 'rationally'.
Each of these are fairly recent aspects of human evolution. and appear to be environmentally induced.
Homo sapiens idaltu was not very different from H sapiens sapiens, but as a "hominim" chronospecies it defined macro evolution (in the whole of the available population of fossils.
The term "macro evolution is, as several others have said, a favorite red herring of IDers and "Creation SCience".
They stipulate to "micro evolution" but not macro evolution. Both words aare merely members of a continuum . The operant evolutionary phenoms for macro-evolution are morphological changes that usually are accompanied by adaptive radiation. Creationists would like to make believe that there is some kind of great wall beyond which no further evolution is possible. There are several hundreds of stories of recent species that provide counter evidence to the Creationists baseless assertions.
I think the polar bear v brown bear data is quite compelling as there is a fairly decent geographically ordered fossil record as well as a superb genetic map of the two.
The monophyletic origins of Lake Victoria cichlid fish, and their adaptive radiation is a very compelling story (Axel Myer,NATURE347: 1990. , Haplochromine Cichlids of LAke Victoria. in Keelyside et al.Cichlid Fishes, behaviour, Ecology, and Evolution Chapman and HAll 1991...
Morphological divergence and environmental polymorphism in Arctic Char. Adaptive radiation of Madagascar mammals accompanied by large scale speciation is well researched, as is the "American Exchange" the fairly recent mixing of unique species that had developed after Pangea split and then rejoined as S America joined N AMerica at the isthsmus of Panama.
These are only ones that I can dredge out of my dusty mind bin . There are several other great examples of phylogenesis , accompanied by adaptive radiation. So, both genetic typing and phylogenesis are routinely accepted as evidencing macro-evolution.
Phylogenetics is phylogenesis
Does the concept of 'binary nomenclature' exist from micro evolution?
Did Darwin acknowledge micro evolution?
Did Darwin acknowledge micro evolution?
Perhaps the sherpas have been subjected to blood doaping, it is a higher altitude.
Phenotype is suggested to be generally morphological.
Is this phenomena macro evolution (speciation)?
Are you suggesting that such are no longer homo sapien sapiens?
Are autistic humans, such as aspergers np longer homo sapien
[micro evolution] occurs on the quantum scale, we are probabilities of particles at given point calculated by wave function
Macro evolution does not derrive from creationists or any other theology,
Quote:specifically argued that humans are no longer subjected to macro selection pressure, being that the environment (fire and grains) may have been a sustaining cultural basis for humans.
Also, when I stated 'genetic isolation', it entails your example of madagascar, there are no continents to isolate humans, 'recessive' humans may culturally fly and reproduce.
How does natural seection entail speciation in this case?
rape may have even been the normative.
MAny types of geographic isolation are self imposed (like Amish and Lubowitzer Jews).
The Linnean system of BN was developed as a type of Creationist attempts at classification
Cmon, lets talk realities. Their genetic makeup has coded a specific complement of Short tandem repeat alleles (STR's) that code for lung capacities in the HOXa and HOX nb.
SCience has been tracking down lots of these specieation. I was trying to show you a mechanism since you clkearly stated that speciation could NOT be seen in the genetic complement of an organism. Thats just flat wrong. I didnt discuss the chimp and human since I thought this was beating another dead horse.
Phenotype is the outward expression of the traits of an organism. It is the result of the interaction of the development of the genotype as affected by the environment. The correct is a two part one
You seem to be one who actually believes that the processes for macro and micro evolution are different. I dont really have the desire to argue the point with you other than to say that micro evolution worked on through time yields macro evolution.
Now youre being purposely obtuse. I was correcting your misconception of mechanisms and my entire post was about mechanisms, NOT PRODUCTS.
. We know perfectly well how the processses occur and they are peptide linkages and covalency (Quanta need not apply). I have a feeling that you like to sound more profound than you are able.
I never said it did and you are misquoting me. I said that the concept, (macroevolution) is a favorite of the Creationists. They stipulate that "Microevolution" occurs in the normal variation and gene flow. Macro evolution, they say. just doesnt occur, (even though significant genetic , morphological and fossil data refutes that position).
Thats a popularly held opinion of many. (Doesnt mean its correct).
My discussions of "Mechanisms" (like genetic markers for the Sherpa lung capacity ) Geographic isolation can be imposed by many means other than tying one down on a given plot of land and wait several tens of centuries. MAny types of geographic isolation are self imposed (like Amish and Lubowitzer Jews). Keep an open mind about what is or is not a mechanism in natural selection. Nat selection is the mechanism, speciation is the product. AS Raup said "Most evolution is the result of adaptation"
Why are you using taxonomic classification?
However, there does not appear to be a universal spectrum, furthermore it is fallible epistemology, such as the paraign shift to quantum mechanics
By definition, micro evolution =/= macro evolution.
Furthermore, what of environmental factors?
There has been 'black' families of 'white' human offspring
The scale of speciation does not satisfy 'micro' conditions.
Geneticist =/= Paleontologist
