Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
26 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, PaulK (3 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,616 Year: 16,652/19,786 Month: 777/2,598 Week: 23/251 Day: 0/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 747 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 46 of 908 (395470)
04-16-2007 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jjsemsch
04-16-2007 3:55 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
You misunderstand what I mean when I say "new genes"

Yes, one translation of that would be this - "entirely new genes"
However, new variations on existing genes is more representative of what I am talking about.

When Ford introduces a "new car", its a variation on previous cars. I assume you don't show up at the Ford dealer every Presidents' day feeling underwhelmed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 3:55 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 908 (395475)
04-16-2007 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by jjsemsch
04-16-2007 3:55 PM


Re: Bump for jjsemsch
To evolve from fish to philosopher there has to be a huge increase in genetic information.

Why? Philosophers do philosophy because, as humans, they've chosen to study it; not because it's in their genes. When Plato wrote the Dialogues it wasn't an expression of the content of his DNA.

All I'm saying is that you're radically overestimating the number of genes it takes to specify a fish or a person. Did you know that humans have less than 20,000 genes? That's less genes than this guy:

Concerns about genetic information are interesting, but it's not the whole picture. The evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to account for all the genetic information necessary for the Earth's different species, because we're just not talking about all that much information.

These 2 mechanisms seem to limit genetic information not increase it.

Mutation increases information.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 3:55 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

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


Message 48 of 908 (395539)
04-16-2007 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by jjsemsch
04-16-2007 2:49 PM


Replies for jjsemsch
Message 39
What is the mechanism for evolution? It's natural selection and mutation right?

There are a number of mechanisms, but these are the major ones. See Message 18.

Message 41
Have scientists ever observed a mutation that introduced new genes?

Yes, it's been observed. Some examples have been listed already.

I thought mutations were genetic copying mistakes that usually hinder progress.

What progress? All that is involved in evolution is the change in inheritable traits within populations over time. This can make a species become larger, or it can make a species become smaller: which one is "progress"?

When it is the mutation that allows selection of the larger or smaller individuals within the populations (by survival and breeding), then how does such mutation hinder the process?

Does natural selection actually help macro-evolution? Natural selection is picking one favorable gene and eliminating a less favorable gene right?

All evolution occurs at the micro-evolution scale in terms of selection of genetic variations caused by mutations within a population.

Macro-evolution is just the increased accumulation of diverse variations over time as micro-evolution continues to occur within populations, so that the further two species are from a common ancestor the greater the opportunity there is for them to have more noticeable (to humans) differences.

Thus both mutation and natural selection operate to "help" macro-evolution via continued micro-evolution.

Are there other mechanisms for macro-evolution or am I missing something?

What is macro-evolution? What is needed other than continued micro-evolution within daughter populations since their divergence (speciation) from common ancestor populations over longer periods of time? More time = more opportunity for greater diversity.

To evolve from fish to philosopher there has to be a huge increase in genetic information.

Nope. They both have brains. Check out:
http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.html

That is dolphin and not fish, but it is only a matter of scale in terms of brain size - a difference in quantity rather than kind.

What a fish would philosophize over would likely be different from what humans would, but that doesn't mean they would be incapable of it.

Message 43
So if you have 2 copies of the same book, do you have twice as much information?

You have the opportunity for one copy to remain useful as the original book and for the other to be used for something else. Or you can lend one to a friend, and if the books are how-to books on house construction, then your friend can assist you in building houses.

Your friend may also decide to work on a different part of the house, and perhaps put in a window in the roof instead of the wall: now you have a new feature, a skylight. If it is a normal window it will likely leak in this new position, but we can repair this with other information from the book on how to seal things. If we start with such a window in a steep part of the roof and gradually introduce it into flatter sections of roof as we learn to seal them, we eventually end up with something that is not a window but a functional skylight in a flat roof.

In this case the "information" didn't change, but the use of the information ends up being for something new and different.

We can also compare the houses from generation to generation and see that there is little difference between the {window\skylight} features in the different closely related houses, but that when we look at the first house and the last house we see a "significant" (to humans) change that amounts to a big (to humans) change. We have a macro change by micro evolution.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : compare combs. mines green, yours is orange ...


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 39 by jjsemsch, posted 04-16-2007 2:49 PM jjsemsch has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2007 10:10 PM RAZD has responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 49 of 908 (395546)
04-16-2007 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
04-16-2007 9:50 PM


Re: Replies for jjsemsch
We can also compare the houses from generation to generation and see that there is little difference between the {window\skylight} features in the different closely related houses, but that when we look at the first house and the last house we see a "significant" (to humans) change that amounts to a big (to humans) change. We have a macro change by micro evolution.

So when did the house become something other than a house?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2007 9:50 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2007 10:17 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2007 10:47 PM ICANT has responded

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


Message 50 of 908 (395548)
04-16-2007 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
04-16-2007 10:10 PM


The gallop
So when did the house become something other than a house?

This particular behaviour is called a "gish gallop" (you can google it).

It is an example of disingenuous debating and an inability to stick to the topic.

When did a reptile stop being an amphibian? When did we stop being an ape?

Or to answer a stupid question with a stupid answer:
When there are so many skylights we call it a greenhouse. No one additional skylight makes it not a house but at some point we would classfy it as a greenhouse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2007 10:10 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2007 11:22 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

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


Message 51 of 908 (395551)
04-16-2007 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ICANT
04-16-2007 10:10 PM


stretching the analogy again ...
It doesn't have to (for macro-change to be observed), but if we take this analogy and see how far we can stretch it's credibility ...

First, what develops from it will always be descended from the original house, so what you are really asking is "how long till it no longer looks like a house to us" yes?

Second, we haven't gone further in the analogy than what can be called arbitrary speciation events - the houses being built are increasingly different from the original, but all the houses currently being built are pretty similar and they are all being used as houses.

Third, to complete the analogy we need a selection process in addition to the mutation process: the buyers for the houses would affect whether houses with no skylights or houses with lots of skylights would be preferred, affecting demand for the next generation of houses. As long as all buyers are selecting the overall house building pattern there won't be any extreme developments unless everyone wants it.

Now, lets assume there is an argument between the two friends: one wants to put in lots of skylights and the other wants to build more traditional homes. They part company, each building houses more in their personal direction.

These attract different subsets of buyers (different selection pressure on the different house types), that further drive the changes in the houses being built. Soon there are two different kinds of houses, one victorian with peaked roofs, normal windows and lots of filigree, and one modern, cubist, with lots of skylights and few embellishments.

People in the houses start to use areas in different ways, the victorians going for height and looking down and out over the countryside enjoy panoramas and build gardens outside for enjoyment, while the cubistians enjoy direct sunlight and grow plants inside under the skylights and have studios for painting and sculpture.

Over time the victorians build taller and taller, some incorporating several living areas into one building as they build one on top of the other, and become apartments. Meanwhile the cubistians become more focused on art and less on living quarters, eventually separating living areas from art areas in different buildings, with one become art galleries. You now have victorian houses, apartment buildings, cubistian houses and art galleries.

But they are still buildings ... that still house things ... :D

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 49 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2007 10:10 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2007 11:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 52 of 908 (395558)
04-16-2007 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by NosyNed
04-16-2007 10:17 PM


Re: The gallop
but at some point we would classfy it as a greenhouse.

That would be when it is a frame with plastic or glass as walls and roof.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 04-16-2007 10:17 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 53 of 908 (395559)
04-16-2007 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
04-16-2007 10:47 PM


Re: stretching the analogy again ...
But they are still buildings ... that still house things ...

You go downtown and get a permit to build a house then you build a 4 floor apt building and see what the building inspector says.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2007 10:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-17-2007 1:44 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1852 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


(1)
Message 54 of 908 (395705)
04-17-2007 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by ICANT
04-16-2007 11:30 PM


galloping away with the analogy (eat my dust, Gish)
Icant:

You go downtown and get a permit to build a house then you build a 4 floor apt building and see what the building inspector says.

Except that the building inspector never says anything. No one ever sees this person. He may not even exist.

What happens is that you build your four-floor apartment building and call it a house. Some of your neighbours agree that it's a house, some disagree. Among those who disagree, some call your structure an apartment building, some call it a condo, some a complex, some a low-rise, some an eyesore, some an architectural wonder. Some call it other terms.

These people use different personal criteria for arriving at the terms they do. Most of these people admit that their criteria are, in fact, personal. They know these buildings are what they are, regardless of what we call them. But some individuals claim their terms for these buildings are infallible. They say they possess the Only True Building Criteria, given uniquely to them from the building inspector.

The problem for them is that they cannot produce this building inspector. He is never seen and he never shows up to resolve the debate. In the meantime, the people who claim to have seen him disagree among themselves and quarrel more fiercely over terms than anyone else. For all the grandiosity of their claims, they show no sign of having spoken with a single source at all.

In the meantime, you still have buildings that house things. Same number of bricks.

The point stands.

_

Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by ICANT, posted 04-16-2007 11:30 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4083 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 55 of 908 (402718)
05-29-2007 3:41 PM


front-loaded macroevolution
How do we know that information was not "front-loaded" from the beginning in DNA? I have read that fishes and reptiles have much more DNA than humans. It would have mean that they could hypoteticaly bear information for them as well as for us. During evolution many genes/dna was then dismissed as unnecessary.

I have read also that Venter sequenced genome analyzing RNA during expression of genes. He was very succesfull using this method. But of course he coudnot have caught genes in DNA which were not expressed (which were dormant so to say).

Even now when human genome is sequenced do we really know all sequences of all alleles that occur in all mankind? I doubt about it.

How do we know that some gene present in human is not present in fish?
Do computers seek given gene sequence of human in sequnced DNA of fish? Do computer also seek part of it? Maybe function gene in human is split into four parts in fish and it seem to "dormant" or "junk" in fish. I doubt computer is able to found such pieces in real time.

Scientists are often surprised how many genes we have common with unrelated species. So - how do we know that other genes are not there too but somehow splitted into parts?

In such case macroevolution is possible only by simple reorganization of DNA - information is there from the beginning.


Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 05-29-2007 3:50 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2007 3:53 PM MartinV has responded
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2007 3:58 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6800
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 56 of 908 (402720)
05-29-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by MartinV
05-29-2007 3:41 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
How do we know that information was not "front-loaded" from the beginning in DNA?

You tell us. It seems that you have finally come up with a testable hypothesis. Figure out how one would go about confirming your hypothesis and design a research program to test it.


Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by MartinV, posted 05-29-2007 3:41 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by MartinV, posted 05-29-2007 4:18 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 908 (402722)
05-29-2007 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by MartinV
05-29-2007 3:41 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
How do we know that information was not "front-loaded" from the beginning in DNA?

Remember when I disproved that back in More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus?

We know that the information was not front-loaded because we know - for a fact, as proven by "co-speciating" species - that these informational changes are the result of environment and mutation, not pre-programmed changes happening over time.

I have read also that Venter sequenced genome analyzing RNA during expression of genes.

If I understand what you're referring to, you read wrong. The Human Genome Project results from Venter's Celera company came from whole-genome shotgun sequencing of nuclear DNA, not RNA.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by MartinV, posted 05-29-2007 3:41 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by MartinV, posted 05-30-2007 4:12 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 908 (402724)
05-29-2007 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by MartinV
05-29-2007 3:41 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
How do we know that information was not "front-loaded" from the beginning in DNA? I have read that fishes and reptiles have much more DNA than humans. It would have mean that they could hypoteticaly bear information for them as well as for us.

Interesting question. First of all, if there were genes in fish (say) containing instructions for humans (say) but not expressed, then they would have no bearing on the fitness of fish, and so natural selection wouldn't prevent the degradation of these genes millions of years before we could use them.

How do we know that some gene present in human is not present in fish?

There are such genes, as there should be.

Scientists are often surprised how many genes we have common with unrelated species.

There are no unrelated species, and scientists are not surprised.

Maybe function gene in human is split into four parts in fish and it seem to "dormant" or "junk" in fish ... So - how do we know that other genes are not there too but somehow splitted into parts?

Given that all DNA is made of combinations of just four bases, one can trivially get any human gene by shuffling fish DNA, in small enough chunks.

If I make an anagram out of selected portions of, say, the text of Moby Dick, does that mean that the information in the anagram was always present in MOby Dick?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by MartinV, posted 05-29-2007 3:41 PM MartinV has not yet responded

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4083 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 59 of 908 (402730)
05-29-2007 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Chiroptera
05-29-2007 3:50 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution

You tell us. It seems that you have finally come up with a testable hypothesis. Figure out how one would go about confirming your hypothesis and design a research program to test it.

As Dr. Adequate indicated. Let say we have a gene with sequence ATGCCGTAGC.
We should seek if there exist some simple combination of such sequence in assumed ancestor for instance as junk ATGCC and (reverse second part) junk CGATG. If yes then such gene could be recreated or rewired by chromosome inversion during meiosis as Davison proposed in his Manifesto.

Edited by MartinV, : cross over --> meiosis


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Chiroptera, posted 05-29-2007 3:50 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2007 4:59 PM MartinV has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 908 (402737)
05-29-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by MartinV
05-29-2007 4:18 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
Such things can and do happen, but so do a lot of other mutations too.

But it can hardly be "front-loaded evolution" unless the genetic material was there from the very beginning, and unless there was some guiding mechanism to make the specific bits of DNA to get shuffled in that way. Otherwise it would just be a lucky chance.

And, as I've pointed out, if the junk DNA was there from the origin of life, then it would have been degraded by mutation because there'd be no conservative selection pressures acting on it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by MartinV, posted 05-29-2007 4:18 PM MartinV has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by MartinV, posted 05-30-2007 2:36 PM Dr Adequate has 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