Macro Evolution: The Evidence

[Scrawly]

I am not a scientific expert so please bare with me. Anyhow, in another thread Phank posted:

"Dawkins observed, that for the YEC "no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference."

Right, so, I would appreciate if someone can please provide this all-embracing, overwhelming, devastatingly convincing evidence for macro evolution. I am currently open on this matter because I haven't studied the science nor the Biblical creation narrative enough to formulate an educated opinion.

So please show me the evidence.

[KingsGambit]

Before we begin, I'd like to clarify that scientists generally don't differentiate between "macro" and "micro" evolution. To be honest, these terms aren't really found outside of creationist writings.

[Cerebrum123]

I am not a scientific expert so please bare with me. Anyhow, in another thread Phank posted:

"Dawkins observed, that for the YEC "no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference."

Right, so, I would appreciate if someone can please provide this over all-embracing, overwhelming, devastatingly convincing evidence for macro evolution. I am currently open on this matter because I haven't studied the science nor the Biblical creation narrative enough to formulate an educated opinion.

So please show me the evidence.

Scraw;y, macro evolution simply means "change at or above the species level", and we have observed new species occur, so "macro evolution" is real. It's best not to deal with the "macr" micro" distinction, because it's now about the size of the change, but the KIND of change required for the kind of "evolution" being promoted. Here they have a list of arguments a creationist should NOT use. http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments
I'm YEC myself, so don't take this as an attack, but perhaps constructive criticism.

[Scrawly]

Before we begin, I'd like to clarify that scientists generally don't differentiate between "macro" and "micro" evolution. To be honest, these terms aren't really found outside of creationist writings.

Right, I am aware of that. However, I would like to really hone in on the evidence for macroevolution. This is why I made that distinction.

[Scrawly]

Scraw;y, macro evolution simply means "change at or above the species level", and we have observed new species occur, so "macro evolution" is real. It's best not to deal with the "macr" micro" distinction, because it's now about the size of the change, but the KIND of change required for the kind of "evolution" being promoted. Here they have a list of arguments a creationist should NOT use. http://creation.com/qa#bad_arguments
I'm YEC myself, so don't take this as an attack, but perhaps constructive criticism.

Oh ok, thanks. I myself am not arguing for one position or the other. I just want to see the evidence that humans have evolved.

[phank]

I confidently expect that any such discussion will devolve into disputes about the meaning of "evidence".

Scientific theories are proposed explanations for observations that appear to fit best. By "fit", it's generally meant that scientists seek the simplest explanation for which no verified observations are contradictory. In constructing such an explanation, it's necessary to bear in mind that science disallows supernatural, Divine, or magical "explanations" as being scientifically non-explanatory.

So, to start as simply as I can, what is observed is (1) a goodly amount of variation among individuals; (2) inheritance of most of those variations from one generation to the next; and (3) differential breeding success "favoring" some variations over others. Over the course of some number of generations, it's possible to observe those variations occurring more commonly in the population, which very slightly changes the population average in certain respects. We see such changes over the time scales of a human lifetime or two.

So OK, IF we should extrapolate these processes over a much longer time period, what would we expect to find? Most likely, we'd find tiny changes being cumulative, resulting in major changes in deep time. And as a check on our extrapolations, we have the fossil record showing exactly that. But the fossil record isn't what any theory of evolution rests or depends on, it's just a sanity check. What theories of evolution rest on is the observation of generational changes.

To make this a little more complicated, the fossil record sanity check shows us something perhaps a bit unexpected. It seems evolution works between generations at a species as well as an individual level. Just as a single individual cannot evolve (in the biological sense), few if any species do either! Instead, just as individuals give birth to slightly different individuals, species give birth to slightly different species. And since evolution produced the fossil record in terms of significant morphological change over time, the theory explaining evolution must account for this body of evidence indicating that such changes result from new species subsequently giving birth to new species. This is actually an interesting subfield within biology.

And always, we have to deal with the two vastly different time scales involved. It's kind of like mountain building. We can, in a human lifetime, measure the fastest-growing mountains accurately enough to see height changes of a few inches. We SEE mountains several miles high! What, exactly, is our evidence that the very very slow process we can see in a human lifetime actually kept on happening for millions of human lifetimes, to produce those mountains? Is it legitimate to say that if we didn't watch it, we have no evidence? If we can date strata (or fossils) at different elevations and show that for these dates to be attached to these elevations, the mountains grew at the same rate now being observed, is THAT evidence?

In either case, we can see the (extremely slow) process in some detail, we can see results entirely consistent with those processes (and rates) in pretty good detail, and we have no scientifically valid competing explanation for either one. In the scientific world, what this means is we have a good theory - it's consistent with all observations of current processes, and consistent with historical indications of the same process operating in the past, and not currently contested (at least in all but the ever-finer details) by any testable proposals.

So, at least as I read it, scientists generally are baffled by "where is the evidence" questions. Paleontologists point to the entire fossil record, billions of fossils so far and growing daily, EVERY ONE of which supports the theory. Geneticists point to everything that has been learned about genes, all of which supports the theory. Taxonomists point to the endlessly repeating nested hierarchies, without exception, which are required by the theory. Indeed, the ENTIRE content of every relevant field of science, everything discovered in every field past and present, reinforces the theory. A person asking for the evidence for evolution is like a bird in flight asking where the air is!

[wattsr1]

I am not a scientific expert so please bare with me. Anyhow, in another thread Phank posted:

"Dawkins observed, that for the YEC "no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference."

Right, so, I would appreciate if someone can please provide this all-embracing, overwhelming, devastatingly convincing evidence for macro evolution. I am currently open on this matter because I haven't studied the science nor the Biblical creation narrative enough to formulate an educated opinion.

So please show me the evidence.

A great article to read, if you have a bit of patience, is this one:-

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Even if you read it and get the gist of the arguments, you will, hopefully, find it worthwhile.

You need to remember that it's providing evidence for the process of evolution as opposed to the mechanisms behind evolution. The paper does make this clear - that it is not discussing the process of evolution, but rather it's presenting evidence that evolution does bring about new species, genera, families, classes etc.


Take one of the early topics - that of nested hierarchies. There is only one process we know of that naturally and necessarily forms these patterns (nested hierarchies) we observe in nature so readily - and its a process involving common descent with modification.

Humans group into such a pattern with other primates, then other mammals, then other vertebrates, and so on. Hence, this pattern is evidence that humans evolved based on the point I made about there being only one process we know of that naturally forms these kinds of patterns.

Theobald, at the link I gave you, goes into this more extensively in just one of his chapters.

[pancreasman]

I've been around long enough to remember that great sticky Rogue (I think) had in this forum listing TONS of evidence. It was great.

[MooseOnTheLoose]

In fact the Theory of Evolution should be renamed the Theory of Things Just Happened (to paraphrase Dawkins).

[pancreasman]

In fact the Theory of Evolution shoud be renamed the Theory of Stuff Just Happened (to paraphrase Dawkins).

Another 'guaranteed content free' post from MOTL.

[magellan004]

Before we begin, I'd like to clarify that scientists generally don't differentiate between "macro" and "micro" evolution. To be honest, these terms aren't really found outside of creationist writings.

From Berkeley Evolution pages:

Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale—what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and extinction.
Here, you can examine the patterns of macroevolution in evolutionary history and find out how scientists investigate deep history.

There is a section on that site covering macroevolution.
Link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...volution.shtml

Magellan

[phank]

From Berkeley Evolution pages:
There is a section on that site covering macroevolution.
Link: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...volution.shtml

Magellan

You might point out, just to be helpful, that "macroevolution" as used here, involves no processes any different from "microevolution" seen happening day to day. Macroevolution relates to microevolution as walking across the country relates to walking across the room.

[magellan004]

I am not a scientific expert so please bare with me. Anyhow, in another thread Phank posted:

"Dawkins observed, that for the YEC "no evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference."

Right, so, I would appreciate if someone can please provide this all-embracing, overwhelming, devastatingly convincing evidence for macro evolution. I am currently open on this matter because I haven't studied the science nor the Biblical creation narrative enough to formulate an educated opinion.

So please show me the evidence.

IF you follow Dawkin's line then there has to be evidence because lots of people believe in evolution. In other words 1. Some people start off believing YEC. 2. They see tons of 'evidence' (whatever that is) 3. They are convinced. 4. They believe in evolution. So because some YEC have converted Dawkins is wrong. (Although I think he was actually talking about one person called Wise. ')

What Dawkins doesn't allow is that some people who believed in evolution have converted to YEC because of tons of 'evidence'.
So Phank is correct - it gets down to what you call evidence.

All that aside, Dawkins is doing what many evolutionists do. They are evidence-deniers: 'You haven't got evidence, I have.'
In law courts evidence gets tossed out. it doesn't mean it is not evidence, it just means the court does not use that item of evidence to make a conclusion. I am not saying scientific evidence is exactly the same as legal evidence. I think it would be helpful if you, as the thread owner, explained what you mean by Evidence.


Magellan

[magellan004]

You might point out, just to be helpful, that "macroevolution" as used here, involves no processes any different from "microevolution" seen happening day to day. Macroevolution relates to microevolution as walking across the country relates to walking across the room.

Technical correction. Macroevolution is not seen and never was seen. Microevolution is not seen and never was seen. Evolution is not seen and never was seen.
I can explain if you want me to.

Magellan

[phank]

Technical correction. Macroevolution is not seen and never was seen. Microevolution is not seen and never was seen. Evolution is not seen and never was seen.
I can explain if you want me to.

Magellan

Look at your father. Are you identical? If not, you are seeing evolution in action. (IF your eyes are open, of course.)

(And sure enough, I predicted in the first sentence of my first post that there would be SOME clowns who "know" that evolution doesn't happen, and therefore the evidence can't be evidence, so it isn't evidence, so there!)