> My understanding of it is that intelligent design theorists agree that > microevolution occurs, but do not believe there is sufficient > justification for macroevolution. Is this also your understanding of the > intelligent design position? How would you respond to that position? > >Rod >
I would argue that this is a false dichotomy. Remember that the process of by which new species are formed (speciation?) is thought to be caused by a sum of micro-evolutionary processes in reproductively isolated populations. Suppose you have an interbreeding fish population in a lake. Some natural event - say an earthquake - creates a barrier and results in the formation of two lakes. The populations are now reproductively isolated. Selective pressures in one of the lakes might be slightly different than in the other because one lake gets a bit more sunlight than thre other, supporting different algae populations. Selection occurs in both populations - gene frequencies change - but differently in the two populations. Over the long haul, the two populations become different enough that interbreeding would in fact be impossible were they to be put back together. Now there are two species where there was once one - but curiously neither species has undergone "macro-evolution" - the two populations have simply undergone different microevolution. Evidence? Of course, all evidence of past evolution is indirect. But the evolution of marsupials in a reproductively-isolated Australia is one example. Darwin's Finches are of course another classic example. -- Jim Dougan --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
