Macro and Micro Evolution

quote:

---

Well, first off the real difference between micro and macro deals with levels. When used, and that is damned seldom in most literature, macro really is discussing the larger shifts deaing with orders or classes or even higher (although there ain't much higher, number wise). SO when most people are talking evolution and micro vs macro they are really kind of screwing it up when they say speciation and up is macro. Second, I would say the beginning of evolution is whenever life started. Everything since then has been a combination of mutation and selection (and by that I include survival and extinction). Mutation includes genetic drift and both silent and non-silent mutations.

---

As a geneticist I find this explanation quite confusing. First, macro and micro are used differently by different scientists. I've seen it used (mainly by paleontologists) to mean (rather poorly defined) large-scale morphological changes, like changes in body plans. This seems to be what most creationists mean by it. Evolutionary theorists, on the other hand, mean by macroevolution any evolution above the level of the species. The reason the dividing line is at the formation of species is that this line is the only one that corresponds to something real in nature (at least for sexually reproducing organisms), since speciation is the point at which one evolving population becomes two. In this second meaning of evolution, it is not automatically true that macroevolution is just lots of microevolution added together, because it is possible that there are different mechanisms operating at higher levels -- for example, natural selection favoring species with certain traits, rather than favoring individuals. This a highly technical (and unresolved) debate, and has little to do with anything being discussed here, since everyone involved knows that macroevolution occurs and is mostly, if not entirely, the product of lots of microevolution.Second, extinction is not always the result of selection, since sometimes it's just random. (It's also a purely macroevolutionary process, not a micro one, by the way. Genetic drift, fitness and selection within a population describe the species microevolution, but may tell you nothing about whether the population will become extinct.)Third, mutation does not include genetic drift -- that's just wrong. Genetic drift occurs in the absence of any new mutations, as long as there are alleles in the population.

PaulK, I'd like to suggest again that you adopt a less dogmatic and attacking attitude. You may think otherwise but I still don't see any evidence that Sonic is deliberately trying to avoid answering questions. Nor is he deliberately obfuscating.Sonic, please take Mark's advice. You need to express more of your issues with evolutionary theory as questions. You're posts indicate that you know very, very little about it. If you make assertions that sound like you think you do it is a bit annoying to some individuals. Especially, try to learn the existing terminology and use it. Then, gradually, the communications will improve.As a general note, Sonic, if you wish to overturn an existing idea you must first understand it very well. In fact, it is arguable that you have to understand it better than any of the proponents. That is one thing that the anti-science crowd doesn't seem to get. The other thing you should remember is that *all* possible, reasonable objections have already been brought up by the biologists working in the field over the last century. That is the way the process works.So all of you please behave or the I might ask the Queen to talk to you!!!!!

You need to support your 1% in the thread you started for that Sonic.And you don't get away with "I think" without giving reasons for that. Otherwise you are simply making an unsupported assertion and the debate will go nowhere at all and you will make no impact and you will learn nothing at all.

Well, I'm sorry to see you giving up Sonic.Maybe you are ignoring some of what is posted when you don't like it. If you want to stick to your site (Brown's) after being warned about him then you aren't going to learn squat. If you think there is value there then open a thread to specifically discuss his site. It is crap, he does not know what he is talking about, he is not intending to actually teach anything true. It is propaganda.Don't believe that? Then open a thread and watch it get shreded to little tiny quivering bits.

Sonic, you are lying to youself. You don't even know what the fossil record contains and you reject it before you do.The idea of fossils recording at the level of detail you think is necessary is silly. The fossil record records a lot of the larger changes ('macro'?). The changes you want are documented in other ways. The totality of information is what makes up the very strong support for the final conclusion.To bad you can't take a little hard debate. To bad you are resistant to learning.

It's not dogmatic to point to evidence and statw that it *is* evidence. Sonic repeatedly refused to discuss the fact that transitional fossils are evidence of macroevolution - look at the posts listed (start with post 209 for instance and then look at thr sequence of responses starting 210. He had the opportunity to discuss the evidence and..nothing. How can repeatedly not dealing with a point raised again and again not be taken as a refusal to answer ? And the final response - the only thing that can be taken as an answer at all is his insistence that it isn't evidence for no reason at all.You told me to back off a bit before. I did -hence post 209. He just did the same thing again. I was right the first time.

It is standard procedure to close topics after they pass the 300 message total. This is to prevent technical problems from happening.The various participants might consider making some sort of concluding statements. Of course, a "Part 2" topic will probably also get started.Adminnemooseus

I'd conclude that we haven't concluded anything. We still don't have a definition of micro and macro from the creationist side that can be used in anyway. The only reference we were given was Brown's site which didn't define a thing in any useful way.If there is a conclusion at this point it is that there is no general creationist definition of micro and macro evolution.

Sonic, &, So why when I said this, Did you say, ?Darwin didn’t use the fossil record to infer evolution, but he did make predictions based upon it. So when those predictions are borne out they are evidence of evolution, non?If you answer in the negative then you are just being inconsistent at best, a hypocrite at worst.It’s not mine, PaulK’s, or Ned’s fault there are transitional & intermediate taxa in the fossil record. Not accepting their significance is simply putting your hands over your ears & closing your eyes to it.Furthermore, you completely skipped the points I made about the 1% transitional claim. It has been surpassed long ago. Every fossil taxa is a transitiona/intermediatel except the terminal ones. That’s why consistent cladograms are possible. Why else, do you think? For the second time, show your working as to how you arrive at how many transitionals we should have. A purely arbitrary figure is not good enough.We both know you can't do this, & this reduces your argument to subjective opinion, whereas ours is evidence based.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-29-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 11-29-2003]

Ok paulk, Maybe you are right that I am not dealing with the real issue but there is no reason why I am not besides I didn't realise what you were saying since my understanding of micro and macro are completly different then yours. I agree "if" macro-evolution is "Factual", So far in this thread I gave macro a theoretical foundation. I only said that macro is highly possible, which means I left the door open to the fact that it might also be what didn't happen. Which also means if I dont find Macro "factual", then I would not be agreeing. You have to make macro "factual" before I will agree with the fact that there is many fossils missing which are primarly "micro-e". You will see my post below regarding what you call an "agreement". I see what you call evidence (my definition is different). I would not call this evidence because, how do you really know that their is a connection between these two species? You don't have anymore then similarities which means you assume. You dont have the fossils which would be needed in order to show many small changes becoming one large change. According to your understanding of Micro and Macro. The absence of micro-e fossils? I will only agree if you can show me with respect that macro-e has occured factually.You gave me a few exampls, these are the pages:1.)Page Not Found | We cannot find your page (404 Error) | Memorial University of Newfoundland2.)ADW: Not Found3.)http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/Lecture%207.pdfI will agree that this information is good information and very interesting at best. I wont agree that the two characteristics which you "proclaim" relatedness between these two species are anymore then similarites and also, these similarites are not enough to say this is a good example of macro-e or even micro-e. According to your definition of macro and micro. I have studied it, this does not mean I know everything about the fossil record. It only means I have studied it, I may not know every single little detail for even people who have studied the fossil record all there life dont completly understand it 100%. So by trying to make a mockery of the fact that I said I have studied it, does not have any part in the fact that I may know of these similarites between these two species or not. Regarding dna, similarites are not enough to say evolution occured.Thank You
SonicP.S. The fossil record and the similarites plus the dna record are not part of this thread, we are trying to talk about Micro and Macro only. May we take this conversation over to this thread.http://EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? -->EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? ------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Mark,You pointed out that I dont agree that the fossil record is evidence. But then also pointed out that I agree with the process of science which is: evidence,theroy,more evidence to back it up. What is so hard about my place in this process. I dont think the fossil record is evidence of evolution which sticks me before the process of science. I would not have ever said, back when they foudn the fossil record to be evidence, that it was evidence.You are right, it is no-ones fault that they have found fossils which seem to be transitional fossils according to evolutionists, to me they are not really transitional fossils they are just fossils. You have to prove to me that macro occured without a doubt. Now you pointed out a phylogene which have macro-e, a good chance. The problem with this is that I feel that that phylogene is nothing more then based on similarites not relatedness which means it is also wrong, sure there is a high possibility that the similarites are similar? How does that show Macro-e. I see that if it was relatedness and not similarities it would be in fact evidence which reports macro-e did occur, but I dont agree that it is relatedness but only similarities. Show my work? I dont even really need to stick to the 1% idea, Just because their are similarites it does not neccesarily show evidence for evolution. You have to make macro evolution factual first.-We are discussing Macro and Micro in this forum, we cannot proceed to convince sonic untill we come to a level of agreement on micro and macro.Thank You
Sonic

Ok, Sonic. Let's back up a little. (all times below are very approximate, the exact times don't matter)At 1 billion years (1 Gyr) and older there was no mulitcellular life that we have found fossils for.
At 500 Myrs ago we have a range of different creatures that have fossilized, but we have no true fishes, no amphibians, no reptiles, no birda and no mammals.At about 350 Myrs we have fish, no amhpibians, no etc.At somewhere around 300 Mys ago we have amphibians, no reptiles etc.At somewhere around 250 Myrs ago we have reptiles, no dinosaurs.At about 200 Myrs ago we have mammal-like things.At 150 Myrs ago we have dinosaurs, no whales, no apes etc.and so on.Now, how did we get from one form of life to the others.You might note that the creationists who originally grappled with these facts, in trying to save their idea of created life, came up with multiple creations and destructions as an hypothosis. However, that failed to explain what had gone on. It only takes a few transitionals to destroy that hypothosis and it fell before the facts.Now, what is your explanation?

Ok, I believe we should move this to the other thread:
http://EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? -->EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? ------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic

Ok,Definitions I will accept. (if italics are added) What do you guys think?Microevolution: comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level. (this means small genetic changes in a population and could include speciation as long as new organs are not being developed.)Macroevolution: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes. -as in species formation- (this is any speciation which would start or end a development of new organs)The definitions are carried over from Dictionary by Merriam-Webster: America's most-trusted online dictionary (I added the comments in italics).------------------
Enlightend One
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003][This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-30-2003]

The anatomical similarities - as documented - are evidence that an evolutionary transition took place. The anatomy is truly intermediate. And it does show small changes adding up.
That is *evidence* of macroevolution.So your answer is that you (implicitly) accept that evidence of macroevolution exists however you refuse to accept that macroevolution happened.That the missing fossils are "microevolutionary" is based on your own demand for fine-grained transitions. The difference in human skin colour which you used as an example is microevolution (all humans are of a single species - and I doubt that you could find many creationists who would insist that that is macroevolution) and you wanted a full 25 intermediates for an equivalent change. If the entire change is microevolution then every step of it is likewise microevolution. These are the "missing" fossils that *you* were talking about - so there is no need for me to even point to Eldredge and Gould and punctuated equilibria.And your comment on the DNA evidence likewise seems to be the product of a closed mind, since you provide no basis whatsoever for it.