No, and I hope the same is true for you! Thanks for the asurance, though,
those are important to throw in sometimes. :-)
> that wasn't my point. My original point was to respond to one email which
> said that if creationists concede microevolution, they've forfeited the
> whole ball game. I disagree. I think there is still plenty of grounds for
> a good, healthy debate in the arena of macroevolution.
I think this depends on what you mean by 'macroevolution.' If you
mean common ancestry, then the two are related by 'microevolution' being
an answer to the very natural conceptual to common ancestry of wanting to
know a mechanism whereby speciation/adaptation/etc. could happen. By
conceding microevolution, Creationists are (I think) basically agreeing
with what biologists of 150 years ago concluded: that Darwin's suggested
mechanisms were indeed sufficient to overcome this objection.
If by 'macroevolution' you mean something more like 'selectionism,' then
yes, that debate is current and there is a lot of room for disagreement,
as data seems much harder to come by (at present, at least).
> to nail down a definition in terms of "species", but I think you get the
> idea). Variations in populations at higher levels would be what *I*
> consider macroevolution.
But surely you agree that there is variation in the population of animals
taken at a higher level than species! We can find fossils of dinosaurs
which correspond to no living animals (and many others abound). So there
*is* variation in the higher-than-species-level populations of living things.
> humans are descendents of Adam -- Adam is our common ancestor. When you
> look at it this way, shouldn't a creationist be a stronger proponent of
> microevolution than an evolutionist?
:-) Many are; many think there were only a few 'kinds' on the ark, and
those have since microevolved incredibly rapidly to yield what we see
today.
> > Eldredge would think much differently. You are aware, aren't you, that
> > both of them are firmly behind common ancestry, and are of the opinion
> > simply that they have a new way of explaining that; that is, they are
> > involved in the modern pursuit of explanations *for* common descent,
> > and not defenses *of* it?
>
> So what?
>
> Yes, I am aware that Eldredge, like Gould, is a staunch evolutionist. But
> the quote from Eldredge above has nothing to do with creation or
> evolution.
Certainly it does. Eldredge is kicking dirt on his opponents in the current
debate over the mechanisms of common ancestry. Since this *is* the debate
in evolutionary theory nowadays (or, more conservatively, one of the key
questions), how can it not be about evolution?
> One of the reasons why Eldredge and Gould proposed the theory of
> punctuated equilibrium was all of this evidence that paleontologists were
> uncovering which didn't fit the accepted theory of the day: that life
> evolved at a continuously gradual pace. Punctuated equilibrium gave these
> paleontologists' findings a legitimacy that they didn't have before.
>
> There. Does that satisfy you that I'm not quoting Eldredge out of
> context?
Yes. Thanks for the additional explanation. :-)
> > I can't imagine you aren't aware that the proposition is that the
> > stars are much older than that...
> >
>
> Augh! That's not my point. Jupiter exists today. It is right there. We
> can see it. We even sent a satellite out to take pretty pictures of it.
> Direct Observation. We've been observing it for thousands of years. When
> was the last time we observed The Great Common Ancestor?
Are you saying we need to observe common ancestors to think they exist?
In that case, where is Adam? Where is Jacob?
Common ancestry is supported by evidence other than direct observation
of trillions of conceptions, births, and so on. But this is true of
practically all our knowledge.
> I wasn't aware that microevolution and macroevolution weren't
> "conventional terms." They're right there in my handy-dandy Webster's
> Ninth Collegiate Dictionary. Were they taken out since then?
I mean within the field. Science isn't done with Webster's, or even
the Encyclopedia Britannica! :-)
> > there is no necessity that the mechanisms
> > we observe today are responsible for common ancestry.
>
> Exactly my point. You see, we agree more than we disagree.
Yep. I think the thread summary above is one we both agree with. (Although
I'm not completely sure yet we're clear on terminology, but that's of
way-secondary importance :-))
> Gosh darn it, ya caught me. I was bluffing about there being different
> theories for macro and microeconomics. I'm not even sure there IS such a
> thing as micro or macroeconomics. I'm not quite sure why they gave me an
> A in those classes that I THINK were called "Intro to Macroeconomics" and
> "Intro to Microeconomics" about four years ago, or why they decided to
> give me an MBA degree since those classes -- if they exist, that is -- are
> required courses. Yep. Don't know nothin' 'bout economics here!
:-) Theories of economics nowadays are based very explicitly on the
individual actions of consumers.
> Sorry. I just couldn't resist. You attacked me. I'm just defending
> myself. I know what I know. I'm sorry if I don't keep up on the latest
> developments in every course of study I have ever taken in my 30 years of
> life on this planet. I wasn't aware that four years were enough to change
> the entire nature of economic theory.
No, but after fiascoes like supply-side and such-like, the more
consumer-action-oriented fields are definitely getting the attention
they have long deserved, and perhaps are even going to be listened to!
Perhaps I'm biased, because Caltech is a fairly hot spot for this sort
of economics approach, and I've been to many of their seminars and
become a convert. :-)
> Couldn't the same be applied to evolution? Couldn't microevolution and
> macroevolution be separated in the same manner, since the mechanisms we
> see evident in one (micro) do not appear to be sufficient to explain the
> other (macro)?
The situation in biology is fairly similar to the one in consumer-action-
oriented economics. That is, it is the conventional approach to figure
that the 'micro' level processes add up in some way to the 'macro' level
processes. This addition can involve interesting new dynamics, in
sort of the same way you get non-quantum dynamics out of microparticles
when you get enough of them together, and so there *is* (I think) a
legitimate argument that the higher-level processes can be understood
phenomenologically on their own terms without understanding what goes
into them. So that's where we agree that we agree (regarding evolutionary
theory, at least :-)): understanding the micro-level effects doesn't
mean you have a grasp of how they are related on a larger level, and
what you know at the larger level doesn't mean you have a grip on the
micro-processes.
> Whew! I'm tired. This 30-year-old body ain't good at keeping up with you
> college boys anymore!
:-) No need to set deadlines. Email keeps! :-)
Thanks for talking,
-Greg