Malachi256

YEC here, used to spend quite a bit of time in #Atheism on IRC years ago, decided to stop by here... might start posting a bit, not really sure =) Been interested in the whole creation/evolution debate since junior high, recently finished my M.S. in Bio after getting a B.S. in Ecology and Systematic Biology.


My question for you guys is this...

I teach Biology, and when I bring up evolution I divide it into two categories... Microevolution, which I define as "a change in allele frequency," and Macroevolution, which I loosely define as a "significant change among higher taxa." I go into more detail on each obviously, but this is not my question...

My question pertains to this further description...

I say that microevolution falls well within the bounds of the scientific method - it has been proven numerous times, and no educated persons, fundamentalist or not, question it - on the contrary, evolutionists and creationists alike rely on it. Experiments can be formulated and repeated to show that allele frequencies do fluctuate over time for populations.

I say that macroevolution, because it inherently takes a much longer period of time, is not so much proven by the scientific method (involving experiments demonstrating macroevolutionary changes, peer review and repetition of these experiments, etc), but rather it is more like a court case. Something either did or did not happen in the past, and it's up to us to search the evidence to see whether we think it really occured or not.

So, my question (finally) is... do you feel this is a fair description/analogy? Microevolution = proven science, Macroevolution = court case?

It may help to know that I point out to my classes that a vast majority of trained scientists believe the evidence is greatly in favor of macroevolution being true (while there does exist many other people with letters after their name who believe otherwise), and I pretty much only mention that I do not believe in macroevolution but am a creationist, and leave it up to students to question me after class if they have further interest.

Ty

Godless Dave

I think the scientific method is just as applicable to evidence from the past as it is to experiments carried out in the present. Otheriwse we would have to throw out geology, archeaology, and cosmology as well as biology.

Malachi256

I agree that there are scienfitic ways to look for evidence, and there are less refined methods...

But that doesn't change the fact that we cannot observe macroevolution in action, we cannot create macroevolutionary experiments (at least in the hopes of seeing them "finish"), we cannot measure and record all the mutations that occured during a macroevolutionary change...

We have to look at fossils, look at genetic-molecular information, etc, and make educated guesses (often based on current observable processes, but nonetheless then using uniformitarian assumptions to extrapolate backwards...).

I'm not trying to say that macroevolution is unscientific, but I am trying to separate it from microevolutionary study, because I think there is a definite dichotomy.

NialScorva

Just out of curiosity, where does the line between the two exist? At what point would a change in alelle frequency in a population become "macro" instead of "micro"?

Malachi256

Good question =)

Anything we discuss here will end up being a subjective human categorization... but that doesn't mean it's not an important discussion (glances at the "kinds" thread).

Tell me which concept of speciation you ascribe yourself to, and I will try to answer.

Edit: although I would appreciate sticking to the original question as well

NialScorva

Isn't one of the biggest selling points of science that it tries to limit, if not eliminate, the "subjective human" aspects?

It seems to me that before one makes a huge distinction, there should be at least a vague attempt at a qualitative distinction. The simplist method would be to look at species and the fossil record as a continuum (albiet a branching one), and argue that a sufficiently sized gap or discontinuity in the continuum is an example of the barrier between micro and macro evolution.

Does this sound reasonable?

Malachi256

So that would be the "morphological species concept"?

Edit: Also, I'm not sure I'm arguing that there is a barrier between them, at least from an evolutionary standpoint. Macroevolution is ultimately just microevolution + time - when one becomes the other isn't really the issue. The issue is the time - we can actively test one, but only find evidence of the other.

NialScorva

Testing is just a way of producing high quality evidence. A test that results in no evidence isn't terribly useful.

I'm not sure I see your position here, then. If macro=micro+time, then why differentiate at all? We know that micro happens. We know that time happens. What else is there left that causes macro to be a "court case"?

I'm sorry if I keep turning the question back on you, I'm just trying to understand your position.

Godless Dave

I think your distinction between "actively test" and "find evidence of" is artificial. Comparing sets of fossils is an active test. Using radiocarbon dating to establish the age of some rock is an active test. I don't think scientific inquiry should be limited by human life spans.

Malachi256

So you're trying to tell me that that my ability to determine:
A: Whether OJ is guilty or not

and

B: gravity's acceleration is 9.8 m/(s*s)

is the same?