Originally posted by midnight Target
I cut and pasted this from the same place Hortlund cut and pasted his last post....
Conclusion
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.
*sigh* I know Im stealing some of my own thunder now, because Im gonna post part of my critique in this post instead of posting all of my objections in one thread. But I suppose I have to since I wasnt able to get enough time off at work today.
Here we go...
The problem MT is exactly what you posted there. Let me highlight it for you.
There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. Now, when you look at it like that, you get the impression that these people are pretty sure of their theory...right? That they have something *really* good backing them up?
Well, lets go back in that very same text that you and I are copying and pasting from.
The key section is this one:
Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails.
So what does this text really tell us? What you are looking at is the proof of macroevolution btw.
However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered.
A few observations might be in order.
1) There are no observations of macroevolution. Nor are there any evidence per se. What we have instead is...something.
Note the key phrase "synthesists
claim that the same process [...] (as in microevolution)
can be extraploated to between species changes.
Clearly MT
Clearly not even you can accept this as evidence. Basically what he is saying is "some people think that what we see in microevolution should also be true when it comes to macroevolution.
Oh, and by the way...according to my dictionary here:
extrapolate=
to guess or think about what might happen from information that is already known.To guess or think...
We can take a break here and you can explain how this works with the scientific model if you want, or we can move on to...
2) Apparently the statement I described above has led to a switch in the burden of proof. Normally it is up to the one making a statement to substantiate his statement. Or, to use the scientific method. It is up to the one presenting the theory to show that it is compliant with observations. Here, we are told that since "synthesists claim that the same process [...] can be extrapolated to macroevolution" should be accepted as a fact
unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discoveredThat is totally absurd. Totally...it is absurd on so many levels that...I dont know what to say really. And remember MT,
THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE.
"Some people think that they are right and therefore it is up to the people demanding evidence to prove that they are wrong. "
Now, you tell me MT. Is that the evolutionary theory of macroevolution proven according to the scientific method?
