Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Renee]

There are three things here that Felix and Anthony Edgar mix up with each other:
- evolution
- macroevolution
- microevolution

Macroevolution asserts that evolutionary changes can happen in great leaps and bounds with changes even just between two adjacent generations. This theory is accepted, not as an a priori truth, but as an a posteriori possibility.

Microevolution asserts that evolutionary changes happen slowly, bit by bit, in small increments, and they add up. Again, this is not an a priori truth, but an a posteriori observation.

Both macroevolutionists and microevolutionists are evolutionists. They used to be in two different camps, in macro- vs micro-evolutionary camps of thought respectively, especially in the middle of the twentieth century, when the quotes by Felix and by Anthony Edgar originate from.

Today the two camps have united, as both camps can see that both changes are likely to happen.

Quotes by Felix and by Anthony Edgar harken back to an era when the insight into evolutionary changes, in terms of large vis-a-vis small changes, was an either-or question, which it is no longer.

Felix and Anthony Edgar took the liberty to quote these scientists, and separate out their text to illustrate a point the scientists did not make: that evolution is false. But the scientists did not dispute evolution, they only disputed whether it happens in leaps and bounds by each change, or in small increments. During the debate they said things, which, when taken out of context, served the purpose of pulpit-sermoning by the fundamentalists who deny that evolution happens.

However, Felix and Anthony Edgar overlook the fact that both camps that they quote from believe in evolution, and they only quibbled about the magnitude of changes; and in this quibbling they said things that were quotable by a fundamentalist, but only out of context and out of insight of what these scientists really were arguing about.

[Felix]

Renee, I never said that evolution does not occur, just that there are problems with the Darwinian explication of it, the tenets of which you summarized in your opening statement.

Quotes by Felix and by Anthony Edgar harken back to an era when the insight into evolutionary changes, in terms of large vis-a-vis small changes, was an either-or question, which it is no longer.

First off, I don't know why you've mentioned Anthony Edgar as he has not participated in this discussion. But it is not true that the question of how evolution has occurred has been resolved, as you said. In fact, this year Michael Denton published a revised and updated version of the book from which I quoted, entitled "Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis."

The bottom line is that your argument that Darwin's theory of evolution can be tested and verified is false. To date, all attempts to do so have failed (including computer simulations, such as the one described by Dr. Denton).

[Renee]

Renee, I never said that evolution does not occur, just that there are problems with the Darwinian explication of it, the tenets of which you summarized in your opening statement.

Quotes by Felix and by Anthony Edgar harken back to an era when the insight into evolutionary changes, in terms of large vis-a-vis small changes, was an either-or question, which it is no longer.

First off, I don't know why you've mentioned Anthony Edgar as he has not participated in this discussion. But it is not true that the question of how evolution has occurred has been resolved, as you said. In fact, this year Michael Denton published a revised and updated version of the book from which I quoted, entitled "Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis."

The bottom line is that your argument that Darwin's theory of evolution can be tested and verified is false. To date, all attempts to do so have failed (including computer simulations, such as the one described by Dr. Denton).

In his 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Michael Denton argues for a typological model of nature - a model in which "...all the variation exhibited by the individual members of a particular class [is] merely a variation on an underlying theme or design which [is] fundamentally invariant or immutable" (Denton, 1985, p. 94). This model is in direct contradiction with the evolutionary account of the history of life, in which all organisms are linked by common descent. Denton claims that while microevolution and speciation are proven phenomena,


Felix, Felix... you are again contradicting me without any punch or validity, and your facts are all over the place, much like your (pardon the expression) your muddled thinking.

Your friend and idolized author, Michael Denton, claims that evolution and speciation are proven phenomena. You say Denton criticised it. No, he did not. You just, you personally, are mixing up micro- vs. macro evolution, and any argument against one or the other you misunderstand as an argument against evolution. No it is not.

You also can't comprehend what Michael Denton's proposal is. He is not claiming that Darwinian evolution is wrong, in its findings, in the mechanism it describes. He is claiming that speciation occurred not from one single original point. He claims that speciation occurred from different sources.

You misunderstand the book, you compile your misunderstanding with some fallacious reasoning, and bang, you are claiming that my proof at the failure of falsifying neo-Darwinian evolution theory is wrong.

You did not prove me wrong. You just misquoted a book on a fact which it never said.

You are all over the map in desperation, Felix. You are becoming also a bit tiresome in pretending to be sympathetic with evolution. If you ask me, you are not an evolutionalist; you are simply pretending to be, in order to undermine the system from within, so to speak. It's a tactic. I am not saying this is a fact, but I am saying that this is my strong opinion, as all your posts tend to claim you are a friend of evolution, except... and you say there something incredibly incongruent with current scientific theory, by your misquoting and misinterpreting some scientists.

For instance, this book, "Still a Theory in Crisis" is catchy, because it attaches the nuanced doubt of "crisis" to evolutionary theory. But the "crisis" refers to one and only one element of evolutionary theory, which is, that life forms are not the descendants of one single origin, but of several different, and independent origins. You of course did not point it out, because you figured it would be enough to stop at pointing out: "Hey! Evolution is in crisis!!" You were duped by a catchy title, Felix, that's all. And in your ignorance and ill logic, if I may say so without intending any ill respect, you danced a victory-dance, so to speak.

[Felix]

I haven't read Michael Denton's first book, never said I did.

Renee: Michael Denton claims that evolution and speciation are proven phenomena.

No, he does not. His actual claim is that microevolution and speciation are proven (for example, from drasophila studies), not that macroevolution has been proven, which is what I said.

you are claiming that my proof at the failure of falsifying neo-Darwinian evolution theory is wrong.

What I actually suggested is that if the theory has not been tested and verified, which it hasn't, then there is no proof to falsify.

You are all over the map in desperation, Felix.

Not at all, my statements are clear, the confused map you've drawn up from them is your own creation. Again, what I said was: the Darwinian theory of evolution (positing that it occurs via a process of random mutation and natural selection, etc.) has not been verified.

[Andrian]

There are three things here that Felix and Anthony Edgar mix up with each other:
- evolution
- macroevolution
- microevolution

Macroevolution asserts that evolutionary changes can happen in great leaps and bounds with changes even just between two adjacent generations. This theory is accepted, not as an a priori truth, but as an a posteriori possibility.

Microevolution asserts that evolutionary changes happen slowly, bit by bit, in small increments, and they add up. Again, this is not an a priori truth, but an a posteriori observation.

Both macroevolutionists and microevolutionists are evolutionists. They used to be in two different camps, in macro- vs micro-evolutionary camps of thought respectively, especially in the middle of the twentieth century, when the quotes by Felix and by Anthony Edgar originate from.

Today the two camps have united, as both camps can see that both changes are likely to happen.

Um... I'm afraid your definitions here are not actually correct. Macroevolution and Microevolution are just the same process on different timescales. Macroevolution doesn't take place over a shorter span of generations. Instead, each generation experiences microevolution, that is, small changes from their parents, and over time these changes accumulate to create large changes, and this we call macroevolution. As it's all the same process, modern scientists don't generally use the terms anymore. They just call everything evolution.

[Anthony Edgar]

There are three things here that Felix and Anthony Edgar mix up with each other:
- evolution
- macroevolution
- microevolution

Macroevolution asserts that evolutionary changes can happen in great leaps and bounds with changes even just between two adjacent generations. This theory is accepted, not as an a priori truth, but as an a posteriori possibility.

Microevolution asserts that evolutionary changes happen slowly, bit by bit, in small increments, and they add up. Again, this is not an a priori truth, but an a posteriori observation.

Renee - Brave Shining Knight of Evolution, Defender of Pseudo-Science Against All Fundamentalist Heretics, Enemy of Free Speech.  God bless him.
Renee, what are you talking about?  Your definition of macroevolution sounds like Punctuated Equilibrium and your definition of microevolution sounds like classical evolution.  They're both wrong.  

Macroevolution is simply what happens when microevolution adds up over very long periods of time.  In other words, small changes (micro) accumulate to eventually produce big changes (macro).  An example of micro is, a sheep dog being breed from a wolf.   Macro' is much grander in scale -  speciation, in fact. For example, a new species evolving from dogs.
Hence the formula:  micro + lots of time = macro.

Actually, another way to illustrate it is, whatever changes can be observed in nature are micro.  Macro has never been observed - since it supposedly takes so long - and is purely theoretical.  (Most creationists would claim micro is a fact and macro is a fantasy.)

[Renee]

Macroevolution is simply what happens when microevolution adds up over very long periods of time.  In other words, small changes (micro) accumulate to eventually produce big changes (macro).  An example of micro is, a sheep dog being breed from a wolf.   Macro' is much grander in scale -  speciation, in fact. For example, a new species evolving from dogs.
Hence the formula:  micro + lots of time = macro.

Actually, another way to illustrate it is, whatever changes can be observed in nature are micro.  Macro has never been observed - since it supposedly takes so long - and is purely theoretical.  (Most creationists would claim micro is a fact and macro is a fantasy.)

Anthony Edgar, you couldn't have been more wrong.

The very definitions you are calling wrong are definitions I took from the authors YOU had quoted.

It just goes to show that you have some texts prepared by other fundamentalists for you quote from, and you slavishly do so, without even reading the texts.

I think it was Andrian who has also pointed this out to you. I can't remember exactly who it was, but it may have been him.

You'd do anything... ANYTHING to prove science wrong in defense of the scriptures. Denying your own quoted facts is just the beginning of what's fundamentally wrong in your arsenal of denial; you had better start reading your quotes before quoting from your collection of inconsequential fundamentalist christian quoting database.

-- Updated December 21st, 2016, 4:05 am to add the following --

Um... I'm afraid your definitions here are not actually correct. Macroevolution and Microevolution are just the same process on different timescales. Macroevolution doesn't take place over a shorter span of generations. Instead, each generation experiences microevolution, that is, small changes from their parents, and over time these changes accumulate to create large changes, and this we call macroevolution. As it's all the same process, modern scientists don't generally use the terms anymore. They just call everything evolution.

I am sorry, Andrian, but I'm right. It was a big debate between evolutionists, whether macroevolution can happen (large and/or many changes in a few instances of changes), without being the end result of microevolutionary changes. The currently accepted thought is that macroevolution can happen both ways, and only in retrospect, when we have observed in evidence which way they happened, can we make a call.

For instance, the cranial capacity in the evolution of humans was gradual, happening in small increments. Many small increments. But the formation of the foot, form hind hands, the locking structure of the knee, both happened -- presumably -- by one or by only a few huge, whopping changes in the bone, ligament and muscle structures.

I might be wrong with these examples, but the big debate in the middle and early second part of the twentieth century among evolutionists was played out on this.

I wouldn't have known about this, but I actually researched and read Anthony Edgar's quotes, and learned this from the accompanying material (mostly found on Wiki).

[Felix]

Rene[quote][/quote]
e: It was a big debate between evolutionists, whether macroevolution can happen (large and/or many changes in a few instances of changes), without being the end result of microevolutionary changes.

Yes, certain radical changes in morphology are inconceivable by microevolution alone, and it is supposed that random mutation accounts for these. The problem is that in all the cases we've seen, the effects of radical mutations have been pernicious. This problem seems as insoluble as that of consciousness itself, and I sense these problems are interrelated.

-- Updated Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:12 pm to add the following --

Screwed up that quote... sorry Renee.