Macroevolution is a major system change, not just a tweak or lost information in an already established system. Adding new regulations and body forms isn't as easy as losing information in an already established system. Seeing a specialized change of information in living systems has never been the issue, where the information came from in the first place is. Suggesting I must accept someone else's point of view as right to be respected is insulting.
YECs do NOT reject speciation (macroevolution)
Sort:
TruthMuse wrote:
Macroevolution is a major system change, not just a tweak or lost information in an already established system. NO, this is NOT the scientific definition of macroevolution!! You're proving my point. Adding new regulations and body forms isn't as easy as losing information in an already established system. Seeing a specialized change of information in living systems has never been the issue, where the information came from in the first place is. Suggesting I must accept someone else's point of view as right to be respected is insulting. NO, you DON'T have to accept someone else's point of view, but you sure as heck better understand how scientists define THEIR OWN terms or you're going to look foolish!!
You really don't grasp some of the things said to you, you should know that.
TruthMuse wrote:
You really don't grasp some of the things said to you, you should know that.
Seriously, what is it that you think I'm missing? You said that "macroevolution is a major system change, not just a tweak or lost information in an already established system," did you not? Your statement is incorrect. This is not what macroevolution is nor is it a correct definition. The point of my OP was that creationists routinely misuse scientific terms, just as you are misusing the term *macroevolution*, so yes, in this way you are proving my point.
And did you not also say, "Suggesting I must accept someone else's point of view as right to be respected is insulting"? And yet I NEVER said that. I never suggested that you have to accept something as true to be respected. You are free to disagree all you want, but at least use the scientific terms correctly in the way that they have been defined.
To the contrary then, it seems you are the one who is not grasping the point of my OP.
A small alteration in fur or beak size isn't changing anything of importance that shows life could come from a single ancestor, while growing a beak where there wasn't one before or fur is getting there. Just like adding systems that were not in the earliest lifeforms that now exist in life we see today those are major changes.
TruthMuse wrote:
A small alteration in fur or beak size isn't changing anything of importance that shows life could come from a single ancestor, while growing a beak where there wasn't one before or fur is getting there. Just like adding systems that were not in the earliest lifeforms that now exist in life we see today those are major changes.
Yes, I already know your beliefs on the subject. But what does any of this have to do my OP? Did you actually read the OP? The point of my OP was not to argue about whether universal common ancestry is true or not, but to encourage people to understand and use scientific terms (like macroevolution and speciation) correctly, so people are at least arguing from a common understanding instead of arguing in circles or past each other.
Case in point, you say that "A small alteration...isn't changing anything of importance." But that's exactly my point. Macroevolutionary events like speciation often occur by such small alterations--what YECs would see as inconsequential changes and have no problem with accepting. Thus, when YECs turn around and say they don't accept macroevolution or speciation they don't realize they are misusing the terms and contradicting themselves due to ignorance of what macroevolution and speciation actually are and how they're defined.
A *great* amount of macroevolution/speciation occurs via small-scale changes that YECs would find acceptable and have no problem with. (See the example I gave in the OP).
tbwp10 wrote:
TruthMuse wrote:
A small alteration in fur or beak size isn't changing anything of importance that shows life could come from a single ancestor, while growing a beak where there wasn't one before or fur is getting there. Just like adding systems that were not in the earliest lifeforms that now exist in life we see today those are major changes.
Yes, I already know your beliefs on the subject. But what does any of this have to do my OP? Did you actually read the OP? The point of my OP was not to argue about whether universal common ancestry is true or not, but to encourage people to understand and use scientific terms (like macroevolution and speciation) correctly, so people are at least arguing from a common understanding instead of arguing in circles or past each other.
Case in point, you say that "A small alteration...isn't changing anything of importance." But that's exactly my point. Macroevolutionary events like speciation often occur by such small alterations--what YECs would see as inconsequential changes and have no problem with accepting. Thus, when YECs turn around and say they don't accept macroevolution or speciation they don't realize they are misusing the terms and contradicting themselves due to ignorance of what macroevolution and speciation actually are and how they're defined.
A *great* amount of macroevolution/speciation occurs via small-scale changes that YECs would find acceptable and have no problem with. (See the example I gave in the OP).
I disagree with your claim that a great amount of via small scale changes would/could reach any major change in body forms, or would create a new system within a lifeform which is what I mean when I say it cannot happen, I'm rejecting the small alterations over time being able to do those things without a plan and purpose. I also don't believe there were a plan and purpose to do such things either, so you can count me in an unrespectable group if there was any doubt, because I reject that completely. You would have seen the reasoning behind my rejection had you watched the video about mathematical challenges to evolution, they hit it hard.
You accuse me of not grasping but you are the one who is not listening. It is obvious that you didn't even read my OP and try to understand what I am saying because your points have absolutely NOTHING to do with what I've been saying. Before commenting on a thread you should really first try reading it to see what it's about! Then you'll be able to contribute something relevant instead of effectively spamming the thread with irrelevant comments that completely miss the point and don't engage with the actual OP!
(And I don't know why you keep questioning me about the so-called mathematical challenges video. I truly did watch it, and no, I did not find the arguments convincing)
Why yes, it's all my fault.
@TruthMuse
No need to get defensive. You simply need to read the OP or if you did then perhaps you skimmed and read it too fast that's all. If you go back and re-read it you'll see that I wasn't trying to start an argument about universal common ancestry, but simply pointing out that terms like macroevolution and speciation are routinely misunderstood and used incorrectly (and not how the terms are actually defined). Ironically, you seem to be having this misunderstanding that I am trying to address. In this OP I'm not trying to argue a point of view one way or the other, but simply providing information about how macroevolution and speciation are defined, so that regardless of whether someone accepts or opposes evolution everyone will at least be on the same page and know the definition of these terms. As it is, when YECs speak of macroevolution/speciation they are using the terms in a different way from how scientists actually define those words. So all I'm trying to do is help people understand how scientists define macroevolution/speciation.
***Here, let me try an illustration to help clarify. Around the Arctic Circle there are different populations of gulls as shown in the diagram below such that gull population 1 can interbreed with gull population 2, and 2 can interbreed with 3, and 3 with 4, and 4 with 5, and 5 with 6. Some individuals of population 6 migrated across the Atlantic Ocean to form population 7. Now as it so happens, population 7 and population 1 do NOT interbreed. Now before I go any further let's make sure that we're both on the same page. All these populations including population 7 are still the *same* type of bird--namely, different varieties of Arctic gulls. In fact, there is NO noticeable difference in appearance between the gulls in these 7 populations. Now am I correct in saying that you do NOT have a problem with this type of change (because in fact there has been NO visible change in morphology at all)? This is NOT the type of *evolution* you have a problem with, correct? You reject large scale major changes, correct (but don't have a problem when there has been only small alterations or in this case no visible alteration in morphology at all), yes?
A large scale changes as far as I'm concern could be cellular, like going from a regular nerve to an optical nerve, a body formation alteration as acquiring a new limb, a worm turning into a rosebush, a bird, an octopus, a jellyfish, a whale, a dog, and so on over long periods of time through some very small changes that supposedly add up to make that happen.
I understand but my question was am I correct in saying that you have no problem with the Arctic gull example? (i.e., when there's no actual change in morphology)
I've no issues with the same kind of life interbreeding; now, if you mix gulls with otters, I'd have an issue.
TruthMuse wrote:
I've no issues with the same kind of life interbreeding; now, if you mix gulls with otters, I'd have an issue.
And that's what I'm getting at. Macroevolution is evolution at or above the species level, and while it can involve major changes it doesn't have to and many times macroevolution can happen with little to no change at all. How can I say this? Because that is how macroevolution is defined: evolution at or above the species level, which includes speciation/origin of a new species, and if organisms in a population no longer interbreed then by definition they are two different species.
Thus, even though there was no morphological change with the Arctic gulls example, population 1 and 7 are classified as different species because they no longer interbreed, and speciation is a type of macroevolution.
Put simply, the Arctic gull example is an example of macroevolution/speciation---even though there was no change in morphology---because this is how the terms are defined.
This is why YECs should not say they reject macroevolution/speciation, because there are many cases of macroevolution/speciation that involve little to no change that they accept and have no problem with. YECs should use different words to communicate what they reject. That's the only point I was trying to make in this OP.
We don't see it the same way.
It has nothing to do with point of view, but definitions. That would be like insisting that someone who claims software is hardware simply has a different opinion. But they don't. They have a wrong definition/understanding. You can give a different name for what you're speaking of if you like, but you can't hijack scientists' words and claim scientists mean something different by them from what they say they mean.
I explained my definitions to you, do I need to repeat myself? I am hijacking nothing, I'm expressing myself using words I think fit my meaning. If they don't line up with yours we can explain ourselves and move on, ideas and words change over time you don't get to lay claim to pieces of the English language.
As a biologist I certainly do get to lay claim. Microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation are terms that biologists came up with and that biologists defined and you are misusing those terms. So no, you can't just lift technical terms from a scientific field of study and make-up your own private definitions to suit your whim.
This is a regular enough occurrence that it's arguably worth devoting it's own OP to. YECs routinely misuse scientific terminology like "species," "speciation," "macroevolution," resulting in YECs arguing against things they actually believe in and confusing everyone else in the process. The exchange usually goes something like this:
YEC: I accept limited evolution within species "kinds." I accept microevolution but not macroevolution.
Scientist/Non-YEC: The evidence for speciation and the origin of new species is indisputable and we have even observed instantaneous speciation in real-time.
YEC: Have not. Prove it.
Scientist/Non-YEC: Well, an example of speciation is...[a single point mutation that changes the chemical structure of a pheromone so that insects in a population no longer recognize and mate with each other].
YECs: That's not evidence of macroevolution. They haven't changed. They're all still insects!
Scientist/Non-YEC: But that's what speciation (macroevolution) is by definition! When organisms in a population stop interbreeding and producing fertile offspring with the rest of the population, then they are a new species by definition. Speciation--which is the most basic form of macroevolution (i.e., evolution at species level or above)--can happen (and often does!) with little to no change in moprhology.
YEC: Oh, well I have no problem with that.
Scientist/Non-YEC: Then you accept speciation (macroevolution)!
***Moral of the story:
For non-YECs: Be aware of this common misunderstanding so you don't waste time arguing in circles. YECs routinely think of macroevolution/speciation in terms of large-scale changes in morphology, while the scientific definition is based on whether or not interbreeding can occur that produces fertile offspring; NOT whether or not morphology has changed.
For YECs: "Study to show thyself approved..." You will earn greater respect and be taken more seriously (and also save yourself wasted time arguing in circles!) by demonstrating proper use and understanding of the scientific terminology on a subject.