Talk:Macroevolution

Template:EvolWikiProject

The biggest questions I have about this concept is are:

1. Is macroevolution intended to mean a single big change that happens, or rather a series of microevolutions that when added up result in macroevolution?
2. Why do the small changes not, over time, add up to a big one?
3. How many microevolutions do there have to be before it becomes a macroevolution?
4. Do creationists accept that most microevolutions are going to be harmful, but a few are beneficial?
5. Do creationists accept that the beneficial microevolutions can replace the original organism (survival of the fittest)?
6. How, within this theory, is a species defined? As two groups that can not breed?
7. If so, what about organisms that do not have sexual reproduction (e.g., bacteria)?

I think these issues should be addressed in the article. --Dmerrill

I'm new to this article, so I won't edit it directly right now, but I'll answer some of your questions:

1) Macroevolution is distinguished from microevolution because it is different than just "a lot of microevolutions". Those who think that "macroevolution" is just the sum of many "microevolutions" don't use the terms...to them it is all just "evolution" and the same mechanisms work at all scales, from sub-species all the way to domains.

2) This is not just a debate between scientists (Darwinists) and creationists. There are several scientists who are just as Darwinist as anyone else, yet they believe that macroevolution must occur by different mechanisms than microevolution. One of my professors portrays it as a debate between population geneticists (who see all evolution as being equivalent) and developmental geneticists (who distinguish between micro and macro). He thinks this issue is very important, and he is going to address it at the end of this semester. I'll return in a month or so after I've studied it more.

--adam

---

Based solely on the article, it seems to me that "macroevolution" is not a theory at all but a concept, and that the conceptual distinction between micorevolution and macroevolution is important in the theory (or theories) of "intelligent design." If I am correct, the article should be changed. If I am incorrect, I for one would appreciate the article making the point clearer and explaining the theory (as opposed to the concept).

By the way, this conceptual distinction relies on an underlying assumption about the nature of "species." Darwinian evolutionary theory does not make this distinction largely because it views species more as statistical rather than ontological phenomena. The diference between how Darwinianists and non-Darwinianists view "species" is central to understanding why Darwinianists do not distinguish between micro and macro evolution, and why non-Darwinianists do, so I think the article would be improved if this underlying view were explained.

Although I am willing to do this myself I'd like to invite those who have already been working on the article to respond/try this first, SR

---

Seeing that this page largely recaps discussion held on other pages (such as the evolution page) and really needs discussion in the broader context of evolutionary theory rather than as a standalone topic, I would argue that this page should basically point to the relevant other pages. --Robert Merkel

I disagree -- there is much to be said about macroevolution which isn't really useful in the evolution article. My general biology textbook has several chapters that is mostly on macroevolution. --mav

Anyway, macroevolution and microevolution should definitely be combined into one article. These concepts are as interconnected as light and dark. --adam

---

Can I ask, why aren't there any arguments for or against macroevolution in this article? I'm not a creationist, but I'm not an evolutionist, either. Why are there no arguments for or against it?

---

The link to the '29+ evidences for macroevolution' had a critique written which was described by the original authour as "well-written, very thorough, and quite lengthy (the criticism is longer than the original article)". I linked both the critique and the critique of the critique!

Can I note that from a philosophy of science perspective, scientific dismissal of creationism as 'untestable' is a good demonstration of why science is open to postmodern critique and shouldn't be seen as telling absolute truth. Science has developed rules to determine whether or not knowledge is 'scientific', such as repeatability, testability, disprovability and thus religious knowledge and belief is inherently unscientific by the definition of the field.

-Psychobabble

---

The reason there are no arguments for or against seems to me to be based on the fact that there is no clear definition of the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. The definition cited in the article is based on the word "species", a word which in itself has become increasingly clear to be an artifical concept induced by man which does not model nature. Modern systematic genetics have given us a wide variety of examples of populations of animals to which no species boundaries can be drawn, or where such boundaries clearly contradict the separation of micro and macroevolution. boxed

Testable

History is testable; It's done all the time in court. The relationship between species is also testable; if species are related in particular manners, then we expect certain patterns to exist in their DNA, in their physiology, and in the fossil record. The relationships of species and structures is constantly tested in evolution studies that look for evidence of homology vs. convergent evolution.

Living (and fossilized) organisms show a lot of patterns that match up with the hypotheses that they share common ancestors. Many of these patterns were predicted beforehand, based on these hypotheses. There may be a better explanation for these patterns, but it hasn't been proposed yet.

I suggest reading this booklet from the NAS [1] (http://www.nap.edu/books/0309063647/html/). It's called "Teaching evolution and the nature of science" AdamRetchless 14:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i agree that this is a viewpoint held by many who ascribe to evolution. however, the viewpoint held by creationists is that it is not. the sentence in question is attributed to that source. if you'd like to add a counter to the "history is not testable" argument, feel free, but the argument is attributed, widely made, and so should be left intact. Ungtss 14:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Umm...this is not a matter of point of view, this is a matter of factural accuracy. Macroevolution is testable, is regularly tested. Hypotheses are proposed, tested, and accepted or rejected. This is not a question of whether or not one agrees with (macro)evolution - documenting the existence of skepticism is within the scope. But stating that macroevolution is untestable is denying that a wealth of scholarship exists. Guettarda 14:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm afraid that even given all this, the creationists still assert otherwise, in great detail. please, sir, i don't want to debate you. the assertion is noted, attributed and then summarily dispatched by the NAS. this is what npov is made of. is this not acceptable? Ungtss 14:43, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Factually incorrect points of view may and must be attributed to their proponents, and then dispatched by others. you are violating this rule in the name of your ideology, and the confusion of fact and interpretation of fact. however, six months of experience have taught me that there is a tacit "don't enforce npov" rule at wikipedia on any topic related to creationism. you are directly violating wikipedia policy. carry on. Ungtss 14:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that a "rebuttal" that doesn't rebut should be given? I don't understand. It's like saying "X says that the sky is blue. However, Y rebuts this by saying that the sea is orange." The factual accuracy isn't the issue here - what I have a problem with is that the rebuttal does not rebut. How is that ideology, pray tell? Guettarda 15:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if your complaint is with the quality of the rebuttal, then feel free to fix the rebuttal. my complaint is with your deletion of an attributed, widely held, and relevent point of view. it is that deletion that smacks of ideology. the factually accurate and attributed refutation of that point of view would smack of npov. Ungtss 15:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was not a deletion - it was the removal of a factually inaccurate insertion. I would not have deleted something from the article that was there before without discussion. However, an anon (who has not bothered to enter this discussion) made the assertion. If it could be sourced (to say "creation scientists" is not a sourced assertion per se) I might look at it differently, although I owuld still take issue with wording. As it stand (or stood) the assertion says that CS's say that history is untestable, and thus macroevolution is a pseudoscience. That statement implies (i) that macroevol depends on history, and (ii), if history is untestable, then macroevol is untestable, and therefore pseudoscience. One of the many sources for macroevol is the historical record. But to test hypotheses using historical data is not to test history as such. In addition, there is a lot more than history - there are experimental studies. The statement is factually inaccurate, but that is the least of my concerns with it. It's unattributed - no source is provided. Can you attribute it to any one person who calls himself/herself a "creation scientist"? But more importantly, it is logically flawed - whether macroevolution is a pseudoscience or not does not depend on the falisifiability of history. In summary:

• it is not attributed;
• no evidence is given for how widely it is held;
• it is not relevent, since it does not rebut anything because it does not address tha issue at hand

Guettarda 15:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're asking for more detail on a topic you manifestly want excluded from the page. i had hoped to keep the text short to minimize impact on the page. would you support the introduce a cited, sourced, attributed, and more detailed discussion on the topic?

Irony of this just hit me - creation scientist as empiricist? Hmmm... Guettarda 16:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing more empirical than creationism, sir. we know what we know, and we know what we don't know. evolutionists, on the other hand, explain nothing by virtue of explaining everything. Ungtss 20:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Empiricism: Empiricism (greek εμπειρισμός, from empirical, latin experientia - the experience) is generally regarded as being at the heart of the modern scientific method, that our theories should be based on our observations of the world rather than on intuition or faith. Guettarda 21:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep. And to my mind, belief in abiogenesis and universal common ancestry require a lot more faith than creationism. Ungtss 21:11, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree on content. I don't see ID as disputing macroevolution (merely the drivers thereof) while panspermia merely disputes abiogenisis on earth, it does not dispute macroevolution (speciation). As I understand it, even baraminology only disputes the degree to which macroevolution occurs. Only YECs seriously dispute macroevolution. Guettarda 21:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

panspermists (http://panspermia.com/neodarw.htm), old earth creationists (http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC4W0604.pdf), intelligent design (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1153). Ungtss 21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The ID link says that "[w]hat intelligent design does reject that the notion that mutation and natural selection (combined with any other natural mechanism) is sufficient to produce or explain all aspects of life - this has nothing to do with whether ID accepts or does not accept macroevolution.
  • the second full sentence on the page, in the "short anser:" "Most intelligent design proponents accept microevolution but question if macroevolutionary changes are possible."
• Panspermia link - does not deal with panspermia. Please see panspermia.
  • you need to read further down. particularly, the section "Does Microevolution Explain Macroevolution?"
• OEC - you provided one link. Nonetheless, the created kinds article, together with other material I have read on baraminology allows for macroevolution. They can always define macroevolution out of their scope of acceptance, but that does not mean that they reject speciation. You have to reject speciation to reject macroevolution. ID and panspermia do not reject macroevolution. Guettarda 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • you've redefined macroevolution as requiring speciation. there is no such requirement. virtually all panspermists, yec's, and ider's acknowledge speciation, but not macro. Ungtss 21:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not defining macroevolution as "requiring speciation" - macroevolution is (by definition) speciation or above. Microevolution is anything that takes place within species. Macroevolutiion is everything else - starting with speciation. Reject macroevolution, you reject speciation. Do not reject speciation and you do not reject macroevolution. Simple distinction, and utterly crucial. Guettarda 21:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never seen that definition before. i don't even see it on this page. I see: "Macroevolution is the concept that evolution of species and higher taxa is the result of large-scale changes in gene-frequencies over time." i could therefore accept evolution to the level of species, but reject it at the level of genus or phylum. that is, in fact, what the above groups do. Ungtss 22:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But this is arguing that speciation is not sufficient for macroevolution (as thusly defined), not that it's not necessary. I think there's some confusion on terms and/or direction of implication, here... BTW, some of said groups seem also to be happy with "genusification", "familyisation", and even "orderisement" in some cases, on the basis of discussions elsewhere. (To neologise in the style of a certain UK Dubya parody.) Alai 22:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent analysis, Alai. i agree. since speciation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for macroevolution, one can reject macroevolution without rejecting speciation. Ungtss 22:57, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rejecting macroevolution

How could you reject evolution at the genus level but not at the species level, pray tell? Genus/species borders are subjective - to do that would be to put your faith in systematists. Anyway, speciation is both sufficient (inasmuch as speciation=macroevolution) and necessary (since you cannot have stable divergence without some sort of reproductive barrier). I think you are shifting the goal posts to support your own view of things. You are re-defining macroevolution as those aspects of evolution with which I disagree. Speciation is both sufficient for macroevolution, and necessary. Anything other than evolution within a species is macroevolution. Or have you just invented mesoevolution? Guettarda 13:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

<How could you reject evolution at the genus level but not at the species level>>

From the creation biology paradigm, speciation occurs through the loss of capacity to interbreed, and the loss of genetic characteristics through genetic drift. it is a negative view of speciation -- certainly not your macroevolutionary paradigm. Ungtss 13:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This argument could all be avoided if you would merely clarify the basis for creationist rejection of macroevolution. That would determine both why, and what the indicated meaning of macroevolution is. Graft 14:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right. thanks for defining the issue. i tried to rewrite with your suggestion in mind. how did i do? Ungtss 14:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Um. Lost me, that's for sure. Irreducible complexity is not necessarily an attack on macroevolution per se, and macroevolution need not involve violating irreducible complexity. Graft 16:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

all true. but both specified + irreducible complexity are used to argue against macroevolution. irreducible, for instance, in the case of the enzymes involved in human blood clotting. specified in the case of the increased genetic information required to get us from proto-weasel to human. i'm having a hard time figuring out what you're looking for. any suggestions on making it clearer? Ungtss 16:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Human blood-clotting is an example of macroevolution? And I was under the impression that specified complexity is predicated on irreducible complexity. Graft 16:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No sir. human blood-clotting is an asserted instance of irreducible complexity[2] (http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec98/IrreducibleComplexityBloodClotting.html), and specified complexity is often used in conjunction with irreducible complexity, but it's a different concept. specified complexity is about information theory. irreducible complexity is about functionality. Ungtss 16:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blood clotting would almost certainly be microevolution - it would probably have developed within a single species. At what point do we see a split between clotters and bleeders (and I'm not talking about haemophilia)? Within species = microevolution. Guettarda 16:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand how specified complexity and irreducible complexity can be used against macroevolution - doesn't Behe say he has no problem with macroevolution per se? Guettarda 16:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He has no problem with certain aspects of macroevolution, but he draws limits. perhaps that's the best way to articulate the objection: it's not an objection to "macroevolution" per se, but an assertion that there are limits to it. what do you think? Ungtss 16:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You need to be more explicit. What are the limits, and why? Also, blood clotting has surely undergone a progressive development over the course of the evolutionary history of blood. Since it's multifactor and varies amongst vertebrates, it seems probable that it was built on incremental improvements over time. Some modifications to the clotting process must have happened within a species, but "clotting" as a whole must have developed across many hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Whether this makes it "macroevolution" or "microevolution", i'm not sure. Graft 17:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll do that. thanks. and the argument from irreducible complexity is that blood clotting cannot have undergone such variation, because any variation would cause they entire system to fail. Ungtss 17:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quick policy tip

Once you've started discussing on talk, you don't need to revert again. The only reason you reverted in the first place was because the person in question hadn't explained anything yet. Your changes are still in history, you can always revert later. Just talk with people and take your time, people will see the discussion if they're really interested in the topic anyway. Once the discussion is finished you can always revert or edit as nescesary. This also saves you getting into trouble with the 3 revert rule. See also WP:HEC.

Kim Bruning 15:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)