To All Evolutionsts

[the_interactionist]

I haven't been keeping up with the "Blue-Eyed Gene" thread since it started, but I was reading the first few pages and studying the resources everyone provided in their links to other web pages when I came up with a question, so if this has already been addressed in the 18 or 19+ pages in that aforementioned thread, please forgive me.

I was studying the image on Wikipedia about the evolution of the horse. The changes in the forefeet and teeth, as illustrated, were indeed dramatic. But even more so was the tenure alleged to complete the evolution of one species to the next: Between Hyracotherium and Mesohippus, there was approx. a 20-million year gap. Between Mesohippus and Merychippus, a approx. 10 million year gap. Between Merychippus and Pliohippus, 20 million years again, then finally, between Pliohippus and Equus (modern horse), only about 9 million years.

The time periods vary from 9 million years to 20 million years. That's a long, long time for macroevolution to take place. Considering it allegedly takes so long for evolution to occur in its entirely for any given species, and since the horse is so far the best evidence provided for macroevolution that I've seen to date (if you know of a better one let me know), is there no way possible the nuances and subtleties of this evolutionary process could be observed and identified over the course of 50 years or so? I mean, if the best way to confirm evolution in action is by observing the obvious changes in the stucture of the horse's forefeet and teeth, why wouldn't we hold those under close observation. Certainly, something even on a chemical level would be changing over even a short period of time. Is there no way to observe and identify such changes in one lifetime? If not, what about over several lifetimes, with everone studying the same nuances and details of the subject? If so, wouldn't these basically confirm macroevolution takes place? Don't you think this could be studied in other subjects (animals) as well?

I know it's a longshot, but what is your opinion on it?

Disclaimer: I'm not looking to prove evolution. I'm a believer and always will be, even if proof was found for it. I believe that even if macroevolution was specifically proven - undeniably and irrefutably - I'd still believe that it was created as process by God (which I do now anyways). I just conjured the question and decided to ask it. That's all this is about. It seems like a legitimate one to ask. You'd think if this were a way to find substantial, surreal evidence for evolution, scientists would be doing it right now. Certainly, I'm not the first to think of this.

[The Lorax]

The answer is that the only kind of evolution observable over this time scale is what creationists call 'microevolution' and so the question we must ask is whether or not this constitutes evidence for macroevolution. In other words, having proven micro, have we proven macro? That is essentially the question artsylady and I have been discussing for most of the blue eye gene thread.

The micro/macro dichotomy strikes me as 100% arbitrary and subjective. I mean, who decides how "big" a mutation has to be before it is considered macroevolutionary?

[the_interactionist]

The answer is that the only kind of evolution observable over this time scale is what creationists call 'microevolution' and so the question we must ask is whether or not this constitutes evidence for macroevolution. In other words, having proven micro, have we proven macro? That is essentially the question artsylady and I have been discussing for most of the blue eye gene thread.

The micro/macro dichotomy strikes me as 100% arbitrary and subjective. I mean, who decides how "big" a mutation has to be before it is considered macroevolutionary?

Exactly. That's what I'm saying here. If we can observe microevolution in action within an organism, doesn't that mean the organism itself is changing? Wouldn't that technically be macroevolution? Perhaps the changes in only the very tiny are all we can observe within such a small tenure as 50, 100, even 200 years of consistent research, considering it takes millions of years for the drastic changes to occur. But the organism itself is still changing nonetheless.

Is it fair to conclude that?

[Gerioke]

It's amazing that God designed us to adapt so well to our environment.

God is great, yes?

[kat8585]

It's amazing that God designed us to adapt so well to our environment.

God is great, yes?

He also designed the environment to be suited to us.

[The Lorax]

1. Evolution is not an individual organism thing. It is most basically defined as "the change in the frequecy of alleles in a population over time"

I'm guessing he meant "species of organism" and left it at "organism" for short.

2. Take a look at whale evolution. Sorry, I don't have a cite but use Mr. Google. Gould wrote an essay on whale evolution as well that summarized the findings. Again, a cite escapes me.

Whale evolution is fascinating stuff.

[Gerioke]

1. Evolution is not an individual organism thing. It is most basically defined as "the change in the frequecy of alleles in a population over time"

I'm guessing he meant "species of organism" and left it at "organism" for short.

2. Take a look at whale evolution. Sorry, I don't have a cite but use Mr. Google. Gould wrote an essay on whale evolution as well that summarized the findings. Again, a cite escapes me.

Whale evolution is fascinating stuff.

It seems to me that whales are examples of evolution in reverse. Ombulasitis(sp?) looked a bit like a hairy alligator and became a fishy mammal.

I can't figure out how dinosaurs can be both raptors and reptiles. I think it's likely that they were niether. They were in a category of their own.

Stupid scientists.

[stan4257]

I was studying the image on Wikipedia about the evolution of the horse. . . . .

The time periods vary from 9 million years to 20 million years. That's a long, long time for macroevolution to take place. Considering it allegedly takes so long for evolution to occur in its entirely for any given species, and since the horse is so far the best evidence provided for macroevolution that I've seen to date (if you know of a better one let me know), is there no way possible the nuances and subtleties of this evolutionary process could be observed and identified over the course of 50 years or so?

Ask the 'average' height man to walk unbent through the 'average' height doorway in a cottage of a 100-200 hears ago without bumping his head.

[The Lorax]

It seems to me that whales are examples of evolution in reverse.

What do you mean by "reverse?" Evolution only goes in one direction: survivability. Whatever survives, survives. As their world changes, some species get smaller, others get larger. Some move into the ocean and others rise up onto land. The direction is determined by whatever genes and traits survive.

I can't figure out how dinosaurs can be both raptors and reptiles. I think it's likely that they were niether. They were in a category of their own.

Not all dinosaurs are thought to be raptors, but all dinosaurs are thought to be birds. However, the current classification system is quirky and birds are put in a group that is separate from reptiles. Ideally classification is monophyletic; if it was 100%, reptiles (including dinosaurs) would be officially listed as a subcategory of birds.

Stupid scientists.

You're right this time. The scientists screwed up.

[the_interactionist]

1. Evolution is not an individual organism thing. It is most basically defined as "the change in the frequecy of alleles in a population over time"

I'm guessing he meant "species of organism" and left it at "organism" for short.

2. Take a look at whale evolution. Sorry, I don't have a cite but use Mr. Google. Gould wrote an essay on whale evolution as well that summarized the findings. Again, a cite escapes me.

Whale evolution is fascinating stuff.

Yeah, that's basically what I mean - species of organism. I understand evolution includes an entire population, but I'm saying if it can be identified on a very small, subtle level, wouldn't that pretty much provide more than sufficient evidence for evolution in general?