Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
29 online now:
AZPaul3, ringo (2 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3288 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 31 of 908 (393538)
04-05-2007 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Allopatrik
04-05-2007 11:02 AM


Re: Mesoevolution
Of course not!!

BUT the reason FOR THE dob IS THAT he himself ONLY THOUGHT of phylogeny strictly as a botanical metaphor for a specific idea of genetics. What is available today is much wider if one notices that thamnograms and dendograms ARE different.

If rates of evolution DO vary then different processes are possible.

That is why I DREW the relations of a "track" to Wright's "isolation by distance" and chimera dendothamnogram in specific projective geometric areas here:

www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=346&m=1 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=346&m=1">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=12&t=346&m=1

but no one but Berberry "bit".

This is why it matters if the word "proximate" is related to space(main massings) or form-making allometrics (Gould's preference). If one tries to visualize the hybrid meso evolution the full confusion comes out of shape and into the creationist difference (not noticed within the second wall of evolutionary resistance of the difference of horizontal and vertical evolution eveloped in a difference of creation science and scientific creationism).

I would be interested to know the papers where the term is MORE than described. Is it used? I know that Lerner "named" it transitively but if it is used to describe something other than genetic homeostasis I would like to know. Is it? As far as I know because it has not really been any more than mentioned"", people like John Davison will continue to have a point about the position effect.

It seems to me that whatever it is that MESO EVOLUTION denotes, a contined failure to visualize this form of effect on cladistic topology construction can undermine any attempted ameloriation of thoughts that simply step among a difference of so said "macro" and "micro" regardless of how one wants to think about mass extinctions etc. Does the reference you know of obviate this reading??


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Allopatrik, posted 04-05-2007 11:02 AM Allopatrik has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 32 of 908 (393606)
04-05-2007 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Fosdick
04-05-2007 11:55 AM


Re: Defining the terms of evolution
Message 25
Look carefully at those definitions in Message 23, Mayr has macroevolution occurring above the species level, while Wilson has it occurring at the species level.

How do you get Wilson having it at species level?

E. O. Wilson defines these terms differently, combining them under one definition:

quote:
Microevolution A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers (A large amount of change would be referred to as macroevolution or simply as evolution.)

There is no relationship here to what time period is involved and how much micro evolution has progressed to reach the level of macroevolution. He could easily be talking about accumulated evolution over a time period that encompasses several speciation events.

It will be difficult for evolutionary biologists to agree on one set of standard definitions for these terms, and others, too. So much of their reasoning comes pre-loaded with contextual biases that are nearly impossible to resolve.

Which is why the two university definitions above are virtually identical. And why neither Ernst Mayr's nor E. O. Wilson's definitions contradict them.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Fosdick, posted 04-05-2007 11:55 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Fosdick, posted 04-06-2007 11:25 AM RAZD has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3755 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 33 of 908 (393679)
04-06-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
04-05-2007 10:21 PM


Re: Defining the terms of evolution
RAZD wrote:

How do you get Wilson having it at species level?

Returning to Message 23, here's what I said:

E. Mayr defines these terms in his glossary of What Evolution Is (2001):
quote:
Microevolution Evolution at or below the species level.
Macroevolution Evolution above the species level; the evolution of higher taxa and the production of evolutionary novelties, such as new structures.

E. O. Wilson defines these terms differently, combining them under one definition:
quote:
Microevolution A small amount of evolutionary change, consisting of minor alterations in gene proportions, chromosome structure, or chromosome numbers (A large amount of change would be referred to as macroevolution or simply as evolution.)

Look carefully, Mayr has “macroevolution” occurring above the species level, while Wilson has it occurring at the species level. They also disagree on this: Mayr says microevolution can happen at the species level, while Wilson says the species level is where “macroevolution” occurs.


I made that conclusion based on my understanding that Wilson implies "speciation" in the word "evolution." If he doesn't imply that then I am wrong. So I took his definitions to mean: 1) microevolution implies subspeciation, while 2) macroevolution (i.e., evolution) implies speciation.

Wilson defines "speciation" as:

quote:
The process of genetic diversification of populations and the multiplication of species.

And he defines "evolution" as:

quote:
Any gradual change. Organic evolution, often referred to as evolution for short, is any genetic change in organisms from generation to generation, or more strictly, a change in gene frequecies within populations from generation to generation.

I see ambiguity here, enough so as to question my own conclusion in Message 25. From where I stand on this, I think "microevolution" can happen without speciation, but "macroevolution" (or just "evolution") entails speciation. What do you think?

—HM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2007 10:21 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Allopatrik, posted 04-06-2007 5:04 PM Fosdick has not yet responded
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2007 5:45 PM Fosdick has responded

    
Allopatrik
Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 59
Joined: 02-07-2007


Message 34 of 908 (393743)
04-06-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Fosdick
04-06-2007 11:25 AM


Re: Defining the terms of evolution
quote:
From where I stand on this, I think "microevolution" can happen without speciation, but "macroevolution" (or just "evolution") entails speciation. What do you think?

That sounds as reasonable a place to draw what is ultimately an arbitrary line. I think it's where most biologists are comfortable drawing the line, if forced to do so.

A

Edited by Allopatrik, : No reason given.


Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher
This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Fosdick, posted 04-06-2007 11:25 AM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 35 of 908 (393748)
04-06-2007 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Fosdick
04-06-2007 11:25 AM


Re: Defining the terms of evolution
I made that conclusion based on my understanding that Wilson implies "speciation" in the word "evolution." If he doesn't imply that then I am wrong. So I took his definitions to mean: 1) microevolution implies subspeciation, while 2) macroevolution (i.e., evolution) implies speciation.

I don't see Wilson as defining macroevolution, at least not there. Rather his comment is to refine the degree of change in microevolution, the span of it's application. Nor does he mention speciation, so where he puts that in his lexicography is indeterminate from this information.

And he defines "evolution" as:

quote:
Any gradual change. Organic evolution, often referred to as evolution for short, is any genetic change in organisms from generation to generation, or more strictly, a change in gene frequecies within populations from generation to generation.

I've just been through a long evaluation of the various definitions of evolution as mentioned in Message 18 and where I posted the two university definitions for micro and macro (that also agree substantially with Mayr). This definition of evolution fits with those others.

From where I stand on this, I think "microevolution" can happen without speciation, but "macroevolution" (or just "evolution") entails speciation. What do you think?

The evolution that occurs after speciation still occurs within species, it is still "micro"evolution, building towards the next speciation schist. All speciation amounts to is the division of populations into new populations within which evolution occurs. This results in opportunity for greater diversity, as the different populations pursue different paths, but doesn't necessarily result in such.

I did a google on {E. O. Wilson macroevolution} and got a couple of hits, but not one of the ones I looked at had a definition. The closest concerned a book of his:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?isbn=0393319407&itm=3
Diversity of Life
by Edward O. Wilson

quote:
He examines organic history in terms of reproductive isolation, nucleotide variation (microevolution) and adaptive radiation (macroevolution). Wilson focuses on the abundance of life forms within tropical rain forests, especially pointing out that both vanishing species and their threatened natural habitats (hot spots) must be saved if we are to maintain the earth's rich and needed genetic reservoir.

That still leaves us with the line between them or reference to speciation undefined.

But the other side of the coin is: what is macroevolution? Other than accumulating a record of descent from common ancestors and the mapping out of the resulting diversity of life, there isn't much to it, is there?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Fosdick, posted 04-06-2007 11:25 AM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Fosdick, posted 04-06-2007 8:35 PM RAZD has responded

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3755 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 36 of 908 (393761)
04-06-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
04-06-2007 5:45 PM


Re: Defining the terms of evolution
RAZD wrote:

I've just been through a long evaluation of the various definitions of evolution as mentioned in Message 18 and where I posted the two university definitions for micro and macro (that also agree substantially with Mayr).

Hi RAZD,

I take notice in your Message 18—where you make a very nice study of “microevolution” vs. “macroevolution”—that both terms waffle like Philadelphia lawyers around the concept of “speciation.” I think this is a measure of our general confusion. We have no consolidated and agreed-upon set of definitions. We’re drowning in a sea of ambiguities.

—HM

Edited by Hoot Mon, : punctuation


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2007 5:45 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2007 9:39 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 37 of 908 (393770)
04-06-2007 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Fosdick
04-06-2007 8:35 PM


Re: Defining the terms of evolution
both terms waffle like Philadelphia lawyers around the concept of “speciation.”

Do they?

Micro includes evolution up to speciation, macro is division of species by relationships to common ancestors and is made above speciation levels.

Do I include speciation in micro or in macro? Does it matter? Is zero a positive or a negative number? Does it matter?

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Fosdick, posted 04-06-2007 8:35 PM Fosdick has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20111
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 38 of 908 (394722)
04-12-2007 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
04-03-2007 10:22 PM


Bump for jjsemsch
From Message 33

You'll have to forgive me for going off topic, but another example of the evidence not changing the theory is transitional forms. Charles Darwin believed that simpler life forms evolved into more complex life forms gradually over millions of years. He also believed that the fossil record would show this. To date there are only a handful of disputed transitional forms and every day more of those are shown to either be extinct species or hoaxes. Mainstream science looking at this evidence would never say perhaps evolution is false. Instead the mechanism for evolutionary theory becomes punctuated equilibrium not because of evidence, but because of a lack of evidence.

You'll notice first off that the actual theory of evolution is different than what you referenced. If you use a different definition for words than what is used by scientists you are talking about something else.

Most of this paragraph is just another typical creationist PRATT. There is no difference in evolution with punk-eek and evolution before punk-eek: it is still the change in inheritable characteristics within populations over time.

Nor is the fossil record the only evidence for descent from common ancestors (which is the part of evolution that you are referring too). Failure to find fossils for specific organisms does not mean that the organisms did not exist, just that they either did not fossilize or that such fossils have not yet been found.

I asked you for what theory had been invalidated. This argument of yours -- even if valid (it isn't) -- does not invalidate the theory of evolution. To invalidate the theory you need to show that it is not possible for common ancestors to be true. You haven't done that.

At best all you have done is deny evidence that does exist.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ’


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2007 10:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 2:49 PM RAZD has responded

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 4031 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 39 of 908 (395445)
04-16-2007 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by RAZD
04-12-2007 9:12 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
What is the mechanism for evolution? It's natural selection and mutation right?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 04-12-2007 9:12 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 04-16-2007 2:58 PM jjsemsch has responded
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2007 9:50 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 40 of 908 (395447)
04-16-2007 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jjsemsch
04-16-2007 2:49 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
Both are "mechanisms" of evolution.

Mutation introduces new genes.
Natural selection changes gene frequency over time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 2:49 PM jjsemsch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 3:55 PM Nuggin has responded

    
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 4031 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 41 of 908 (395453)
04-16-2007 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Nuggin
04-16-2007 2:58 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
Mutation introduces new genes.
Natural selection changes gene frequency over time.

Have scientists ever observed a mutation that introduced new genes? I thought mutations were genetic copying mistakes that usually hinder progress.

Does natural selection actually help macro-evolution? Natural selection is picking one favorable gene and eliminating a less favorable gene right? To evolve from fish to philosopher there has to be a huge increase in genetic information. These 2 mechanisms seem to limit genetic information not increase it. Are there other mechanisms for macro-evolution or am I missing something?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Nuggin, posted 04-16-2007 2:58 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Jazzns, posted 04-16-2007 4:48 PM jjsemsch has responded
 Message 46 by Nuggin, posted 04-16-2007 5:37 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded
 Message 47 by crashfrog, posted 04-16-2007 6:05 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2166 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 42 of 908 (395463)
04-16-2007 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jjsemsch
04-16-2007 3:55 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
Mutation can either:

1. Duplicate genes
2. Change existing genes
3. Delete existing genes

Novel traits can arise by doing both 1 & 2 in sequence. Gene A gets duplicated so you have AA. The second one is changed so now you have AB. Rinse and Repeat.

Using any definition of information ever proposed, this is an increase of information.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 3:55 PM jjsemsch has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 4:59 PM Jazzns has responded

  
jjsemsch
Member (Idle past 4031 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-11-2007


Message 43 of 908 (395465)
04-16-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Jazzns
04-16-2007 4:48 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
Mutation can either:
1. Duplicate genes
2. Change existing genes
3. Delete existing genes

Novel traits can arise by doing both 1 & 2 in sequence. Gene A gets duplicated so you have AA. The second one is changed so now you have AB. Rinse and Repeat.

Using any definition of information ever proposed, this is an increase of information.

So if you have 2 copies of the same book, do you have twice as much information?

And back to my original question:

Have scientists ever observed a mutation that introduced new genes?

Is there ANYONE out there who can answer this question?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Jazzns, posted 04-16-2007 4:48 PM Jazzns has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2007 5:09 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Jazzns, posted 04-16-2007 5:10 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 44 of 908 (395466)
04-16-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jjsemsch
04-16-2007 4:59 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
Have scientists ever observed a mutation that introduced new genes?

Is there ANYONE out there who can answer this question?

Yes, they have.

And if you have two copies of the same book but change one a bit then you have more information yes. Or in the case of genes too copies of the exact same gene can produce more of some protein output which may have a biological effect.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 4:59 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2166 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 45 of 908 (395467)
04-16-2007 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jjsemsch
04-16-2007 4:59 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
So if you have 2 copies of the same book, do you have twice as much
information?

If books were genes, then yes you would.

That is besides the point though because if you recall option 2 of the things that mutation can do:

2. Change existing genes

So if mutation could be applied to books you could have mutation that copy books, and then mutations that would turn books into other books. So you could duplicate Hamlet by mutation, and then another mutation could turn it into Romeo and Juliet.

But of course you are using the old creationist hat trick of extending the analogy. I never brought up books.

Have scientists ever observed a mutation that introduced new genes?

Yes they have and we even have some examples in humans. A mutation in the human population allowed certain people to have a new kind of hemoglobin. Before there were only 2 types A and S. A mutation allowed there to be another type called C which provides some resistence to malaria.

Other mutations in humans allow for increased resistance to heart disease. They were even able to track it down to the single indivual where the mutation first started.

THere is also the nylon digesting bacteria.

There have been experiments where lactose digesting bacteria had a gene removed which caused it to loose its ability to digest lactose. These bacteria were observed to re-evolve the ability to digest lactose in a different way.

It is observed. YOu just might not be getting answered from everyone because really, this question has been answered thousands of times on this forum. Most of the people who hear it though choose to stick their fingers in their ears and cry, "LALALALA". THen they either get hostile to the point that they are banned or they leave on their own accord.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 4:59 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019