|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
There is no one canonical definition of micro- and macro-evolution. Elsewhere I have suggested that Durston's definitions might be used.
Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.
From Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Two Mistakes Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information. This at least avoids the argument about where speciation falls between the two. Speciation could be either micro- or macro-evolution depending on the change that caused it. Another view can be found at Frequently raised but weak arguments against Intelligent Design – Uncommon Descent where they say
... Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of elementary sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events. ... Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the function of the software. RAZD links to an article The Foram Fossils from which he quotes
quote: However as far as I can tell from the article the record starts with forams and ends with forams. Rather than seeing "hundreds of speciation events" they have documented the development of hundreds of varieties of the same species. Thus we have not observed "macro"evolution in this case.
What is the difference between "genus" "family" "order" and all those other taxonomic classifications?
The Linnaean taxonomic system was developed ~200 years ago but the concept and definition of species has changed since. Since there are known hybrids between Linnaean species and genera it does not fit well the Biological Species concept based on the ability to produce viable offspring. Perhaps we should be using different words for Linnaean vs Biological species but for now the word "species" can have different meanings. For now at least the Linnaean taxonomic system provides a way for scientists to specify particular organisms.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 9973 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
CRR writes: Elsewhere I have suggested that Durston's definitions might be used. As soon as I demonstrated an increase in functional information you rejected that definition. From the Uncommon Descent definition:
Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. I think you, I, and everyone else would agree that the differences between humans and chimps equates to macroevolution. I would hazard a guess that you do not accept humans and chimps descending from a common ancestor. So what complex functions separate humans and chimps? If you can't answer that question, then it would seem this definition doesn't work either.
However as far as I can tell from the article the record starts with forams and ends with forams. Now you are using the creationist name game. This is where you claim it is microevolution if you can use the same word to group two species. So let's see how that works out for you. Humans and apes evolving from a common ancestor would be microevolution because they are all still within Hominidae. Humans, bears, and echidnas evolving from a common ancestor would be microevolution because they started out as mammals and ended up as mammals. Those are just varieties of mammal species. Humans, frogs, and fish evolving from a common ancestor is also microevolution because the common ancestor was a vertebrate, and all the modern species are still vertebrates. See a problem here?
Since there are known hybrids between Linnaean species and genera it does not fit well the Biological Species concept based on the ability to produce viable offspring. The biological species concept allows for hybrids, so it isn't a problem. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
However as far as I can tell from the article the record starts with forams and ends with forams. Rather than seeing "hundreds of speciation events" they have documented the development of hundreds of varieties of the same species. Thus we have not observed "macro"evolution in this case. You do realize that foraminifera is a subphylum ... right? So this is like saying you started with placental mammals and you ended with placental mammals and all that is documented is varieties of placental mammals ...
quote: The Linnaean taxonomic system was developed ~200 years ago but the concept and definition of species has changed since. Since there are known hybrids between Linnaean species and genera it does not fit well the Biological Species concept based on the ability to produce viable offspring. Perhaps we should be using different words for Linnaean vs Biological species but for now the word "species" can have different meanings. For now at least the Linnaean taxonomic system provides a way for scientists to specify particular organisms.
Yep the Linnaean system is becoming more and more unworkable as we develop the cladistics further, see the "unranked" categories above, inserted because the Linnaean system wasn't adequate to explain the evidence. Isn't it great how science adapt to new information, rather than cling with dogmatic fervor to unreasonable views? With cladistics we don't need to worry about problems cause by an artificial classification system such as Linneaus developed: it has served it's purpose, but it is time to retire. Also with cladistics we see that the important element is genetic isolation -- the lack of breeding behavior is sufficient. There is also a braided pattern that occurs during the speciation process -- see Interweaving Evolution & Hybrid Vigor for more. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
A "foram" is a single-celled ocean plankton, either free-floating or else bottom dwelling.
The series starts with a single-celled ocean plankton, and ends with a single-celled ocean plankton. Or more specifically the fossil shells of a single-celled ocean plankton. The only evolution in evidence is the shape of the shells.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A "foram" is a single-celled ocean plankton, either free-floating or else bottom dwelling. The series starts with a single-celled ocean plankton, and ends with a single-celled ocean plankton. Or more specifically the fossil shells of a single-celled ocean plankton. Yes a rather generic description for the whole Subphylum. Just like a description of mammals as "... a clade of endothermic amniotes distinguished from reptiles (including birds) by the possession of a neocortex (a region of the brain), hair, three middle ear bones and mammary glands. Females of all mammal species nurse their young with milk, secreted from the mammary glands." ... and of course the descendants of mammals will always be mammals ... The summary article you linked to is based on the one I provided in Message 1 and it goes on to say
quote: Classify the genus and species of the forams in the study. When we go to the article in Message 1 that this data is taken from they say
quote: Many speciation events, hundreds of species lineages, a virtually complete fossil record with all the transitionals ...
The only evolution in evidence is the shape of the shells. Yep little critters, but we get the whole skeleton in these fossils. Is this a problem for you? As noted in Message 1: "This is the essence of the debate: when does change become sufficient to be "macro"evolution and how does it occur." For scientists using the technical definition for "macro"evolution this occurs when we have speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies of descent. This is seen in multitudes in this record of the Foraminifera subphylum. If you want to see more change than that, you are going to have to define when it will be enough to convince you. Like the people quoted in Message 1 that somehow never really got around to doing that. It seems a common creationist ploy -- as long as you never define something like this then you can argue it hasn't occurred ... all you need to do is move the goalposts every time evidence is presented. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Explain to me, precisely, how each new species is identified.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Why?
You should ask the scientists, I only report what they said (and that others agreed with). Of course that would mean effort on your part, but it is not my job to do your homework. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
You introduced them to the discussion. Since you're not willing to back it up I'll just assume we can neglect this as relevant to the discussion.
Hmmm. Time for my nap. Edited by CRR, : nap time.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
CRR writes: You introduced them to the discussion. Since you're not willing to back it up I'll just assume we can neglect this as relevant to the discussion. The thing about real science is that if you actually want to you can find anything you need to just by looking. Here's the World Foramifera Database. Foraminifera - The World Foraminifera Database This comprises all the know species along with the biologist that described them. Now, as an armchair paeleontologist you'll no doubt dispute individual organisms and their place in the taxa, in which case you need to take that up with the Editors as that's what they're there for. So far they have upwards of 36,000 species. So what exactly is your point of dispute - just more semantics?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Since FORAMINIFERA don't reproduce sexually classification of foraminifera has been based primarily on characters of the shell or test. Wall composition and structure, chamber shape and arrangement, the shape and position of any apertures, surface ornamentation, and other morphologic features of the shell are all used to define taxonomic groups of foraminifera.
Ref: FORAM FACTS - OR AN INTRODUCTION TO FORAMINIFERA Are these really separate species or are they persistent varieties? So basically all that Arnold and Parker have identified is a change in shape of the shell. Speciation or just a gradual change in the phenotype of one species? Micro or macro evolution? Simply put, we don't know. Speciation in itself is not necessarily a precise marker of macroevolution. The London Underground Mosquito is recognized as a new species but is still undeniably a mosquito. I suspect this is why Berkley in Evolution 101 have speciation as a separate entry between micro and macroevolution.
Microevolution How does evolution work on a small scale? SpeciationWhat are species anyway, and how do new ones evolve? MacroevolutionHow does evolution work on a grand scale? In any case in the current taxonomic system we can get fertile hybrids between species and between genera. This is why I have said earlier that speciation could be either microevolution or macroevolution. This is why I think Durston's definitions have much to recommend them. Have Arnold and Parker demonstrated speciation in the forams? Maybe, or maybe not.Does this "speciation" demonstrate macroevolution? Maybe, or maybe not.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
You introduced them to the discussion. ... Along with the link that an interested person would follow for questions like yours. You do realize that it looks like you are trying to use semantics rather than actually look at the science. As was noted in the excerpt from the link Arnold and Palmer were doing the classifications. If you want to know how they did it then you need to ask them. Here's more:
quote: Do you see anything in there about them asking me how to do it? They were at Florida State University at the time -- contact them. If you dare.
... Since you're not willing to back it up I'll just assume we can neglect this as relevant to the discussion. So you'll use any excuse to dodge the issue. Typical creationist, never follow the information.
Hmmm. Time for my nap. You've been sleeping a long time dreaming a fantasy, maybe it's time to wake up to reality. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
Yes I followed the link and read the article. Nowhere does it say what criteria they used to say when speciation had occurred. What it did say was that it started with a single celled organism and ended with a single celled organism. The only apparent difference was the shape of the shell. Micro or macro? Maybe, maybe not.
Why don't you ask Tony Arnold"Ask Tony Arnold about an antique mandolin or an Afghanistani saddle-bag and the stories begin. The soft-spoken, former Professor of Geology and Paleontology at FSU will gently lead you through a two-minute course in history, politics, geography and the finer points of sheep wool." It’s been a magical ride for Arnold’s Oriental Rugs Edited by CRR, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
I really am getting tired of doing homework for creationists, especially when you don't read to learn but to cherry-pick one aspect and think that somehow refutes the whole work. Sorry, reality doesn't work that way.
... Nowhere does it say what criteria they used to say when speciation had occurred. What it did say was that it started with a single celled organism and ended with a single celled organism. ... Let's explore this in a little more depth. What it also said was that they observed hundreds of speciation events ...
quote: and in case you missed it in Evolution 101, speciation is the development of two or more species from a parent species. Not only is speciation observed here, and thus is a fact, the process of speciation forms a clade and thus this is biological macroevolution occurring. Ah, you'll likely quip "they're single cell critters and single cell critters reproduce asexually so how do you determine speciation with the biological species definition?" but again you will be operating on incomplete information, as Wiki points out:
quote: This gives them the advantage to produce several generations of clones (only modified by mutations) and the advantage of sexual recombination to develop more individuals successful at survival and reproduction in a shorter time frame, and also incidentally to undergo speciation with the biological species definition. Again, referring to evolution 101 on the types of speciation:
quote: This phyletic change (anagenesis) is seen in the foraminifera photo in the article:
... What it did say was that it started with a single celled organism and ended with a single celled organism. ... Are you seriously going to suggest that all single cell organisms (plant or animal) are of one species because they are all single cell organisms? Really?
... The only apparent difference was the shape of the shell. Micro or macro? Maybe, maybe not. And actually, both. As explained above.
Why don't you ask Tony Arnold "Ask Tony Arnold about an antique mandolin or an Afghanistani saddle-bag and the stories begin. The soft-spoken, former Professor of Geology and Paleontology at FSU will gently lead you through a two-minute course in history, politics, geography and the finer points of sheep wool." USA TODAY Please don't stoop to the level of Davidjay in posting ridiculous non-sequitur silliness. Now go take another nap and cogitate on the information you have received gratis, and maybe some of it will sink in. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2243 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis
This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary. If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, ...and in case you missed it in Evolution 101, speciation is the development of two or more species from a parent species.
and in case you missed it, you've just contradicted yourself since phyletic speciation does not result in two or more species from a parent species.
The foraminiferal life-cycle involves an alternation between haploid and diploid generations
You might have to educate me on this. As far as I can tell the diploid generation has a Multinucleated cell and doesn't involve sexual reproduction with another foram. I agree with you that "phyletic change (anagenesis) is seen in the foraminifera photo in the article." If anagenesis was all that occurred, then the entire series would be one species; as you said in your definition of anagenesis, and you haven't shown that divergent speciation has occurred. So while the series could show speciation by anagenesis the entire series would be one species; which appears to be an oxymoron. I told you where to find Tony Arnold, former Professor of Geology and Paleontology at FSU, so you could contact him for clarification if you wanted. I have sent an email to Dr Parker and I'll let you know if I get a response; although I don't think I should be doing your homework for you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
and in case you missed it, you've just contradicted yourself since phyletic speciation does not result in two or more species from a parent species. Again you are cherry picking statements and ignoring others. Did this just disappear because you ignored it?
quote: Looking at each branch and ignoring the other you will see anagenesis -- the process of evolution occurring in each generation -- but what you will be missing is that the anagenesis in each branch will be different after the split, different selection of different mutations.
The foraminiferal life-cycle involves an alternation between haploid and diploid generations
You might have to educate me on this. As far as I can tell the diploid generation has a Multinucleated cell and doesn't involve sexual reproduction with another foram. Conveniently ignoring the haploid generations? Forams, like many species (mosses for example) alternate sexual and asexual reproduction. You don't have sperm and egg sex, but haploid duplicates the nucleus then divides into two gamets which then combine with other gametes to produce a diploid cell.
quote: quote: quote: quote: That wasn't too hard was it?
I agree with you that "phyletic change (anagenesis) is seen in the foraminifera photo in the article." If anagenesis was all that occurred, then the entire series would be one species; as you said in your definition of anagenesis, and you haven't shown that divergent speciation has occurred. And yet it is stated in the article that it was observed hundred of times.
I told you where to find Tony Arnold, former Professor of Geology and Paleontology at FSU, so you could contact him for clarification if you wanted. I have sent an email to Dr Parker and I'll let you know if I get a response; ... Apologies, I thought you were funnin' me by posting some arbitrary Tony Arnold found on the web. Please let me know if you get a response from Dr Parker. But if you want examples of speciation there are many more. We can always bring in Pelycodus again. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024