Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by RoyLennigan, Apr 6, 2007.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I suppose I will, since you can provide me no evidence of your argument at all.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    This should be easy for you GeoffP, are there any legitimate biologists in the Intelligent Design camp? They get degrees like everybody else, so are they legitimate biologists in your mind?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Yes, they are, though I do not find support in their paradigms. Present their theories against Darwinianism, if you will.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,642
    Barely any.
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Personally I think it's fine for them to suggest their theories, so long as they can be argued. Frankly, even the excessive complexity espoused by Behe does not necessarily translate into deific provocation. You want to shout down microevolutionary Darwinianism? Fine. Off you go, then. But that doesn't mean God was behind the scenes. Or that he wasn't, either. It's reality-neutral. Unrelated.
     
  9. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    What supposedly is "micro-evolutionary Darwinism" GeoffP?

    And remember, you said all credible biologists are Darwinists, and now you don't say that, so please be consistent.
     
  10. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Micro-evolution. Now can we, y'know, debate it or something?

    Please illustrate where I made such a comment or be denounced as a troll. This is ridiculous.
     
  11. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    GeoffP, see your posts #157 and #163, now, you should be denounced as a troll.

    There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution according to Darwinism, so what are you trying to talk about?
     
  12. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Lets see some argument to back up your claims
     
  13. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    The claims are self evident, GeoffP contradicted himself, see those two posts, and micro and macro evolution are young earth creationist terms, not Darwinian terms, so GeoffP does have lots of 'splainin to do.
     
  14. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    I'd still like to see some arguments otherwise I will delete all your posts in this thread as trolling.
     
  15. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Arguments for what? GeoffP says he wants to talk about "Darwinian micro-evolution," but that is not a Darwinian notion, so GeoffP needs to step up to the plate to try to explain what HE's talking about. Maybe you should delete all of GeoffP's posts therefore.
     
  16. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Lets first hear your arguments behind this claim.
     
  17. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    Messages:
    6,618
    Biologists who propone Intelligent Design dissent from Darwinian dogma, obviously.
     
  18. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    Give us a peer reviewed paper now, to back up your claims.
     
  19. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    What in the hell are you talking about?

    ?? Again, what are you talking about? The two processes - both of which probably are going on - are evolutionary. Neither is inherently the refutation of Darwinianism. Please present some arguments or something.
     
  20. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    THEY CERTAINLY ARE NOT.

    That's it. You're a troll. You don't have any argument, and you don't have any points. There is no need to differentiate between micro and macro as being exclusively responsible for evolution. Period. What is your argument?
     
  21. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    I will now REPOST the articles I mentioned previously, since you appear to have constructed an elaborate roundabout to get by them. If you have any scientific training at all, as you say you do, then you are surely familiar with the Biological Species Concept. Here are some articles illustrating that concept and its inference from reproductive isolation:

    Plants - Speciation via hybridization

    Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

    Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

    Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

    de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.

    Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

    Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.

    Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.

    Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154

    Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.

    Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

    Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79:701-707.

    Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 76:1119-1124.



    Animals - speciation via hybridization

    Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

    Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York

    Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.



    Plants - Speciation without hybridization

    Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60: 545-553.

    Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50:295-302.

    Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.



    I highlighted one of special interest since it involves speciation/isolation by selection.


    Animals - Speciation without hybridization

    Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

    Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34:730-737.




    As for the rest of my dealings to date with you, I commend unto you Exodus 20: 16. I leave your ethics in the hands of your faith.
     
  22. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    *IAC staggers from the ring punch drunk*
     
  23. NDS NDS Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,015
    I suggest everyone visit the Earth Science section and take a look at the last couple pages of IAC's thread "Great Explanation of Global Flood Model."

    He is taking a severe beating.

    Wow, I'd hate to be IAC's parents the day they told him Santa Clause didn't exist. :bravo:
     

Share This Page