Isn't the evidence for macro evolution quite weak?

Question

Fossils complexity evolving in time: I am a researcher myself and I know that naturally every researcher in a field feels a pressure not to discredit his/her colleagues. If the evidence is weak, I don't expect a majority, but only a few to acknowledge it. This is exactly what I see. Paleontologists boldly claim that there is a big gaps between the collected fossils and what we infer from them.

Transitional links: There are so few. For example, we have something between birds and dinosaurs. So what? Where is the gradual evolution? We see gradual micro evolution, but we don't see gradual macro evolution.

Absence of quantitative models: Complexity is no excuse not to have a quantitative model. Chemistry is overwhelmingly complex if seen in terms of elementary particles, but yet we have quantitative models for chemical properties. Where is the quantitative model for macro evolution? Have seen explanations, but they don't use mutations. Aren't mutations needed?

Answer 1

Evolution is the best explanation for the biodiversity we see on semi-isolated archipelagoes and islands. Principles learned in these places can be applied to the continents and oceans... and to the fossil record.



We can't have a "beyond a shadow of a doubt certainty" explanation here, since we can't move back in time ourselves and observe what actually happened. Macroevolution is the "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "smoking gun" explanation. There are no good, or useful, alternatives.

Answer 2

"29+ Evidences for Macroevolution":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/



Normally, rather than just send somebody to a site, I just summarize the main points, and use the site as a backup source. But based on your past posts, abc, I would refer you instead to the entire site ... especially the Introduction.



But to address your points:



>"Paleontologists boldly claim that there is a big gaps between the collected fossils and what we infer from them."



They do?? I've never heard a paleontologist say that. The science of paleontology (like that of archaeology) is like putting together jigsaw puzzles. One specimen tells you a little bit. Another specimen tells you something different. Both specimens *together* tell you something else ...and once you have dozens to hundreds of specimens, the picture of that species starts to become clearer. Once we have not only hundreds of specimens but hundreds of *species*, then the longterm development starts to become clearer.



>"Transitional links: There are so few."



That is just flat-out untrue. Some transitions are not well documented in the fossil record ... but some transitions are *beautifully* documented. It is just blatantly overstating your point, and ignoring the evidence, to say that "there are so few."



The talkorigins site has a massive page on the fossil records of transitional forms:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Including, yes, reptiles to birds, rfishes to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, and the transitional record of primates, bats, carnivores, rodents, etc., There's a dedicated page just to the beautifully documented transitional evolution of the horse:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html



"There are so few"?? You jest.



As for quantitative models ... I've gone round and round with you on the issue of what constitutes a model, and it seems you would not be satisfied until we had a top-down reduction from the creation of genera, families, and orders, down to the quantum mechanics in the electron shell of the DNA molecule. So I'll stipulate that a model to *that* degree of quantitative detail will *long* be under construction.



So I'll just offer that this is different from the question at the top of your post ... "isn't the evidence for macroevolution quite weak?" The evidence that such macroevolution *has occurred* is overwhelming! This is completely independent of whether the model of what causes macroevolution is 'quantitative' enough to satisfy your hyper-reductionist idea of what a complete "model" is. The evidence that macroevolution has occurred (i.e. that all living species are related by common ancestry) is incredibly *strong*.

Answer 3

of course there are gaps in the fossil record and as a sole source of evidence they would not make a seamless timeline of evolution. however, as i am sure you are aware, paleontologists do infer things based on other evidence as well, including microevolution. you can break it down in a sort of destructionist way, but it really isn't like that.



one other point, if you are expecting to see 'gradual' evolution, forget about it. if you consider natural selection to be valid, and only the fittest survive, intermediate (meaning transition species) may not have existed long enough for us to find their fossils. for example, we have chimps and orangutans... very similar but distinct... why is there nothing in between? and if there were, why isn't there anything in between that and the others etc. you can keep going and going but that misses the whole picture.



one final note, macro evolution as we think of it takes place over millions or billions of years. these numbers are hard to fathom (not saying you can't). even though it's hard to believe something like a bird could have evolved from a dinosaur because we a humans think of time in thousands of years at best, over millions of years it's not hard to think that changes could have occurred and fossils of intermediate species were lost.





you can alter the theory to fit the evidence (evolution) or you can alter the evidence to fit your theory (creationist)





quantitative: species A plus mutation B in presence of selective pressure C time time X = heritable variation



what is missing is that C is always unclear, but that's the equation. all other variables can be found

Answer 4

Only creationist use the terms " macro and micro evolution. " Evolutionary scientists do not distinguish between the two, because the know it is one process; evolution and speciation. Paleontologist say what?!?! This, I think is disingenuous of you. Sounds rather like creationist/ID propaganda.

We prefer to speak of transitional features, as transitional links infers linearity. For the time span, we see gradual enough evolution. You forget punctuated equilibrium and facilitated variation.

Absence of quantitative models?!?!?! You have heard of the Neo-Darwinian synthesis? Did you forget the mathematical modeling of Haldane, Fisher and Wright? Not to mention the 60's-70's mathematical modeling of Williams, Hamilton,Maynard-Smith and Robert Trivers.

Mutations suppl;y random variation and their rates are fairly quantified.

I suggest you inform yourself in evolutionary theory before your next sortie.



Recuse yourself from any jury that may need consider circumstantial evidence.



Haldane, Wright and Fisher were the founders of population genetics who used mathematical approaches to solve such problems as linkage, frequency and distribution of genes in population. Haldane was interested in mathimatical approaches to natural selection. These are all easy googles.

Williams, Hamilton, Maynard-Smith and Trivers were evolutionary biologist working on mathimatical and genetical approaches to such problems as kin selection, reciprocal altruism and how genes for such could spread in populations.

This does not even begin to mention the tierless geneticists, who track the molecular basis of speciation.

You have much reading to do, so I would start with the population geneticists, Haldane, Wright and Fisher.



Mutations are usually neutral, but when not, they usually do not give but a little variational advantage.

You would marry a woman that was variationally 3 inches above the mean height, wouldn't you?



I am close enough to Berkeley and that lot of fuctional biologist, to spit at them. I often do. You will not see me use that site to refer someone to evolutionary theory. I prefer talkorigins. I stand by my definitions.



YOU MISS AN IMPORTANT POINT. It is variation (mutational variation ) and selection that are the main part of all evolutionary processes. That is why we do not dichotomize " micro and macro. "

Answer 5

If you replace the red bricks of a house with yellow bricks, one by one, eventually you will have a yellow house.

If you let small changes be added into the gene pool of a species, eventually you will have another one.

If you have many "micro-evolutions", guess what will they become with enough time?