Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2017 12:03 PM
375 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,224 Year: 23,830/21,208 Month: 1,795/2,468 Week: 304/822 Day: 30/67 Hour: 1/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
60NextFF
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 196 of 893 (811110)
06-05-2017 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by RAZD
06-05-2017 7:51 AM


Re: The "foram" subphylum and speciation
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.

Thanks for explaining that.

Yes bring in Pelycodus again. As I showed before the difference between dogs of the SAME species is greater than the difference in the two varieties in the Pelycodus example. Even if it is speciation it does not show whether this was due to microevolution or macroevolution. It would at best show speciation within the kind which most Creationists have no problem with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 7:51 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2017 9:08 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 197 of 893 (811114)
06-05-2017 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by CRR
06-05-2017 8:16 AM


The "foram" subphylum and speciation and Pelycodus
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.

Thanks for explaining that.

You're welcome. This is another example of sex for Jar's thread, although it is about as asexual as sex can get.

Yes bring in Pelycodus again. As I showed before the difference between dogs of the SAME species is greater than the difference in the two varieties in the Pelycodus example. ...

Indeed, so here is the article and image again for reference:

quote:
A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

The dashed lines show the overall trend. The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

As you look from bottom to top, you will see that each group has some overlap with what came before. There are no major breaks or sudden jumps. And the form of the creatures was changing steadily.


... Even if it is speciation it does not show whether this was due to microevolution or macroevolution. ...

It is due to microevolution -- ALL evolution is due to microevolution. The difference between micro and macro is like the difference in looking at the same object with a microscope and a macroscope: with the microscope you can see individual fine details but not the whole object, with the macroscope you can see how all those details come together in a picture of the whole object.

This is why I say when you look at one branch (Notharctus nunienus for example) and trace it backwards to Pelycodus ralstoni you will see anagenesis, and when you look at the other branch ( Notharctus venticolus) and trace it back to Pelycodus ralstoni you will also see anagenesis. Both of them include Pelycodus jarrovii as a common ancestor population.

It is only when you see them dividing that you see cladogenesis. This is what Arnold and Parker would have seen in the foram record -- two lines of descent from a single common ancestor species.

It would be nice to have a picture of that, but unfortunately that is not provided. Maybe you email to Dr Parker can elicit this information.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by CRR, posted 06-05-2017 8:16 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 198 of 893 (811162)
06-05-2017 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by CRR
05-31-2017 8:02 AM


Minimum Macro
CRR writes:

There is no one canonical definition of micro- and macro-evolution. Elsewhere I have suggested that Durston's definitions might be used.

quote:

Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.

Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.


Let's look at what might be a minimum of "statistically significant" functional information.

1) A mutation or mutations gives an existing gene a new allele with a new function, changing the phenotype.

2) A duplication adds an extra copy of an existing coding gene that makes the same protein as the original, but does change the phenotype in that it increases the expression of the protein.

3) A duplication adds an extra copy of an existing coding gene which then mutates, diverging from the original, and adding a function which changes the phenotype. (2 followed by 1)

Which, if any, would involve a statistically significant increase in functional information?

Edited by bluegenes, : missing word


This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by CRR, posted 05-31-2017 8:02 AM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 5:03 PM bluegenes has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 199 of 893 (811294)
06-06-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by bluegenes
06-05-2017 12:47 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
Durston in the link previously given says that both "statistically significant" and "functional information" are measurable and provides links. Go back and re-read my previous posts.

Edited by CRR, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by bluegenes, posted 06-05-2017 12:47 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2017 6:19 PM CRR has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 200 of 893 (811303)
06-06-2017 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by CRR
06-06-2017 5:03 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
CRR writes:

Durston in the link previously given says that both "statistically significant" and "functional information" are measurable and provides links. Go back and re-read my previous posts.

I've already read them, and it's clear from them that you don't understand the Hazen paper on functional information that you linked to, because if you did, you'd understand that Durston does not have a way of measuring functional information. He just assumes, wrongly, that only one protein family can perform a given function, so he comes up with figures that have nothing to do with reality, or to do with the Hazen paper, which he is well known for continually mentioning, and continually misinterpreting.

It's well known that unrelated proteins can perform the same functions.

Now that you know this, you can write to Durston, tell him you're a creationist, and tell him what he has got wrong. Currently, he's misleading a lot of people like you.

To calculate the functional information in the examples in my last post, it would be necessary to find out the proportion of all proteins in sequence space that would perform the same function, and that's not easy to do. Durston has never done this for any specific function, I can assure you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 5:03 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 9:49 PM bluegenes has responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 201 of 893 (811309)
06-06-2017 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by bluegenes
06-06-2017 6:19 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
Fell free to contact Durston yourself.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2017 6:19 PM bluegenes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by bluegenes, posted 06-06-2017 10:33 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 202 of 893 (811314)
06-06-2017 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by CRR
06-06-2017 9:49 PM


Re: Minimum Macro
CRR writes:

Fell free to contact Durston yourself.

Why would I want to? He hasn't misled me. I assumed you'd want to put one of your fellow creationists right, now you understand his mistake.

Or do you understand?

I explained it about a week ago in Message 172, yet you keep on referring to him. Strange.

bluegenes in msg172 writes:

Kirk Durston makes the mistake of assuming that only proteins in an existing protein family will perform a given function, then estimating the variants of that family that would perform the function, then subtracting that from the total of all sequences. That's a good way of getting a very low proportion of the total, and therefore very high "functional information" content. That is then made into an improbability argument against evolution which appears to convince some creationists, but not biologists who know that unrelated proteins can perform the same functions.

I assume that you didn't know that last bit in bold before, otherwise you should have seen where Durston was going wrong. Now that you do know, are you going to continue to refer to him?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by CRR, posted 06-06-2017 9:49 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 203 of 893 (816663)
08-09-2017 6:58 AM


More definitions?
... from Message 107
microevolution = changes in gene frequencies and trait distributions that occur within populations and species
macroevolution = large evolutionary change, usually in morphology, typically refers to evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their plaecment in different genera or higher-level taxa
Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Taq, posted 08-09-2017 10:44 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2017 1:08 PM CRR has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 204 of 893 (816679)
08-09-2017 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by CRR
08-09-2017 6:58 AM


Re: More definitions?
CRR writes:

microevolution = changes in gene frequencies and trait distributions that occur within populations and species
macroevolution = large evolutionary change, usually in morphology, typically refers to evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their plaecment in different genera or higher-level taxa

To use an analogy, walking to the curb is microwalking and walking to the store is macrowalking. It seems that there is an arbitrary line between micro and macro.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by CRR, posted 08-09-2017 6:58 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 1:50 PM Taq has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18965
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 205 of 893 (816689)
08-09-2017 1:08 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by CRR
08-09-2017 6:58 AM


Re: More definitions? Problems?
macroevolution = large evolutionary change, usually in morphology, typically refers to evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their plaecment in different genera or higher-level taxa

The trouble I have with this is following the path of lineage, we have a breeding population that becomes a variety, then it becomes a species when the varieties are reproductively isolated, then it becomes a genus after daughter populations go through the variety\species category transition, and it becomes a family as the descendants continue to evolve varieties and species and genera ... etc etc etc ...

... but that first breeding population is not evolving, their descendants are, and often the clade founding population is extinct when it becomes a "family" or higher category.

It's just names, not a new mechanism or process of evolution. Species don't get placed in higher categories via their evolution, but through the production of descendants that produce descendants, etc, etc, etc.

That's why I prefer the definition of macroevolution as anagenesis and cladogenesis, evolution over many generations until the descendant population/s are deemed different enough from the parent population to be placed in a new species or multiple species.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by CRR, posted 08-09-2017 6:58 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Taq, posted 08-09-2017 1:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 208 by Tanypteryx, posted 08-09-2017 1:59 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 206 of 893 (816690)
08-09-2017 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by RAZD
08-09-2017 1:08 PM


Re: More definitions? Problems?
RAZD writes:

The trouble I have with this is following the path of lineage, we have a breeding population that becomes a variety, then it becomes a species when the varieties are reproductively isolated, then it becomes a genus after daughter populations go through the variety\species category transition, and it becomes a family as the descendants continue to evolve varieties and species and genera ... etc etc etc ...

Saying that macroevolution is the production of a new genus only shifts the problem to how we determine if two species belong to separate genera. As it turns out, that is entirely arbitrary. We could put humans and all other apes into the same genus tomorrow if we so choose. In fact, some scientists have argued for putting chimps and humans in the same genus (Homo troglodytes). We could put all primates in the same genus if we wanted to since everything outside of species is a human construct. There are thousands of species in the Drosophila genus, so numbers aren't a problem. In fact, there may even be more genetic diversity in the Drosophila genus than there is in the Primate order (may be worth a look). From a quick scan of the literature, the Drosophila genus has been evolving for 40 million years which is comparable to the evolution of the order Primate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2017 1:08 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26291
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 207 of 893 (816691)
08-09-2017 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Taq
08-09-2017 10:44 AM


the usual silly wrong linear analogy
To use an analogy, walking to the curb is microwalking and walking to the store is macrowalking. It seems that there is an arbitrary line between micro and macro.

'cept it isn't cuz evolution, meaning the development of new varieties. requires the loss of the genetic material for other varieties. You don't get a Husky without losing all the alleles for the salient characteristics of a Chihuahua. You don't get a blue wildebeest without losing the characteristics of a black wildebeest. If you have a series of population cuts that produce new varieties or races you will soon reach a point in that line of evolution where you've run out of genetic material for further evolution.

So the relevant analogy would be more like sculpting a statue. You get the desired image by getting rid of everything that doesn't belong to that image.* There may be better analogies but I haven't been able to find one that really does it.

===

*Of course if you're carving in stone it's not possible to add more stone, as in mutations; and if you're building it in clay you won't have your finished image for long if you keep slapping on more clay, as in mutations.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Taq, posted 08-09-2017 10:44 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Taq, posted 08-09-2017 2:39 PM Faith has responded
 Message 502 by DOCJ, posted 08-17-2017 10:57 PM Faith has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1577
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


(1)
Message 208 of 893 (816692)
08-09-2017 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by RAZD
08-09-2017 1:08 PM


Re: More definitions? Problems?
... but that first breeding population is not evolving, their descendants are, and often the clade founding population is extinct when it becomes a "family" or higher category.

It's just names, not a new mechanism or process of evolution. Species don't get placed in higher categories via their evolution, but through the production of descendants that produce descendants, etc, etc, etc.

This reminds me of debates we had here (at EvC) years ago about why there are no "new phyla" emerging from lineages that are evolving in the present. The answer, of course, is that all the species alive and evolving today already belong to a phylum.

It is certainly possible that any species alive today could produce descendant species, that produce descendant species, and so on, and that at some point in the future observers would see that the lineage of descendants make up a clade that is as unique from other clades that it could be described similarly to how we describe the clades within the phyla we see today.

Observing the earliest species of a clade gives the observer no clues what descendants it will evolve in the future. Looking back at a lineage we can see where microevolution became macroevolution through anagenesis or cladogenesis, but we do not see macroevolution as a process unique from microevolution.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2017 1:08 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7140
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 209 of 893 (816694)
08-09-2017 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
08-09-2017 1:50 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:

'cept it isn't cuz evolution, meaning the development of new varieties. requires the loss of the genetic material for other varieties.

That is preceded by the creation of new varieties by mutation.

Faith writes:

If you have a series of population cuts that produce new varieties or races you will soon reach a point in that line of evolution where you've run out of genetic material for further evolution.

You never run out of genetic variation because there are mutations in every individual in every generation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 1:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 08-09-2017 2:46 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26291
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 210 of 893 (816695)
08-09-2017 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Taq
08-09-2017 2:39 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Mutations only help if they occur before selection. Afterward they defeat the purpose of the selection, which is the evolution of a new variety.

Take the famous peppered moth example. The source of the black moth may be a mutation, but the whole population of black moths is the result of selecting out all the white moths. There may still be the genetic material for the white moths in some individuals of the population of black moths so that you can still get a new population of white moths under new selection pressure.

But the principle is that to get a population of the new variety requires losing the genetic stuff for the other variety.

QED

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Taq, posted 08-09-2017 2:39 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Taq, posted 08-09-2017 2:54 PM Faith has responded
 Message 213 by PaulK, posted 08-09-2017 3:15 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 215 by CRR, posted 08-09-2017 6:18 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1213
14
1516
...
60NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017