The Definition of Real Science

[ChristB4us]

No, microevolution does not refer to speciation—because the population is still the same species after the shift in allele frequencies.

I know "science" is messing around with definitions and even the laws of science that you cannot see that and so bear with me....

Speciation

"Speciation is how a new kind of plant or animal species is created. Speciation occurs when a group within a species separates from other members of its species and develops its own unique characteristics." ~~~~ end of quote

That does not mean macroevolution although you have been "brainwashed" to see it only in that way.

An elegant new orchid is found hiding in plain sight

'It is extremely rare for a new plant species to be discovered in Japan, a nation where flora has been extensively studied and documented. Nevertheless, Professor Suetsugu Kenji and his associates have recently uncovered a stunning new species of orchid whose rosy pink petals bear a striking resemblance to glasswork....Since it was initially spotted near Hachijo Island in Tokyo Prefecture, the new species has been given the name Spiranthes hachijoensis." ~~~~end of quote

New lizard species discovered in Peruvian Andes

"An international team of scientists has discovered a new species of lizard in the Peruvian Andes." end of quote

Albeit, it could be argued that it had always existed but just recently discovered or "rediscovered" .

So an orchid is still an orchid and a lizard is still a lizard; you can have new species within its kind of species; hence speciation.

BUT macroevolution as something that is no longer an orchid or no longer a lizard cannot be observed nor proven.

@Gus Bovona @Yttrium @TB2

 

[Yttrium]

BUT macroevolution as something that is no longer an orchid or no longer a lizard cannot be observed nor proven.

That's correct. Macroevolution on that level is theory, not observed or proven. And personally, I don't have a problem with the idea of a God of the gaps. But as far as biology is concerned, macroevolution is at least enough evolution to come up with a new species. We're really just quibbling on definitions here. Your major point is that there is a level of change that can't be demonstrated or proven. You don't want to call anything less than that macroevolution, but biologists do.

So you're going to continue to be frustrated when people say that macroevolution has been demonstrated as fact, but that's only because you (and a lot of fellow creationists) are using a somewhat different definition and insisting that everyone else go along with it.

I think it detracts from your point that there is a level of change that can't be demonstrated. Maybe creationists could come up with a new word for it. Biologists don't really care, since they're trying to demonstrate larger and larger amounts of changes all the time.

 

[TB2]

Then you are confusing what they had originally say is microevolution as from the Law of Biogenesis as variations within the species level as a cow will always be a cow and can never cease to be a cow even though they can become a different kind of cow.

Well, being an evolutionary biologist, I am certain that I'm not. This, however, is the second time you've confused microevolution, macroevolution, and Ernst Haeckel's Recapitulation Theory ("biogenetic law"). Dare I try again or will my efforts be wasted?

MICROEVOLUTION = Change in allele/gene frequency in a population (of the same species) over time. (FACT- we observe it)

MACROEVOLUTION (SPECIATION) = origin of a new species. This happens when individuals/populations of the same species that were once able to interbreed no longer can. If they are no longer able to interbreed, then they are now separate species. That's all macroevolution/speciation is. It can happen in a single step and often does. We have many examples of instantaneous speciation. (FACT- we observe it)

* Here's the problem you're having: YECs say microevolution is "small" changes within "kinds"; while macroevolution is "large" scale changes between kinds like the fish-to-amphibian transition.

But that's NOT actually what microevolution and macroevolution are. YECs hijacked the words and gave them their own definitions, and that's why people get confused.

*YECs can't even objectively define what constitutes a "kind." But no matter, that's not how scientists define microevolution and macroevolution. If one wants to debate evolution, then they need to at least know what they are debating.

And the "biogenetic law" has no relevance to any of this, but for posterity, I'll explain:

Recapitulation Theory/Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"): This was nineteenth century German embryologist Ernst Haeckel's theory that ontogeny (embryo development) recapitulates (repeats) phylogeny (evolutionary history). That as you go through the stages of development in an embryo we should be able to see each step of evolution history. (The "fish" stage the "amphibian" stage the "reptile" stage and so on). Haeckel was wrong. No one believes this anymore.

 

[TB2]

BUT macroevolution as something that is no longer an orchid or no longer a lizard cannot be observed nor proven

Well probably not by what I suspect are your 'standards' of 100% absolute proof that you require of others (but not yourself). But proved beyond a reasonable doubt, absolutely. For example, we have solid evidence for the fish-tetrapod transition from fossils, and also experimental evidence that demonstrates leg bones with attached musculature can appear in fish fins from just a single mutation.

People don't realize that things like the fish-tetrapod transition are genetically easier to do than getting the different branches of single celled protists (the pond water stuff).

We now have amassed extensive evidence that tiny, small scale genetic changes or tweaks to developmental pathways can instantly cause "major" physical/morphological changes in organisms.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Until it can be observed and proven that is just a pipe dream for the mechanism of macroevolution.

How do you know that different environments making different selection pressures hasn't been observed? Have you read everything about evolution? How else could you know that it has never been observed? "Never" is a big word.

. . . .

The fall of man by sin and thus the fall of creation is why everything will get worse. You are not seeing sin's effect on creation and that includes the universe.

Except you yourself acknowledge the reality of microevolution, in which generations of organisms adapt *better* - not worse - to their environment.