This thread is dedicated colewd’s question asking for an explanation of Douglas Theobold’s quote from a 2002 writing:
"The fundamentals of genetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, biochemistry, and geology are assumed to be fundamentally correct—especially those that do not directly purport to explain adaptation. However, whether microevolutionary theories are sufficient to account for macroevolutionary adaptations is a question that is left open"
What’s odd about this is the quote in question comes from this article titled:
29 Evidences for Macroevolution
Scientific Evidences for the
Theory of Common Descent with Gradual Modification
Version 2.4
Copyright © 2000-2002 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: February 21, 2002]
https://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution.html
.
.
.
I thought this was particularly appropriate since @colewd actually accused me of “circular reasoning”! And yet Theobold follows his words with this key statement:
"It must be stressed that this approach to demonstrating the scientific support for macroevolution is not a circular argument; the truth of macroevolution is not assumed a priori in this discussion. Simply put, the hypothesis of common descent, combined with modern biological knowledge, is used to deduce predictions; these predictions are then compared to the real world in order see how the hypothesis fairs in light of the observable evidence."
“In every example, it is quite possible that the predictions could fail to match the empirical evidence. In fact, without assuming the truth of universal common descent, it is highly probable that the hypothesis will indeed fail for most of these predictions - and this is exactly why many of these predictions are such strong evidence for common descent. The few examples given for each prediction are meant to be representative of general trends. By no means do I purport to state all predictions or potential falsifications; there are many more out there for the inquiring soul to uncover.”
Outline
Part I . One true phylogenetic tree
- Fundamental unity of life
- Nested hierarchy of species organization
- Independent convergence on true phylogeny
- Morphology of common ancestors
- Chronology of common ancestors
- Anatomical vestigial structures
- Molecular vestigial structures
- Ontogeny and developmental biology
- Present biogeography
- Past biogeography
Part 3 . Evolutionary opportunism
- Anatomical paralogy
- Molecular paralogy
- Anatomical convergence
- Molecular convergence
- Anatomical suboptimal function
- Molecular suboptimal function
- Functional evidence - protein redundancy
- Functional evidence - DNA redundancy
- Transposons
- Pseudogenes
- Endogenous retroviruses
- Genetic
- Morphological
- Functional
- The strange past
- Stages of speciation
- Speciation events
- Morphological rates
-
Genetic rates
Closing remarks
.
.
.
.
.
Continuing from a part of the PeacefulScience thread: Difference Between Beneficial and Innovative Mutations:
With a little luck, @colewd, you will understand a few of the 29 evidences!