Scientists say an entirely separate type of human identified from bones in Siberia co-existed and interbred with our own species.
At the end of the day, if I take ID proponents’ claims seriously, I’m left with a question:
What’s the point?
Let’s assume that they find some insurmountable problem with natural selection (or any of the other current theories).
All they’ve done is provided a problem to solve.
That’s it.
They have not shown that there was an intelligent designer.
You can’t go from ‘I dunno’ to ‘Goddidit’. It doesn’t logically follow.
So, what’s the point?
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
don’t like the term “missing link” eh? how about the closest previous link in the chain of speciation? can you point me at that?
[/quote]
Sure, the previous link in the chain was my parents. Before that my grandparents, etc, etc.
[/quote]
Your parent’s are not the same species as you? Interesting.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
No analogy is perfect, and ‘intent’ demonstrates this. We are getting off track here - my point in bringing it up was to demonstrate an analogy of theories from evidence.
[/quote]
My point was to demonstrate that not offering an explanation while not agreeing with the one provided is perfectly valid. Whether it’s intent in the criminal case or something else.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
How does the scientific community know what will personally convince you? Why should they seek to personally convince you?
[/quote]
See my very first post in this thread. I’m yet to see an explanation of exactly how natural selection leads to speciation in say primates.
So if you could explain that, using Homo Sapiens as an example that would be a good start 
Basic level of explanation will do - for example - smaller jaw led to bigger brain etc.
And again, the burden of irreducible complexity is not on those who question evolution via natural selection, it’s on those who are trying to prove it’s crucial role in evolution.
As for the “weakness” of my position - I’m just a sceptical layman not convinced with the explanations provided by the scientific community. Afaik there are scientists who disagree with Darwinism as well so I’ll let them handle the gory details.
So far your “I dunno what do you propose” - type answers aren’t making a good impression, no three white lights on those lol.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
don’t like the term “missing link” eh? how about the closest previous link in the chain of speciation? can you point me at that?
[/quote]
Sure, the previous link in the chain was my parents. Before that my grandparents, etc, etc.
[/quote]
Your parent’s are not the same species as you? Interesting.
[/quote]
Ring Species.
That is all.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
[/quote]
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Your parent’s are not the same species as you? Interesting.
[/quote]
You asked for the closest previous link in a chain of speciation. I am making the assumption that my species will continue. Which means that, at some point, my parents, grandparents, etc, etc are all links in a chain of speciation.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
My point was to demonstrate that not offering an explanation while not agreeing with the one provided is perfectly valid. Whether it’s intent in the criminal case or something else.
[/quote]
You didn’t demonstrate that, since we don’t need motive to show whether someone committed a crime or not.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
See my very first post in this thread. I’m yet to see an explanation of exactly how natural selection leads to speciation in say primates.
[/quote]
Again, why should we convince you? Seems like all you have going for you is a weak argument from incredulity.
Your request here seems confused. You accept common descent, so why do we need to show you how natural selection worked on hominids? Why not any evidence of natural selection?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
So if you could explain that, using Homo Sapiens as an example that would be a good start
[/quote]
I see at as totally superfluous. Please explain why - outside of your own incredulity, it’s worth the effort.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
Basic level of explanation will do - for example - smaller jaw led to bigger brain etc.
And again, the burden of irreducible complexity is not on those who question evolution via natural selection, it’s on those who are trying to prove it’s crucial role in evolution.
[/quote]
There’s no need for me to show this - it’s simply a stalling tactic. IC is not an explanation, it’s not in contention to be one, nor is intelligent design.
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
As for the “weakness” of my position - I’m just a sceptical layman not convinced with the explanations provided by the scientific community. Afaik there are scientists who disagree with Darwinism as well so I’ll let them handle the gory details.
[/quote]
Why should anyone care to convince you of anything though? You could be a solipsist for all we know. Your demands for a specific chain of descent seem completely unreasonable ESPECIALLY considering that we are all ‘skeptical laymen’.
Also, all (or rather, most) scientists disagree with “Darwinism”, since Darwinism went out of fashion in the early 1900’s. At best you could say neo-darwinism, but still, this is rhetoric, not substance.
Yes, it’s known that something like 4 percent of the 10’s of thousands of scientists with degrees in the relevant fields disagree with evolution. I’m sure you can find the same number who disagree with all theories.
Also, none of those scientists are handling the details. In short, you are their best representative.
So what does that say?
[quote]ReignIB wrote:
So far your “I dunno what do you propose” - type answers aren’t making a good impression, no three white lights on those lol.
[/quote]
Why should I care what impression you have? Your selective skepticism is revealing, IMO.
Again, the best explanation is natural selection. If you have a better one, put it forward. Back it up or back it down.
You don’t though. You know this and that’s why you have to use inflammatory rhetoric to try to disparage credible science (‘lame’).
I’m aware that this thread exists. I had a long day and am still doing a lot of errands for Christmas so I will respond to these posts as soon as possible.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I just thought I would go ahead and provide you (Forbes) a space where you could provide your disproof of the theory of Natural Selection. You could also use this space to prove that “primate-like fossils” are more likely to be deformed humans or defunct species than to be evolutionarily linked with humans.
Hell, I invite anyone to use this space to disprove Natural Selection. [/quote]
Actually I will respond to this one, just to get at least one response in.
I NEVER tried to disprove natural selection. It is the driving force behind evolution. It gives species a reason to adapt. I just don’t think a species will evolve into another, even if it were to occur over a period of millions of years.
And my “hypothesis” as to what these “primate-like fossils” actually are is nothing but my own interpretation. I have stated in another board believers and non believers of a divine being tend to look at the same evidence (well not all of us, but some of us, like me). We just interpret the findings differently. You or any other scientist cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that these transitional fossils are our evolutionary ancestors. No one can and I know you don’t doubt that either. Science cannot prove anything. All the conclusions made are based off of interpretations of the data we have, and mine happens to be different than yours.
[quote]forbes wrote:
<<< All the conclusions made are based off of interpretations of the data we have, and mine happens to be different than yours. [/quote]Now you are really getting close here.
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I just thought I would go ahead and provide you (Forbes) a space where you could provide your disproof of the theory of Natural Selection. You could also use this space to prove that “primate-like fossils” are more likely to be deformed humans or defunct species than to be evolutionarily linked with humans.
Hell, I invite anyone to use this space to disprove Natural Selection. [/quote]
Actually I will respond to this one, just to get at least one response in.
I NEVER tried to disprove natural selection. It is the driving force behind evolution. It gives species a reason to adapt. I just don’t think a species will evolve into another, even if it were to occur over a period of millions of years.
And my “hypothesis” as to what these “primate-like fossils” actually are is nothing but my own interpretation. I have stated in another board believers and non believers of a divine being tend to look at the same evidence (well not all of us, but some of us, like me). We just interpret the findings differently. You or any other scientist cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that these transitional fossils are our evolutionary ancestors. No one can and I know you don’t doubt that either. Science cannot prove anything. All the conclusions made are based off of interpretations of the data we have, and mine happens to be different than yours. [/quote]
Yeah… we’ve kind of covered this. I was attempting to keep things simple by using the term “Natural Selection.” It does not necessarily leave room for all of the other evolutionary regulators out there.
Incidentally, though, Natural Selection does not give a species a reason to adapt. It is merely a mechanism by which mutation is judged to be fitting or not.
Speaking to both you and Reign, the process of speciation (as I have tried to state here earlier) is not a dramatic change between generations. It is a process in which each successive generation is not easily recognizable as different from the previous one. Certain mutations are more persistent than others, and eventually, over the course of thousands of generations, you have a generation that is so different from the perspective starting point that it is a different species… though, it is not a different species from its previous generation… nor is any generation a different species from its previous generation.
The point here is not to confuse a term like speciation with the functionally infinite continuum of differentiation that it is applied to. It is a term that implies a point of perspective.
Finally, you are welcome to your own perspective on what the fossil record implies, but don’t expect to be taken very seriously when your conclusions conflict with the majority of studied, scientific opinion…
[quote]forbes wrote:
Actually I will respond to this one, just to get at least one response in.
I NEVER tried to disprove natural selection. It is the driving force behind evolution. It gives species a reason to adapt. I just don’t think a species will evolve into another, even if it were to occur over a period of millions of years. [/quote]
What prevents it?
If a group of an organism accumulates change after change, eventually it will be completely different from the rest of that organisms species. You are saying that this cannot happen. Logically you’d need something to prevent it. So what prevents it?
[quote]forbes wrote:
And my “hypothesis” as to what these “primate-like fossils” actually are is nothing but my own interpretation. I have stated in another board believers and non believers of a divine being tend to look at the same evidence (well not all of us, but some of us, like me). We just interpret the findings differently.[/quote]
Obviously. I would argue that one interpretation is more rational though and requires less question begging. It could be that angels hold each of us down to the earth or it could be the result of gravity. Would you say that both of these interpretations are equal?
[quote]forbes wrote:
You or any other scientist cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that these transitional fossils are our evolutionary ancestors.[/quote]
Nothing in science can prove something without a shadow of a doubt. Further, this is simply not a rational standard to live up to. You certainly don’t apply it equally - just to the facts that you find problematic. You can’t prove without a shadow of a doubt that God exists, can you? If not, then by your own rational, you should reject claims of God’s existence.
[quote]forbes wrote:
No one can and I know you don’t doubt that either. [/quote]
If we worked on this presumption, then criminal law wouldn’t get off the ground. You are asking for certainty - why? Most people, myself included, work off of what is reasonable, not what is certain, to believe. I would wager you do this as well in all other areas except this one.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Science cannot prove anything. [/quote]
Nor does it try to. Math and alcohol work off of proofs, not science.
[quote]forbes wrote:
All the conclusions made are based off of interpretations of the data we have, and mine happens to be different than yours. [/quote]
Right, but your interpretation is less reasonable. It doesn’t make sense of the evidence and it’s primarily ad-hoc. Which is why it should be rejected.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
Actually I will respond to this one, just to get at least one response in.
I NEVER tried to disprove natural selection. It is the driving force behind evolution. It gives species a reason to adapt. I just don’t think a species will evolve into another, even if it were to occur over a period of millions of years. [/quote]
What prevents it?
If a group of an organism accumulates change after change, eventually it will be completely different from the rest of that organisms species. You are saying that this cannot happen. Logically you’d need something to prevent it. So what prevents it?
[quote]forbes wrote:
And my “hypothesis” as to what these “primate-like fossils” actually are is nothing but my own interpretation. I have stated in another board believers and non believers of a divine being tend to look at the same evidence (well not all of us, but some of us, like me). We just interpret the findings differently.[/quote]
Obviously. I would argue that one interpretation is more rational though and requires less question begging. It could be that angels hold each of us down to the earth or it could be the result of gravity. Would you say that both of these interpretations are equal?
[quote]forbes wrote:
You or any other scientist cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that these transitional fossils are our evolutionary ancestors.[/quote]
Nothing in science can prove something without a shadow of a doubt. Further, this is simply not a rational standard to live up to. You certainly don’t apply it equally - just to the facts that you find problematic. You can’t prove without a shadow of a doubt that God exists, can you? If not, then by your own rational, you should reject claims of God’s existence.
[quote]forbes wrote:
No one can and I know you don’t doubt that either. [/quote]
If we worked on this presumption, then criminal law wouldn’t get off the ground. You are asking for certainty - why? Most people, myself included, work off of what is reasonable, not what is certain, to believe. I would wager you do this as well in all other areas except this one.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Science cannot prove anything. [/quote]
Nor does it try to. Math and alcohol work off of proofs, not science.
[quote]forbes wrote:
All the conclusions made are based off of interpretations of the data we have, and mine happens to be different than yours. [/quote]
Right, but your interpretation is less reasonable. It doesn’t make sense of the evidence and it’s primarily ad-hoc. Which is why it should be rejected.[/quote]
I never claimed that my beliefs in God can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. In actuality, in the realm of science I can’t even call my beliefs a hypothesis as a hypothesis has to be testable. God cannot be tested.
I actually use probability to come to my conclusion. I cannot see how random chance events can produce the perfect environment for life to arise as a single cell and evolving into every species of plant, animal, bacteria, fungus etc. that we know of today. I don’t think thats even possible.
I will supply an example, one that I am sure you have heard numerous time and get tired of it, but I will still make it because it is valid. If I said that your house was built from naturally occuring random events, you would say I was crazy. Yet why? Answer this so I can get a glimpse into your reasoning please.
[quote]forbes wrote:
I never claimed that my beliefs in God can be proven without a shadow of a doubt. In actuality, in the realm of science I can’t even call my beliefs a hypothesis as a hypothesis has to be testable. God cannot be tested. [/quote]
So then you admit that you hold beliefs inconsistently?
[quote]forbes wrote:
I actually use probability to come to my conclusion. I cannot see how random chance events can produce the perfect environment for life to arise as a single cell and evolving into every species of plant, animal, bacteria, fungus etc. that we know of today. I don’t think thats even possible. [/quote]
There’s a few things wrong with this:
- The theory of evolution is an explanation of the origin of the species, not the origin of life. So your probability calculations, even if accurate, have nothing to do with whether or not the theory of evolution is valid.
- The theory of evolution (natural selection, sexual selection, etc) is not random at all.
- Probability formulas are only as good as the numbers used - I would point you here, with reference to the probability of abiogenesis: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations
Also, have you run a probability of God’s existence?
Finally, with the possibility of multiple universes and the vast amount of planets in this universe, even if the probability you generate was accurate, it seems to suggest that it’s still possible - which means it would be more rational, no matter how improbable, then the alternative.
[quote]forbes wrote:
I will supply an example, one that I am sure you have heard numerous time and get tired of it, but I will still make it because it is valid. If I said that your house was built from naturally occuring random events, you would say I was crazy. Yet why? Answer this so I can get a glimpse into your reasoning please. [/quote]
I would say it was crazy because we know how houses are made. We know, for example, that intelligent beings put pre-existing materials together into a certain fashion. This was one of Hume’s objections to intelligent design. He made it in the 1700’s and it’s still valid today.
Unfortunately life is not analogous to this since THERE is a mechanism for complexity - namely natural selection acting upon random mutations. In other words, if the houses were like life is, then we wouldn’t need to suppose intelligent actors.
ugh… And away we go, I guess.
I dont think anyone in their right mind would try to argue against Natural Selection. Natural Selection, however, is NOT macro-evolution. And macro-evolution is usually where the disagreement begins.
Natural Selection can be demonstrated in a multitude of animals in a very short amount of time. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, has never been demonstrated. Natural Selection can happen WITHIN a species. Macro-evolution is the process of CHANGING species.
You may want to reword your challenge.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
ugh… And away we go, I guess.
I dont think anyone in their right mind would try to argue against Natural Selection. Natural Selection, however, is NOT macro-evolution. And macro-evolution is usually where the disagreement begins.
Natural Selection can be demonstrated in a multitude of animals in a very short amount of time. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, has never been demonstrated. [/quote]
Actually, I believe that early Christians (pre-darwin, even) did argue that animals were essentially changeless.
Whatever though, I think that most people who disagree with common descent/macroevolution don’t actually have a full understanding of what it entails. They think that macroevolution is akin to saltation - or large scale macromutations that cause speciation.
This is not what macroevolution is. Macro evolution is simply an accumulation of microevolutionary steps plus a speciation event. The speciation event could simply be a separation of one group of organisms from the larger group of the same organism. This is what we observe in ring species.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Natural Selection can happen WITHIN a species. Macro-evolution is the process of CHANGING species.
You may want to reword your challenge.[/quote]
This is incorrect. Natural selection is a selection process that involves the change of the frequencies of alleles within a species. Macroevolution is an accumulation of such changes in a group of a species, which then through genetic isolation accumulates enough changes that it can no longer interbreed. In otherwords it’s the specific point where the accumulations of mutations splits the species - it is not a new type of evolutionary change.
Basically, the more mutations/changes a group of a species accumulates, the more different it becomes from the original group. After a certain point, it no longer resembles the original group.
We’ve observed this: Observed Instances of Speciation
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
ugh… And away we go, I guess.
I dont think anyone in their right mind would try to argue against Natural Selection. Natural Selection, however, is NOT macro-evolution. And macro-evolution is usually where the disagreement begins.
Natural Selection can be demonstrated in a multitude of animals in a very short amount of time. Macro-evolution, on the other hand, has never been demonstrated. [/quote]
Actually, I believe that early Christians (pre-darwin, even) did argue that animals were essentially changeless.
Whatever though, I think that most people who disagree with common descent/macroevolution don’t actually have a full understanding of what it entails. They think that macroevolution is akin to saltation - or large scale macromutations that cause speciation.
This is not what macroevolution is. Macro evolution is simply an accumulation of microevolutionary steps plus a speciation event. The speciation event could simply be a separation of one group of organisms from the larger group of the same organism. This is what we observe in ring species.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Natural Selection can happen WITHIN a species. Macro-evolution is the process of CHANGING species.
You may want to reword your challenge.[/quote]
This is incorrect. Natural selection is a selection process that involves the change of the frequencies of alleles within a species. Macroevolution is an accumulation of such changes in a group of a species, which then through genetic isolation accumulates enough changes that it can no longer interbreed. In otherwords it’s the specific point where the accumulations of mutations splits the species - it is not a new type of evolutionary change.
Basically, the more mutations/changes a group of a species accumulates, the more different it becomes from the original group. After a certain point, it no longer resembles the original group.
We’ve observed this: Observed Instances of Speciation
[/quote]
interesting. rereading and trying to find the sources. links?
This really got me, though. I am too lazy to see if it is this thread or another where i said that far too often Science=Conclusion->evidence, but this demonstrates it. Speciation, which the author you linked to admits is not well documented (I have never seen it documented, which is why I am digging for those sources), but they conclude it does occur (conclusion) and are looking for the mechanism (evidence). so they concluded speciation occurs, and are looking for the evidence.
“Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms”
makes me chuckle.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
interesting. rereading and trying to find the sources. links? [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean - the link I provided was just a go-to. There are several books I could recommend that would probably shed better light on the subject. Here’s something I wrote a long time ago with sources and all: http://www.allyourfaitharebelongtous.com/content.php?page=view_article.php%3FarticleID%3D13
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
This really got me, though. I am too lazy to see if it is this thread or another where i said that far too often Science=Conclusion->evidence, but this demonstrates it. Speciation, which the author you linked to admits is not well documented (I have never seen it documented, which is why I am digging for those sources), but they conclude it does occur (conclusion) and are looking for the mechanism (evidence). so they concluded speciation occurs, and are looking for the evidence. [/quote]
Yes, I remember that thread - this does not demonstrate it. You are confusing a source that is meant to popularize science and to educate the public about science with a scientific journal.
This thread has already presented examples of speciation - ring species. They have been brought up several times now and ignored.
The mechanisms is not the same as evidence. By mechanisms they are referring to speciation itself. Like genetic isolation, for instance.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
“Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms”
makes me chuckle. [/quote]
You are confusing an explanation of how with whether it occurs. This is why you chuckle. Unfortunately it appears the distinction has been lost. Think of it like this:
The evidence points to steroids helping muscles grow. These scientists are trying to figure out how it occurs.
In the same vein, the evidence points to organisms speciating from their parent groups. These scientists are trying to figure out how it occurs.
The fact of the matter is that speciation is deductively certain. If a group of a species is isolated from other members of that species, it is a certainty that after an appropriate amount of time that group will have accumulated enough genetic differences that reproduction with the original group is impossible. After enough time and enough accumulated mutations, isolated group will be completely different from the original group.
It’s certain (as certain as anything in science) because organisms do not reproduce perfectly. Even asexual ones.
So, logically speaking, if you accept that small changes can happen, that they can accumulate in an isolated group, then you have to accept the fact of speciation. Unless of course you can provide a mechanism that prevents it.
Which you can’t.
Another thing to consider - you are asserting that macro-evolution works off of different mechanisms then microevolution (I’m not, mind you).
The onus is on you to defend that point of view. If you can’t, then it’s more reasonable to accept my point of view, since I have defended it and, quite frankly, it makes a logically valid argument.
[quote]Pangloss wrote:
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
interesting. rereading and trying to find the sources. links? [/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean - the link I provided was just a go-to. There are several books I could recommend that would probably shed better light on the subject. Here’s something I wrote a long time ago with sources and all: http://www.allyourfaitharebelongtous.com/content.php?page=view_article.php%3FarticleID%3D13
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
This really got me, though. I am too lazy to see if it is this thread or another where i said that far too often Science=Conclusion->evidence, but this demonstrates it. Speciation, which the author you linked to admits is not well documented (I have never seen it documented, which is why I am digging for those sources), but they conclude it does occur (conclusion) and are looking for the mechanism (evidence). so they concluded speciation occurs, and are looking for the evidence. [/quote]
Yes, I remember that thread - this does not demonstrate it. You are confusing a source that is meant to popularize science and to educate the public about science with a scientific journal.
This thread has already presented examples of speciation - ring species. They have been brought up several times now and ignored.
The mechanisms is not the same as evidence. By mechanisms they are referring to speciation itself. Like genetic isolation, for instance.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
“Most biologists are convinced that speciation occurs. What they want to know is how it occurs. One recent book on speciation (Otte and Endler 1989) has few example of observed speciation, but a lot of discussion of theory and mechanisms”
makes me chuckle. [/quote]
You are confusing an explanation of how with whether it occurs. This is why you chuckle. Unfortunately it appears the distinction has been lost. Think of it like this:
The evidence points to steroids helping muscles grow. These scientists are trying to figure out how it occurs.
In the same vein, the evidence points to organisms speciating from their parent groups. These scientists are trying to figure out how it occurs.
The fact of the matter is that speciation is deductively certain. If a group of a species is isolated from other members of that species, it is a certainty that after an appropriate amount of time that group will have accumulated enough genetic differences that reproduction with the original group is impossible. After enough time and enough accumulated mutations, isolated group will be completely different from the original group.
It’s certain (as certain as anything in science) because organisms do not reproduce perfectly. Even asexual ones.
So, logically speaking, if you accept that small changes can happen, that they can accumulate in an isolated group, then you have to accept the fact of speciation. Unless of course you can provide a mechanism that prevents it.
Which you can’t.
[/quote]
I mean links to the sources cited in your previous link. They are proving hard to find for free.
Unfortunately I will have to continue this later, I have cooking and family to tend to.
Whether you celebrate it or not, Merry Christmas! I have thoroughly enjoyed our discourse thus far. I truly appreciate it when people make me think hard about things.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
I mean links to the sources cited in your previous link. They are proving hard to find for free. [/quote]
I guess I’m still not following - the sources I’ve cited are all free.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Unfortunately I will have to continue this later, I have cooking and family to tend to. [/quote]
That’s cool - I hope that you cook a good meal and have fun. I’m about to get out of here myself. So I suspect I may or may not be able to continue this conversation anyway. I would appreciate some clarity on the prior question about sources though. Only because I can link to a variety of freely available sources that helped me out a lot.
[quote]Da Man reloaded wrote:
Whether you celebrate it or not, Merry Christmas! I have thoroughly enjoyed our discourse thus far. I truly appreciate it when people make me think hard about things. [/quote]
Thanks and you too. At the end of the day, I appreciate the conversation. I don’t particularly care if I sway you, just as long as we have a good discussion.
From the thing I wrote long ago, which has the source properly cited:
With regard to macroevolution:
"There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).
The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other.
But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn’t. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change."