Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea

[GeoffP]

I suppose I will, since you can provide me no evidence of your argument at all.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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?

 

[GeoffP]

Yes, they are, though I do not find support in their paradigms. Present their theories against Darwinianism, if you will.

 

[James R]

This should be easy for you GeoffP, are there any legitimate biologists in the Intelligent Design camp?

Barely any.

 

[GeoffP]

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.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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.

 

[GeoffP]

What supposedly is "micro-evolutionary Darwinism" GeoffP?

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

And remember, you said all credible biologists are Darwinists, and now you don't say that, so please be consistent.

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

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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?

 

[S.A.M.]

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?

Lets see some argument to back up your claims

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

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.

I'd still like to see some arguments otherwise I will delete all your posts in this thread as trolling.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

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.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'll mail you a copy, just give me your snail-mail address, I'll also send you my new DVD entitled Atlantis: Secret Star-Mappers of a Lost World.

And GeoffP, if you think academia is unanimous that Darwinian evolution is true, then you just go on imagining that.

Lets first hear your arguments behind this claim.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Biologists who propone Intelligent Design dissent from Darwinian dogma, obviously.

 

[S.A.M.]

Biologists who propone Intelligent Design dissent from Darwinian dogma, obviously.

Give us a peer reviewed paper now, to back up your claims.

 

[GeoffP]

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

What in the hell are you talking about?

There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution according to Darwinism, so what are you trying to talk 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.

 

[GeoffP]

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

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?

 

[GeoffP]

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.

 

[leopold]

*IAC staggers from the ring punch drunk*

 

[NDS]

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: