Is macroevolution true?

[bob b]

Many evolutionists have said on these forums that science is always open to the possibility that a particular theory is not true.

In this thread I would like evolutionists to tell us whether they are open to the possibility that macroevolution is not true, and further, to tell us what the impact on their current world view would be if scientific evidence and studies showed this to be the case..

 

[DoogieTalons]

How do you define macroevolution, for the purposes of this post Bob.

My understanding is largescale changes, I'e the development of new species evolving over vast amounts of time.

I'E macroevolution is what most people regard as "Evolution" in general. "Molecules to Man" "Zoo to you" ect

 

[bob b]

How do you define macroevolution, for the purposes of this post Bob.

My understanding is largescale changes, I'e the development of new species evolving over vast amounts of time.

Yes, large scale changes.

"Species" is too vague a term to use in this discussion, because the difference between one species and another may be so small as to be virtually invisible to anyone but an expert. In other words some cases may be due to microevolution, perhaps a change as small as a single base change to a single gene.

Large scale evolution of all creatures from a single ancestor would require small changes to accumulate to become large changes..

As an evolutionist and a follower of science are you open to the possibility that such large scale changes have never in fact occurred? In other words that the descent of all life from a single primitive ancestor did not occur?

For example, what if life has descended from not a single ancestor but instead from multiple different types of ancestors, perhaps representing all the phyla? But let us not dwell on alternative possibilities, of which there could be many, but instead focus on the main point: are you open to the possibility that macroevolution isn't true?

Or putting it another way: are you open to the possibility that all life did not descend from a single primitive ancestor?

 

[Layla]

I am open to it, yes. I think it unlikely, given the current observations and evidence, but should new evidence show up which made it more likely, I'd be happy to hear it. This wouldn't really alter my worldview at all. I have no hypothetical stock in the ToE, I am interested in whatever is most likely to be a good estimation of reality.

 

[JustinFoldsFive]

In this thread I would like evolutionists to tell us whether they are open to the possibility that macroevolution is not true, and further, to tell us what the impact on their current world view would be if scientific evidence and studies showed this to be the case.

I am completely open to the idea that macroevolution could be falsified. Macroevolution is science, afterall, and it could be argued that all science must be falsifiable.

If macroevolution were falsified tomorrow, that would have little effect on my current worldview. I would be interested in what evidence/experimentation falsified macroevolution, and would go from there. The falsification of macroevolution would not be the end of scientific inquiry into biological life, but a new beginning.

 

[bob b]

Gentlemen,

Do you equate "macroevolution falsified" to "common descent" falsified.

In other words are you also open to the possibility that all life did not descend from a single common ancestor?

 

[Punisher1984]

If indeed it could be shown beyond all reasonable doubt that there is no possible way that species can transform into new species through genetic drift and natural selection, I'm open to the idea.

However, I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against these theories and thus remain skeptical.

 

[DoogieTalons]

A very hard one to answer.

I would have to be honest and say no, I am not currently open to evolution being false.

It simply must have happened or we wouldn't be here now.

It's a very clear, simple method of understanding how we all got here and there is no better explanation.

I do think that life could have emerged in different places and evolved seperatly but I am more inclinded to believe it was a single spontanious cell which could replicate, and in replication mutate and through mutation survive and through mutated survival evolve into the many complex life forms we see today.

I have read too many books on the subject, to be easily disuaded.

A whale for example is in my mind a great proof of macro evolution.

A sea creature - becomes mammal - returns to sea. Couldn't be designed or it would not have ever needed to leave.

Just studying the whale alone, the hypothesis on how it evolved and the way it breaths is facinating.

Now to entertain the idea that Macroevolution is false.

Wow how else could we have got here ? What else could explain 800,000 Known species of Insect 5000 known species of mammal ect. I would think there is a whole lot more to learn about this planet and it's origins but, I would not rush to Genisis or God to explain this. There are other things about the earth an universe that "Gang Up" on YEC and give it a sound beating.

This does not mean because studies have lead me to believing Evolution is true that my mind is closed in general, I am open on a great many things, includign various theologies. But to me to say evolution is false would be like saying god powers my computer, not electricity.

 

[Layla]

Gentlemen,

I'm a girl.

Do you equate "macroevolution falsified" to "common descent" falsified.

I don't think either can really be falsified. They can be made far more unlikely by new evidence, or observation that contradicts them, to the point where there is no reasonable doubt, but I don't think we can prove them wrong conclusively.

In other words are you also open to the possibility that all life did not descend from a single common ancestor?

Yes. Didn't I answer this already? I'm open to anything and everything. I think some things are a heck of a lot more likely, but I am not 100% certain that the ToE is reality and I'm not certain that creation is bollocks. As I said, I have no hypothetical stock in ToE.. The model that best describes reality is all I am interested in, and evolution is currently that model, IMO. This may become more concrete, or it may become less. I don't really mind either way, as long as I am learning.

 

[DoogieTalons]

If indeed it could be shown beyond all reasonable doubt that there is no possible way that species can transform into new species through genetic drift and natural selection, I'm open to the idea.

However, I'm yet to hear a convincing argument against these theories and thus remain skeptical.

Indeed, I was going to answer like this but if it could be shown beyond all reasonable doubt that species CANNOT transform into new ones then that would not necessarilty disprove Evolution in general or Macroevolution inside species, it would just disprove speices changing to others. Which could lead us to perhaps more than one emergence of life in earth history, and that these emergences are incompatible. it wouldn't neccesarily disprove MacroEvolution.

 

[Layla]

Indeed, I was going to answer like this but if it could be shown beyond all reasonable doubt that species CANNOT transform into new ones then that would not necessarilty disprove Evolution in general or Macroevolution inside species, it would just disprove speices changing to others. Which could lead us to perhaps more than one emergence of life in earth history, and that these emergences are incompatible. it wouldn't neccesarily disprove MacroEvolution.

Imagine a hypothetical situation, where ToE seems less likely. A different scientific theory, for example, which better explains and fits our observations, and has been empirically tested.

Would you still cling to ToE?

 

[Punisher1984]

Indeed, I was going to answer like this but if it could be shown beyond all reasonable doubt that species CANNOT transform into new ones then that would not necessarilty disprove Evolution in general or Macroevolution inside species, it would just disprove speices changing to others. Which could lead us to perhaps more than one emergence of life in earth history, and that these emergences are incompatible. it wouldn't neccesarily disprove MacroEvolution.

I suppose you're right, but that's usually the intent of the creationist argument: to convince the listener that there is no way one species cannot become another. Of course, the arguments made thus far for this are very weak.

 

[DoogieTalons]

Imagine a hypothetical situation, where ToE seems less likely. A different scientific theory, for example, which better explains and fits our observations, and has been empirically tested. Would you still cling to ToE?

No, it would have place in my heart as a jolly good and sound explanation but I guess I would have to move on. IF it's been empirically tested ect...

But I think MacroEvolution has already happened and has various sound proofs or examples. If it's disproved properly then I would have to move on from it. SO perhaps I am more flexible than first thought. But there are a lot of ifs in the flexibility.

If it was disproved then perhaps it would be expanded upon or the name changes but there are examples of macroevolution as we currently know and understand having already happened.

Or putting it another way: are you open to the possibility that all life did not descend from a single primitive ancestor?

Yes I am.

The species that live cut off from the sun at heat vents on the ocean floor, living not by photosynthysis but by chemosynthysis could be a good example of this.

But both primitive ancestors could still MacroEvolve !

 

[bob b]

The species that live cut off from the sun at heat vents on the ocean floor, living not by photosynthysis but by chemosynthysis could be a good example of this.

But doesn't the universality of the genetic code decisively show that all life must have descended from a single primitive cell?

Wouldn't it be highly unlikely that the same genetic code (akin to the Morse code) would arise independently? In fact, isn't this one of the important arguments for a single ancestor? Is the current DNA code the optimum or would a different code do just as well?

 

[Real Sorceror]

If "micro-evolution" changes can stack, and there is no limit to the number of times they can stack, then macro-evolution is true, or at least entirely possible.
micro + micro + micro + micro = macro.

 

[Mr Jack]

Wouldn't it be highly unlikely that the same genetic code (akin to the Morse code) would arise independently? In fact, isn't this one of the important arguments for a single ancestor? Is the current DNA code the optimum or would a different code do just as well?

Just a minor point; but not all living things use the same DNA code - there are a number of variants. Interestingly the most common of them seem to have properties that make them particularly suited to evolution (i.e. point mutations tend to produce similar proteins).

 

[bob b]

If "micro-evolution" changes can stack, and there is no limit to the number of times they can stack, then macro-evolution is true, or at least entirely possible.
micro + micro + micro + micro = macro.

Two very big "ifs". Protein folding may falsify this simplistic and appealing paradigm.

------
And Mr. Jack,
I am well aware of the few exceptions to the universality of the genetic code, which seems to argue against life arising with a single common ancestor. You spoiled my "surprise".

 

[Real Sorceror]

Two very big "ifs". Protein folding may falsify this simplistic and appealing paradigm.

I seem to remember you saying that micro-changes can stack, but that the changes have limits and "stop" after a certian point.

 

[DoogieTalons]

But doesn't the universality of the genetic code decisively show that all life must have descended from a single primitive cell?

Wouldn't it be highly unlikely that the same genetic code (akin to the Morse code) would arise independently? In fact, isn't this one of the important arguments for a single ancestor? Is the current DNA code the optimum or would a different code do just as well?

Bob B, I agree, that's why I said "could be", my statement was not what I believe and was just a random thought perhaps life started down there and moved closer to the surface gaining energy from the sun. I don't know

I hope your initial quesiton was an honest one, my initial answer was.

My initial answer was I believe we all come from a single cell, and single evolutionary path. It's easy to catch me out on futher hypothesis as I make them in honesty for the sake of answering further hypothetical questions rather than the initial question. As I am trying to twist what I don't believe merly to match a thought or call for openness. I hope you're not just trying to catch me out

 

[bob b]

Bob B, I agree, that's why I said "could be", my statement was not what I believe and was just a random thought perhaps life started down there and moved closer to the surface gaining energy from the sun. I don't know

I hope your initial quesiton was an honest one, my initial answer was.

My initial answer was I believe we all come from a single cell, and single evolutionary path. It's easy to catch me out on futher hypothesis as I make them in honesty for the sake of answering further hypothetical questions rather than the initial question. As I am trying to twist what I don't believe merly to match a thought or call for openness. I hope you're not just trying to catch me out

I'm just trying to show you that there is far more to evolutionary controversies than you seem to realize.

Evolution is not a "slam dunk", regardless of what extremists like Richard Dawkins would have people believe.