|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: "Microevolution" vs. "macroevolution." | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
I mostly see these terms used by creos in an attempt to create a distinction between one type of evolution ("microevolution") which is easily observable and demonstrable in real time, and another type of evolution ("macroevolution") which, they believe, cannot be demonstrated.
However, I have increasingly seen use of these terms on evolution websites as well, often in the context of studying the evolution/creationism argument, but perhaps not always. I am confused because I had always thought the terms were creo invented and used only for their purposes. As I understand the terms, it's nothing more than a difference of degree. Evolution is descent with modification. If the changes are small enough, the daughter population is still the same species as the parent population. If the changes are more significant, the daughter population can be a new species. But it's all evolution. Is there a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution that is scientifically significant? Do scientists use the terms in the course of their work, outside of the evolution/creationism debate? If so, what is their significance? If not, have scientists allowed the creos to define the playing field by apparently accepting and adopting their terminology, which does nothing more than draw a distinction that is scientifically irrelevant? I would like this thread to be limited to a discussion of the definition and usage of these terms, rather than a debate about whether "macroevolution" can be proved. Perhaps, since my question revolves around whether the distinction is scientifically significant, it could go in Is it Science? Either that or Misc Topics. This message has been edited by subbie, 04-01-2006 08:51 PM
{Added the "bolding" to some of the text. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-03-2006 05:37 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Talk origins has a useful FAQ about Macorevolution. They trace the origin of the term to a russian entomologist named Iurii Filipchenko in the late 20s and its introduction to english to Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the originators of the modern synthesis of mendelian genetics and darwinian evolutionary theory.
Traditionally in biology the distinction is between evolution below the level of species (micro) and evolution at or above the level of species (Macro). So by the traditional definition speciation is macroevolution. Most critics of evolution seem to choose a different level for macroevolution for no readily apparent reason, and what that level is varies greatly, it often seems to be that macroevolution is always that level of change 'which has yet to be observed'. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
is whether there is also a component to macro that can only be defined after the fact and when a time gap is also considered.
For example, if we had every single critter in the chain from Lucy to Lucile Ball, and compared each one to the one before and after it in the series, would we see anything but microevolution as we moved along? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I mostly see these terms used by creos in an attempt to create a distinction between one type of evolution ("microevolution") which is easily observable and demonstrable in real time, and another type of evolution ("macroevolution") which, they believe, cannot be demonstrated. However, I have increasingly seen use of these terms on evolution websites as well, often in the context of studying the evolution/creationism argument, but perhaps not always. I am confused because I had always thought the terms were creo invented and used only for their purposes. I took a biology class in college on human evolution and they distinguished between micro- and macro- evolutions and the terms were in the biology book. They were the first time I had heard them and only heard them from creationists after I heard them in a biology textbook. I think it is a misconception that they are creo invented.
As I understand the terms, it's nothing more than a difference of degree. Yep, thats how I see it too. It depends on what scale you talking about. Evolution only happens to populations (the macro scale) but it is a result of things(RM and NS) that happen on the indivdual(micro) scale.
If the changes are small enough, the daughter population is still the same species as the parent population. If the changes are more significant, the daughter population can be a new species. This seems like a misrepresentation of speciation to me. Speciation, usually (if not always), requires genetic seperation of the daughter population from the parent population. Maybe it was just a simplified description, but it seems to leave out some stuff, I mean, you need more than significant change to get a new species. If not seperation, then you need a lot of time for the significant changes to build up so that the species could no longer reproduce with what it was X centuries ago. But this, in my mind, is not a speciation event, and you're not going to have some point where the daughter population cannot reproduce with the parent population, although it wouldn't be able to reproduce with the parent population from X centuries ago. Its just when you say the daughter population can be a new species, it sounds incorrect.
Is there a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution that is scientifically significant? Yes but its relative. It is helpful in distinguishing on what level your talking about, what scale you're using.
Do scientists use the terms in the course of their work, outside of the evolution/creationism debate? If so, what is their significance? Yes, I have personally been taught them in a college course and have seem them in the textbook. Their significance was to set the bar, to establish a scale, to distinguish between the individual level and the population level so other people know what you're talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For example, if we had every single critter in the chain from Lucy to Lucile Ball, and compared each one to the one before and after it in the series, would we see anything but microevolution as we moved along? I would say no, we would only see microevolution. Unless, we could find some geogrphical disturbance that seperated two populations of one species which resulted in seperate paths of that species until they were far enough to no longer interbreed, literally 'specitation'. I think that geographical disturbance would be one point on the micro- scale that is also one point on the macro- scale. All of those other points on the micro- scale, from parent to daughter all the way down the chain, would not be distinguishable points on the macro- scale until a time gap is considered, or introduced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I mostly see these terms used by creos in an attempt to create a distinction between one type of evolution ("microevolution") which is easily observable and demonstrable in real time, and another type of evolution ("macroevolution") which, they believe, cannot be demonstrated. Historically what is called microevolution was fully recognized before Darwin, so creos didn't create anything new. The terms came into existence to keep that ancient knowledge in view, which Darwinism otherwise obscures. Domestic breeding makes use of the same principle of selection that Darwin merely applied to nature, only the one is applied intentionally by people, and the other by nature according to principles of survival. This much seems acceptable to both sides.
As I understand the terms, it's nothing more than a difference of degree. Evolution is descent with modification. If the changes are small enough, the daughter population is still the same species as the parent population. If the changes are more significant, the daughter population can be a new species. But it's all evolution. Yes that is what evolutionism says. Evolution insists that these processes are open ended, can continue indefinitely. Creationists say no, that they are limited to the gene pool of a given Species or Kind. As a YEC, I prefer the term variety to species myself, for the sake of clarity. Variety or breed or race are the older terms, which imply genetic variation within a Species or Kind without in any way implying a change in the Species or Kind itself. No, we can't yet define a Kind. But macroevolution, as it is now called in order to avoid confusion, has also not been proved. All that is known for sure about variation in living things, however, has always been known to humanity at least in its rudiments, and this is what is now called microevolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Just to clarify...
you would define Macroevolution as a change at or above the level of 'Kind' for a population/organism, but you can't tell us what a 'Kind' is? TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
but you can't tell us what a 'Kind' is? I don't think they (the YECs) get down to the gnat's ass with it. I mean, there is no scientific definition of 'kind' but I find it easy to see that a dog is a different 'kind' than a cat, so the word, although not defined well enough for science, is not meaningless and I can understand what they are talking about when they use it. This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 04-03-2006 11:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That is correct, except for rough categories like Dog, Cat, Horse, Cow etc.
Nobody ever thought there could be variation beyond whatever a kind is until Darwin, and all Darwin did was suggest how it might be possible, which was nothing more than observing that the principles of domestic breeding occur haphazardly in nature. Strange though. All that shows is that Kinds vary in Nature too, only haphazardly. Nothing really terribly illuminating if you think about it. There's no more proof that macroevolution is possible by Natural Selection than by Domestic Selection. And really, that's all the ToE is, a suggestion of a possibility and it's now taken for gospel. {ABE: In fact, it seems to me that the controlled forced speeded-up conditions of domestic breeding could prove macroevolution if it really occurs, but in fact what is observed to happen is the reverse of anything in the direction of macroevolution. That is, the more you select, the less genetic potential you have for further breeding, as I've pointed out many times before.} I can't define a Kind to genetic specifications and you can't prove that macroevolution occurs. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 01:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: I can't define a Kind to genetic specifications..." Using the creationist definition of macroevolution as evolution between kinds, as long as "kinds" remains without a formal definition then so does "macroevolution". But as Catholic Scientist notes, this isn't really much of a problem. Sure it leaves plenty of ambiguity, but so does the scientific definition of species. While we can't really know whether, for example, dogs and coyotes are different kinds, there is nothing forcing us to consider ambiguous cases in this thread, especially since the definition of kind is not the issue.
...and you can't prove that macroevolution occurs. In a scientific context "prove" just means "well supported by evidence". There is plenty of evidence for macroevolution, but as subbie clearly states in bold in the OP, "I would like this thread to be limited to a discussion of the definition and usage of these terms, rather than a debate about whether "macroevolution" can be proved." --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Heh. Yeah, all scientists do is sit around and think stuff up. Actually, Darwin did quite a bit more that this. He spend most of his life collecting evidence and publishing it. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Actually, Darwin did quite a bit more that this. He spend most of his life collecting evidence and publishing it. Nobody denies that. It was evidence FOR what you quoted me saying, "how it might be possible, which was nothing more than observing that the principles of domestic breeding occur haphazardly in nature." Evidence for Natural Selection. He did a good job of proving that. But Natural Selection does not prove macroevolution. And since Percy is on my case for taking Wounded's bait about proof (which is what the challenge to define the Kinds is about), I have to point out that this is off-topic according to Percy's reading of the OP. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-03-2006 01:12 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hi, Faith.
quote: Actually, it was the opposite. Common descent was accepted almost immediately; it took a generation or two before natural selection was common accepted as the mechanism for evolution. "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure." -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: Nobody ever thought there could be variation beyond whatever a kind is until Darwin, and all Darwin did was suggest how it might be possible, which was nothing more than observing that the principles of domestic breeding occur haphazardly in nature. This statement from you also bothered me, but I wasn't going to reply because I thought it might tend to draw this thread even more off-topic, but I see Chiroptera has replied, and upon reflection I think it important to provide additional detail. I don't want to derail the thread, and am only posting this to dispell your claim that Darwin derived his theory from "nothing more than" observations of domestic breeding. The chapter headings of Origin of Species are in essence an outline of the areas from which Darwin drew his evidence, so here are the chapter headings:
This should make clear how widely Darwin cast his net for evidence. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024