7 ms·

Have we observed fruit flies evolve? By evolve I mean macro evolution.

klodolph 9y ago
The argument for micro/macro evolution is weak (what, exactly, is the line between micro and macro? why would one be different from the other? if a car can drive 10 miles and 100 miles, do you need a completely new theory to test if it can drive 1,000 miles?) and the distinction between laboratory observations and historical observations (fruit flies or bacteria in a lab versus fossil records) is not one that distinguishes science from not science, otherwise astronomy wouldn't be a science either, since you can't exactly put a star in a lab.
24gttghh 9y ago
Not fruit flies, but in Cetacea at least?[0] [0]http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(14)00084-6 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-...
stormking 9y ago
The distinction between micro and macro evolution is a typical strawman. Everything one can't deny anymore without looking incredible stupid is called "microevolution", the rest "macroevolution". There are still many areas where we don't know the exact machanics, but evolution in itself is a fact.
- tertius 9y ago
  I think he merely means the difference between an organism silencing/expressing or losing genetic material or an organism gaining genetic material. Both can alter function. One is observed the other not (according to those who argue micro/macro).
- Ngunyan 9y ago
  I don't make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I used other people's terms to make clear which part of this theory of evolution I want proven. Evolution's core claim is that man evolved from other organisms lower in the evolutionary tree. This is what I want proven in a scientific manner. How can it be a fact if one does not know how one-celled organisms managed to evolve into humans? You can call it a fact once the mechanism is well-understood. Until then, it's not yet a fact. Evolutionists arguments, if you're paying attention, are in fact circular.
pdonis 9y ago
> Have we observed fruit flies evolve? Yes. > By evolve I mean macro evolution. There is no such thing as "micro" vs. "macro" evolution in evolutionary theory. There's just evolution. Species are not absolute boundaries; they are just convenient labels we use to group organisms for purposes of taxonomy.
- Ngunyan 9y ago
  > There is no such thing as "micro" vs. "macro" evolution in evolutionary theory. There's just evolution. I agree. > Species are not absolute boundaries; they are just convenient labels we use to group organisms for purposes of taxonomy. I agree as well. As a matter of fact, this fuzzy definition of species is being exploited by evolutionists to "prove" macro-evolution is demonstrable. Going back to whether fruit flies evolve, what other different organism did they evolve into, different from a fruit fly?
- oldandtired 9y ago
  Incorrect, the macro vs micro evolution concepts have been used by evolutionists since the late 1920's. Species is an ill defined concept and means different things in different contexts without the specific meaning used being defined. Lots of hand waving and no substance.
  - pdonis 9y ago
    > the macro vs micro evolution concepts have been used by evolutionists since the late 1920's They are used as concepts to organize things to make them easier to understand. They are not used to make actual predictions.
    - oldandtired 9y ago
      I'll say it again. Ya canna ha ya cak en et it tu. In addition, what testable predictions has evolutionary theory made about existing organisms on this planet? Not interested in any prediction about things long past as you can modify any theory in any field to match up to such findings. What can evolutionary theory predict today that we can test as an outcome by going out and finding those predictions in living organisms today? That should be an easy question to answer if there is any veracity in the evolutionary model/theory.

The argument for micro/macro evolution is weak (what, exactly, is the line between micro and macro? why would one be different from the other? if a car can drive 10 miles and 100 miles, do you need a completely new theory to test if it can drive 1,000 miles?) and the distinction between laboratory observations and historical observations (fruit flies or bacteria in a lab versus fossil records) is not one that distinguishes science from not science, otherwise astronomy wouldn't be a science either, since you can't exactly put a star in a lab.

24gttghh 9y ago

Not fruit flies, but in Cetacea at least?[0] [0]http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347(14)00084-6 http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-...

stormking 9y ago

The distinction between micro and macro evolution is a typical strawman. Everything one can't deny anymore without looking incredible stupid is called "microevolution", the rest "macroevolution". There are still many areas where we don't know the exact machanics, but evolution in itself is a fact.

tertius 9y ago
I think he merely means the difference between an organism silencing/expressing or losing genetic material or an organism gaining genetic material. Both can alter function. One is observed the other not (according to those who argue micro/macro).
Ngunyan 9y ago
I don't make a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. I used other people's terms to make clear which part of this theory of evolution I want proven. Evolution's core claim is that man evolved from other organisms lower in the evolutionary tree. This is what I want proven in a scientific manner. How can it be a fact if one does not know how one-celled organisms managed to evolve into humans? You can call it a fact once the mechanism is well-understood. Until then, it's not yet a fact. Evolutionists arguments, if you're paying attention, are in fact circular.

pdonis 9y ago

> Have we observed fruit flies evolve? Yes. > By evolve I mean macro evolution. There is no such thing as "micro" vs. "macro" evolution in evolutionary theory. There's just evolution. Species are not absolute boundaries; they are just convenient labels we use to group organisms for purposes of taxonomy.

Ngunyan 9y ago
> There is no such thing as "micro" vs. "macro" evolution in evolutionary theory. There's just evolution. I agree. > Species are not absolute boundaries; they are just convenient labels we use to group organisms for purposes of taxonomy. I agree as well. As a matter of fact, this fuzzy definition of species is being exploited by evolutionists to "prove" macro-evolution is demonstrable. Going back to whether fruit flies evolve, what other different organism did they evolve into, different from a fruit fly?
oldandtired 9y ago
Incorrect, the macro vs micro evolution concepts have been used by evolutionists since the late 1920's. Species is an ill defined concept and means different things in different contexts without the specific meaning used being defined. Lots of hand waving and no substance.
- pdonis 9y ago
  > the macro vs micro evolution concepts have been used by evolutionists since the late 1920's They are used as concepts to organize things to make them easier to understand. They are not used to make actual predictions.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    I'll say it again. Ya canna ha ya cak en et it tu. In addition, what testable predictions has evolutionary theory made about existing organisms on this planet? Not interested in any prediction about things long past as you can modify any theory in any field to match up to such findings. What can evolutionary theory predict today that we can test as an outcome by going out and finding those predictions in living organisms today? That should be an easy question to answer if there is any veracity in the evolutionary model/theory.