by nicolaou 106 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
I think that's the consequence of a misinterpretation of the terms micro- and macroevolution. Creationists consider these mechanisms ontologically different because they believe in a rigid distinction between species.
And I have not yet seen this rigid distinction violated. Presumably it should be possible for a reasonable definition of "species". Why has it not been? This is a valid question.
BTS
And I have not yet seen this rigid distinction violated.
What different mechanisms are at work during macro-evolution then?
Darwin's observation that the difference between species and varieties are somewhat arbitrary may still be correct, both are constructions with little intrinsic reality.
What different mechanisms are at work during macro-evolution then?
None that I know of. Presumably there is no difference in the mechanisms. It is the same mechanism for both and "species" and "variation" are merely differences of degree. We've created variations within species by artificial selection, so then why has speciation not yet ocurred in a directly observable way?
Evolution exists to explain the many millions of species that exist in the world. The "species barrier" has broken by natural causes over and over and over again if evolution is correct. Why haven't we directly observed this once?
BTS
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=345072&action=stream&blobtype=pdf
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm#update
Just over 13 billion years ago there was a big bang, no one was there to record the event but we still know it happened because we have empirical evidence like cosmic background radiation etc. We do not have to witness every event to work out what happened in the past, all we need is evidence and we can start building a case.
Evolution works in exactly the same way, we do not have to be present to see it (in fact the long time spans required to see evolution in action preclude the possibility of watching it happen) we just have to collect the evidence. I don't agree that fossils or DNA are circumstantial evidence of evolution, in fact I would say that DNA is evolution's equivalent to cosmic background radiation. I would agree that the fact that no-one has been able to falsify evolution is circumstantial, however damning that might be after over one hundred years.
You should remember that in scientific terms that species is the lowest subgroup. In other words two animals that might look identical to you and me could be two completely different species. I would imagine that what gets the creationists in tizzy is when whole families diverge rather than mere speciation. That the evidence for that lies in the fossil record and within DNA makes it no less real.
For some evidence for speciation have a look at the articles I've linked, one is in layman's terms the other is the original paper. Although obviously it is still a bacteria (after all evolution is a one way process) it is radically different to the parent of this bacteria from less than one hundred year ago. It has a new ability that it's predecessors didn't have, as Darwin predicted it has adapted to survive.
Not in a personal sense but in an empirical sense, yes.
Evolution exists to explain the many millions of species that exist in the world. The "species barrier" has broken by natural causes over and over and over again if evolution is correct. Why haven't we directly observed this once?
I'm afraid you're incorrect Burn. Evolution doesn't mean breaking or crossing a pre-existent "species barrier", evolution, on the other hand, is supposed to bring about these barriers, they are side-effects of evolution if you want. Besides, I don't believe there's anything magical about this barrier, since reproductive capacity doesn't represent any genetic reality.
And I have not yet seen this rigid distinction violated. Presumably it should be possible for a reasonable definition of "species". Why has it not been? This is a valid question.
That is a very valid question, the answer is that rigid distinctions would not exist if Darwinian evolution is correct but would be there if the bible literalist were correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger
There is an example of your rigid distinctions blurring, two distinct species that are capable of mating. I'm sure you can find others.
