'Micro' evolution vs 'macro' evolution

SLPXThe way creationists understand this paradox is via natural selection and genomic loss.We imagine that one of the kinds was an animal even more generic than a liger and that it developed into the lion, tigger and leopard simply via reproduciuton and natural selection. This involved wholesale loss of genes/functions in some lineages. In some cases these specialisations generated reproductive barriers understandably. An alternaitve is also a lio-tig-lep kind included fully formed lions, tiggers and leopards that could reproduce togther but that this has been partially lost resulting in the repdoductively sperated leopard (I presume) and the liger that is infertile.The modern day example of the wild mustard being submitted to artificial selection and generating brocolli, cauliflower and cabbage presumably through allelic variation and gene loss is an almost perfect model system for this proposal. No evolutionist in the world proposes that new genes wer erequired to generate these varied forms - these forms were potentials of the wild genome.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-20-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
SLPX

​

The way creationists understand this paradox is via natural selection and genomic loss.

---

Any evidence for this large scale genomic loss?

^ Evolutionists claim it every time they compare genera of bacteria for example. They have hundreds of genus specific genes - except these genes can be found in other organisms. Some of it is put down to horizontal transfer , but it is mostly ascribed to genetic loss due to niche filling.There is no controversy here.Our analogy of created kinds with, eg, wild mustard, is near perfect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Evolutionists claim it every time they compare genera of bacteria for example. They have hundreds of genus specific genes - except these genes can be found in other organisms. Some of it is put down to horizontal transfer , but it is mostly ascribed to genetic loss due to niche filling.

​

There is no controversy here.

​

Our analogy of created kinds with, eg, wild mustard, is near perfect.

---

Your problem is that there were thousands of wild mustard plants, but allegedly only two, or seven, or whatever, ligerpards. How did this few individuals carry so many different alleles of each gene?

Ouch, TB. This has got to be one of the more untenable corners you've every painted yourself into.

quote:

---

We imagine that one of the kinds was an animal even more generic than a liger and that it developed into the lion, tigger and leopard simply via reproduciuton and natural selection. This involved wholesale loss of genes/functions in some lineages. In some cases these specialisations generated reproductive barriers understandably. An alternaitve is also a lio-tig-lep kind included fully formed lions, tiggers and leopards that could reproduce togther but that this has been partially lost resulting in the repdoductively sperated leopard (I presume) and the liger that is infertile.

---

All right, there's a couple of ways to blow this one out of the water (*cheap reference to the Flood*).1. How many "kinds" of cats are there (to use your example)? If we take it that there is one cat kind, your multipurpose cat genome must not only contain the three you referenced, but all other cats, including kodkod, Andean mountain cat, jaguar, oncilla, margay, Canada lynx, bobcat, Geoffroy’s cat, puma, ocelot, jaguarundi, and the pampas cat in the New World. Chinese mountain cat, swamp cat, black-footed cat, the Asiatic, European, and Libyan wildcats, sand cat, Pallas’s cat, marbled cat, clouded leopard, serval, flat-headed cat, rusty-spotted cat, leopard cat, iriomote cat, fishing cat, Bornean bay cat, Asiatic golden cat, African golden cat, caracal, and snow leopard — not to mention the dozen species of extinct cats like Pontosmilus, Megantereon, Smilodon, Homotherium etc. This was all one interbreeding species 4500 years ago? Puhleease. I almost forgot our domestic cat Felis catus - which was known as a distinct animal from ancient Egypt! Even postulating that the pharonic dynasties post-date the flood, the fact that Egyptians had recognizably modern domestic cats such a short time ago means that your hypercat speciated REALLY quickly.2. There are fossil leopards and lions - anatomically distinct and quite readily identifiable - from England dating to the Late Pleistocene (~120,000 ya). Where are the fossils of the multivariate monospecies of ultracat you are postulating from 4500 years ago? Remember, only one pair (or seven or whatever) was actually on the ark. Where are the bones, fossils, etc of the REST of the population?

Good point guys. And I have thought about it. Are you sure I didn't mention it to you guys? For a start I'm not claiming that Panthera was definitely a kind, but for the sake of argument what we need to do is:1. Check out howmany alleles these families typically have
2. See which of these are due to completely trivial point mutationsFrom experience I have in SNPs and alleles (gained on this web site mostly) alleles within in human kind are generally simple point mutations. I simply have no idea what they are in lions vs tigers.I suspect that the main differences between lions and tigers, for example, may actually be in differential losses of entire genes. It will be fascinating to ultimately have a pair of interbreeding genomes and see what has happened.From my readings on the genomes of clsoely realted bacteria most differences are put down to differnetial gene loss.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-03-2002]

"The main point I was trying to make with virii in general, is that
they are life forms, but very different ones."Ok, I just couldn't leave this one alone. In high school biology you learn the basic qualities something must have to be alive, and therefore a life form. Virii are not alive because they are not able to reproduce without the aid of a cell to produce those offspring. This is covered in basic biology, and most textbooks cite virii as examples of something non-living that is often mistaken as being alive. Unless you're stating that the definition of what makes something living is wrong, then you have a whole scientific community to convince.~thunder~

Hi TBTB:
Good point guys. And I have thought about it. Are you sure I didn't mention it to you guys? From experience I have in SNPs and alleles (gained on this web site mostly) alleles within in human kind are generally simple point mutations. I simply have no idea what they are in lions vs tigers.M: Actually, there are also a lot of deletions and insertion events, not to mention micro and mini satellite expansions and contraction (though you could argue those fall into the insertion/deletion class)TB:
I suspect that the main differences between lions and tigers, for example, may actually be in differential losses of entire genes. It will be fascinating to ultimately have a pair of interbreeding genomes and see what has happened.M: On what basis do you assume that tigers or lions have lost entire genes? I would assume they have mutations leading to difference in gene regulation i.e. hox genes for morphological differences. But I would assume they have not lost anything substantial. I would also point out, tigers and lions do not interbreed so I am not sure what you mean by interbreeding genomes.TB:
From my readings on the genomes of clsoely realted bacteria most differences are put down to differnetial gene loss.M: Gain and loss. Did I post you the Lenski study? There is also a speciation paper in Science this week on yeast speciation after 1000 generations. It is not differential gene loss primarily involved.Cheers,
M

Although gene loss is not necessary for speciation it does seem to happen in some cases after speciation. For example humans have lost several genes that our closest relatives the chimpanzees have such as CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase, flavin-containing monooxygenase 2 and the V10 T cell receptor gamma gene.[This message has been edited by Itzpapalotl, 12-04-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Itzpapalotl:
Although gene loss is not necessary for speciation it does seem to happen in some cases after speciation. For example humans have lost several genes that our closest relatives the chimpanzees have such as CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase, flavin-containing monooxygenase 2 and the V10 T cell receptor gamma gene.

---

{Added endquote UBB code - AM}Hi Itzpapalotl:
I know that it can happen, but I do not see it as a logical requirement for speciation as TB seems to imply regarding felid diversity. Gorillas and chimps are members of different genera yet they both have these genes. Some members of the same group that studied the CMP-sailic acid hydroxylase deletion in humans also showed that there is a lot of variation in gene expression between human and chimp brains. This is potentially more significant than gene deletions (or gains) to speciation.cheers,
MEnard W, Khaitovich P, Klose J, Zollner S, Heissig F, Giavalisco P, Nieselt-Struwe K, Muchmore E, Varki A, Ravid R, Doxiadis GM, Bontrop RE, Paabo S. Intra- and interspecific variation in primate gene expression patterns. Science. 2002 Apr 12;296(5566):340-3.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-04-2002]

I thought this was worth the read:Page not found - Suite 101------------------
Romans 1:20
From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonnikke:
I thought this was worth the read:

​

Page not found - Suite 101

​

​

---

Seemed pretty amateurish to me.That old addage comes to mind:When yo a little about science, creationist claims can seem to have merit.
When you know a lot about science, you can see that they don't.------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago

Gene 'loss' could be through crucial single mutaitons, being deleted, catastrophic down regulation mutations etc. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The point is what looks like a 'new gene' by comparison is frequently interpreted by genome researchers as a gene loss in the other (wheterh o not there is pseudo-gene evidence). Of course these genes had to arrive somewhere along the line via creation or evolution.Do we know where a zebras stipes come from? Can we compare horse vs zebra. Not yet. I suspect the correspinding genes will be absent or inoperative in the horse. Did this mean that the zebra stripe genes evolved? Not necessarily.There could have been an original 'horse' kind. Perhaps the male was a long eared but horse-like and the female short eared and zebra-like. Over generations you get zebras, horses and donkeys. We just don't know for sure but it is quite plausible. In detail we would have to compare the genes and alleles of all three genomes to assess the feasability of this proposal.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-04-2002]

And two species ARE capable of breeding with each other. That's how you get mutts.Actually, a species is defined as a group of like organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring, so I guess what you say is technically true, they can breed. However, that is of little relevance due to the offsprings inability to breed. Also, the common use of the word mutt refers to interbreeding of the various "species" of dogs, which in fact aren't species at all, just the same species with certain alleles showing through. I don't know if this what you meant when you stated that or not, but I thought I'd point it out all the same.~thunder~