Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 61 of 908 (402880)
05-30-2007 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
05-29-2007 4:59 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
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.
But if the junk DNA was there from the origin of life it would have mean that life was created by supreme inteligence. In that case such supreme inteligence could safeguarded mentioned DNA against degradation. It would be strange that creator(s) would allow random mutation to destroy such front-loaded code, don`t you think?
It comes on my mind Aquatic ape theory. It - if true - would contradict darwinian theory of selective pressure upon functional genes and denigration of dormant ones. AAT claims that human newborns are fatty and can swim - something very strange comparing bony newborns of chimpanzee, apes etc that do not know swim. So it seems that human newborns are prepared to swim - I would say that it can be explained by some retro-action of some genes that should be "degraded" long time ago.
I admit that the fact of swimiming predisposition of human newborns could be explained via Neoteny - human kids are born very soon and they should be born one year later. Even Jay Gould seemed to advocate such view.
Anyway the theory of AAT is no way mainstream and darwinists seem to more attack its proponents as giving reliable evidence against the theory itself:
Aquatic ape hypothesis - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-29-2007 4:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2007 3:14 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 908 (402890)
05-30-2007 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by MartinV
05-30-2007 2:36 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
But if the junk DNA was there from the origin of life it would have mean that life was created by supreme inteligence. In that case such supreme inteligence could safeguarded mentioned DNA against degradation.
But they is no mechanism to do so. Or do you suppose that God performs a miracle with every meiosis?
It comes on my mind Aquatic ape theory. It - if true - would contradict darwinian theory of selective pressure upon functional genes and denigration of dormant ones.
No.
AAT claims that human newborns are fatty and can swim
Float, yes, because their fat makes them buoyant. To say that they can swim is stretching it a little.
I would say that it can be explained by some retro-action of some genes that should be "degraded" long time ago.
Why? The ability to swim has a fairly obvious survival advantage. Most mammals can do so.
Anyway the theory of AAT is no way mainstream and darwinists seem to more attack its proponents as giving reliable evidence against the theory itself:
(1) Bollocks.
(2) The proponents of the AAT are, in fact, all what you would so quaintly refer to as "darwinists".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by MartinV, posted 05-30-2007 2:36 PM MartinV has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 63 of 908 (402897)
05-30-2007 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by crashfrog
05-29-2007 3:53 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
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.
Its only your darwinistic belief.
Remember when I disproved that back in More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus?
You have chosen an exaple that somehow fits into darwinistic schema. There are many examples when the relationship is so complicated that it cannot prove co-speciation.
One of them is phylogeny of human tapeworms. Listen to what absurd conclusion this "phylogeny" led: The closest relatives of human tapeworms did not colonize either cows or pigs. Instead, they lived inside East African herbivores such as antelopes, with the lions and hyenas that kill them as their final hosts. So the darwinian conclusion (or better another weird darwinian fancy) is this one: human ancestors followed lions and ate the remains after them.
So the parasite switch to humans and afterwards to pigs. So human were scavengers by parasite phylogeny conclusion. Believe it if you like.
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.
Venter started with EST (Expressed Sequence Tag) which he obtained analyzing cDNA. As you know cDNA served only to store genes carried by RNA. They wanted to avoid to sequence junk DNA (Brenner for instance believed that junk DNA make 97% of DNA) so they focused their research on RNA where genes are present.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by crashfrog, posted 05-29-2007 3:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Hawks, posted 05-30-2007 6:42 PM MartinV has not replied
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2007 7:22 PM MartinV has replied
 Message 66 by Wounded King, posted 05-31-2007 5:17 AM MartinV has not replied
 Message 75 by Larni, posted 12-18-2007 7:58 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Hawks
Member (Idle past 6146 days)
Posts: 41
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 64 of 908 (402923)
05-30-2007 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by MartinV
05-30-2007 4:12 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
quote:
Venter started with EST (Expressed Sequence Tag) which he obtained analyzing cDNA. As you know cDNA served only to store genes carried by RNA. They wanted to avoid to sequence junk DNA (Brenner for instance believed that junk DNA make 97% of DNA) so they focused their research on RNA where genes are present.
From the abstract of "The Sequence of the Human Genome" (Science, 16 Feb, 2001, vol 291, pp1304-1351):
quote:
A 2.91-billion base pair (bp) consensus sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome was generated by the whole-genome shotgun sequencing method. The 14.8-billion bp DNA sequence was generated over 9 months from 27,271,853 high-quality sequence reads (5.11-fold coverage of the genome) from both ends of plasmid clones made from the DNA of five individuals.
Celera might have started with EST's, but like most(all?) of their subsequent sequencing efforts, the sequencing of the human genome used the shotgun approach using nuclear DNA.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by MartinV, posted 05-30-2007 4:12 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 908 (402931)
05-30-2007 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by MartinV
05-30-2007 4:12 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
One of them is phylogeny of human tapeworms. Listen to what absurd conclusion this "phylogeny" led: The closest relatives of human tapeworms did not colonize either cows or pigs. Instead, they lived inside East African herbivores such as antelopes, with the lions and hyenas that kill them as their final hosts. So the darwinian conclusion (or better another weird darwinian fancy) is this one: human ancestors followed lions and ate the remains after them.
So the parasite switch to humans and afterwards to pigs. So human were scavengers by parasite phylogeny conclusion. Believe it if you like.
But of course you cannot quote a single "darwinian" claiming that this is a fact, because this is some stupid gibberish you've made up in your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by MartinV, posted 05-30-2007 4:12 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by MartinV, posted 06-01-2007 4:46 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 66 of 908 (402972)
05-31-2007 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by MartinV
05-30-2007 4:12 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
One of them is phylogeny of human tapeworms. Listen to what absurd conclusion this "phylogeny" led: The closest relatives of human tapeworms did not colonize either cows or pigs. Instead, they lived inside East African herbivores such as antelopes, with the lions and hyenas that kill them as their final hosts. So the darwinian conclusion (or better another weird darwinian fancy) is this one: human ancestors followed lions and ate the remains after them.
So the parasite switch to humans and afterwards to pigs. So human were scavengers by parasite phylogeny conclusion. Believe it if you like
Or they could just kill and eat the antelope themselves like the lions and hyenas would do to pick up the parasite. What do you know, that is what they say in the paper (Hoberg et al., 2000)!
Hoberg et al. writes:
The origin of the host-parasite assemblage is attributable to direct predator-prey associations between hominids and bovids or via the scavenging of bovids killed by carnivorous predators...
And I'm not sure what would be so unbelievable about a hominid scavenging either. Do you have anything other than incredulity to back up your argument? You don't seem to have made any sort of case at all as to why this is somehow an 'absurd' conclusion. I'm not even sure where you think your phylogenetic claim comes from that...
MartinV writes:
The closest relatives of human tapeworms did not colonize either cows or pigs.
What they say is that humans did not originally pick up the tapeworms form cows or pigs. So it is the ancestors, not the closest relatives, that didn't colonise cows or pigs.Perhaps You mean that their closest living relatives do not use cows or pigs as intermediate hosts.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by MartinV, posted 05-30-2007 4:12 PM MartinV has not replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 67 of 908 (403275)
06-01-2007 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Dr Adequate
05-30-2007 7:22 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
But of course you cannot quote a single "darwinian" claiming that this is a fact, because this is some stupid gibberish you've made up in your head.
Of course it is not from my head. A darwinist came to this fantastic conclusion. According "parasite phylogeny" (crashfrog sees it as confirmation of darwinism) humans were scavengers and ate carcasses:
quote:
Personally, I find this a singularly gratifying result, since I was among the first to argue that early Homo hunted and scavenged animal carcasses.
You know this darwinian fancy is from American scientist online, uf:
| American Scientist
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2007 7:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 9:05 PM MartinV has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 908 (403322)
06-01-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by MartinV
06-01-2007 4:46 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
Of course we scavenged after carnivores --- people still do.
But no-one is claiming that tapeworms are proof of this, since they could be transmitted either through scavenging antelope carcasses or by hunting them ourselves.
Your claim that "human were scavengers by parasite phylogeny conclusion" is simply a load of bollocks, and no "darwinist" has made this claim, which is gibberish which you made up in your head.
What parasite phylogeny tells us is that tapeworms were initially transmitted to humans from wild animals, not domesticated animals, which is what the article actually says.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by MartinV, posted 06-01-2007 4:46 PM MartinV has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by MartinV, posted 06-02-2007 12:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
MartinV 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5828 days)
Posts: 502
From: Slovakia, Bratislava
Joined: 08-28-2006


Message 69 of 908 (403360)
06-02-2007 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by Dr Adequate
06-01-2007 9:05 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
Your claim that "human were scavengers by parasite phylogeny conclusion" is simply a load of bollocks, and no "darwinist" has made this claim, which is gibberish which you made up in your head.
The same article:
quote:
Finally, if we knew which other definitive hosts carry the tapeworm species most closely related to ours, we might learn something of the style of eating and obtaining meat practiced by our ancestors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2007 9:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2007 5:40 AM MartinV has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 70 of 908 (403372)
06-02-2007 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by MartinV
06-02-2007 12:44 AM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
Yes, of course. Which has what to do with your gibberish?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by MartinV, posted 06-02-2007 12:44 AM MartinV has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 71 of 908 (433809)
11-12-2007 10:45 PM


micro\macro and the simple explanation for Aquilegia753
From Message 58
Micro evolution-very small changes of plants and animals to adapt to new environments (ants are attacking a plant, so the plant grows special food for the ants, which in turn defend the plant against other predators. Soon, neither can live without the other. Plants developing pestacide on their leafs to ward off bugs, which develope and immunity to the pesticide. No species change at all). Webster's-Evolutionary change below the level of the species, resulting from relatively small genetic variations.
I'm sorry but this doesn't mean much to me, it seems a little jumbled. I looked up microE on dictionary.com and got the following:
quote:
1. evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.
2. minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time.
n. Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.
This depends on the definition of evolution which you did not provide. What it seems to say is that this is evolution below the level of speciation.
Macro evolution-the physical change from one species to another (man to human). The distinctive visible 'evolution' with large effects. Webster's-major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa
This also doesn't mean much to me and seems equally muddled (man to human?). I looked up macroE on dictionary.com and got the following:
quote:
major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.
Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups.
Note the reference to time. This is not a physical change, one species turning into another in one generation or less, but continued evolution over many generations of a species until step by step it is different enough to be called a different species or some higher arbitrary taxon. Thus this seems to say that it is evolution beyond the level of speciation, the branching of life from common ancestors. This also still depends on the definition of evolution itself.
A useful definition of evolution is that it is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation. You can apply this definition to genetic data or that from observation of natural history (living to fossil).
Can I suggest another couple of references - universities that teaches evolution?
Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
quote:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
The Process of Speciation
quote:
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms.
Definition 1: Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
Definition 2: The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
Notice that neither really tells you how macroevolution occurs (or what it is other than that it results in the taxonomic hierarchy).
Now let us suppose that all evolution occurs within a species, and that it is by definition microevolution. This kind of evolution can continue within a breeding population for a long time and encompass a remarkable (to us) degree of change, while each generation will still be similar to the ones before and after it: at every stage it will still appear to be one species - a single breeding population.
After many generations have passed the species may no longer look like the original species we started our thought experiment with, and we can say that it is a new species due to the noticeable (to us) amount of change that has accrued. This is called "Arbitrary Speciation" in evolutionary biology, and it occurs by the process of microevolution.
Speciation events that are of particular interest though, are those where branching occurs -- where one species becomes two (or more) similar species that no longer interbreed. These are called "Non-arbitrary Speciation" or "Speciation Events" in evolutionary biology, because it is not based on some subjective degree of change, but on the physical split of one breeding population into separate populations that don't interbreed. Once they no longer interbreed they will accrue difference from each other as they accumulate further change by microevolution and, with time, arbitrary speciation.
This continues until the next speciation event where the process is repeated, but now we have another branch on the tree of life, and in this way the tree of life is developed by the process of evolution, arbitrary speciation, speciation events and the branching from common ancestors. This provides the taxonomic structure where we arbitrarily make taxon divisions based on the degree (to us) of difference between existing species and their ancestors -- the higher the taxon level the greater time that has passed since the common ancestors.
You will notice that there is no reference to macroevolution. Nor is there any "half this half that" forms, just gradual evolution within breeding populations of similar organisms.
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.

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 72 of 908 (439381)
12-08-2007 3:29 PM


bump for beretta - macroevolution, and your chance to define\defend your view
Beretta, Message 66
The phenomenon is described relying on micromutational change. Macromutational change is believed to have occurred not because it has been observed but because it has been extrapolated from the micromutational evidence. Micromutation is provable, macromutation is inferred.Apart from that, macromutation is not at all well supported by the evidence.
The question is - what do you think macroevolution means? See if you can start with a simple basic statement.
Do you mean speciation?
Do you mean making the fundamental branches of life seen in the taxonomy of life and the genetic tree of life?
Or do you means something else, something you have not yet defined?
If you don't refer to macroevolution as used in the science of evolutionary biology, then what do you mean?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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.

  
mobioevo
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 34
From: Texas
Joined: 12-13-2007


Message 73 of 908 (441287)
12-16-2007 11:39 PM


What is it? Nothing.
When Dobzhansky first introduced the words micro- and macro-evolution to the biologist lexicon, biologists had no idea what made up genetic information. The gene was a very abstract concept that existed in the minds of geneticists, population geneticists, and breeders. They had no idea that genetic information was made up of DNA. They had no idea that the genome was such a complex structure. Today we have a very clear concept of what a gene is, and can detail very minute and major changes in the genome.
So definitions like this,
Taz writes:
The way I understand it, the term microevolution refers to small changes in allele frequency due to mutation and natural selection within a population. Macroevolution refers to a kazillion small changes over long periods of time giving rise to changes significant enough to be noticed.
has no use in modern evolutionary studies. There is no reason to have separate definitions for the same process. The only difference between the two is the length of time. When there is change in genetic information over time, use the term evolution. When a new species is created, use the term speciation.

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2007 10:13 PM mobioevo has replied
 Message 76 by Elmer, posted 12-18-2007 2:09 PM mobioevo has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 74 of 908 (441515)
12-17-2007 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by mobioevo
12-16-2007 11:39 PM


Re: What is it? Nothing... Useful.
So definitions like this, ...
... has no use in modern evolutionary studies. There is no reason to have separate definitions for the same process. The only difference between the two is the length of time.
I used to think that way, and I agree that clarity in meaning is important. The problem is that {HERE} we deal with creationists, and we need to find a way to present information to creationists that is valid and that they can understand, and in that context clarity means using common terminology for common meanings.
I also have found that a large number of evolutionary biologists from Gould to Dawkins, and a number of universities teaching evolutionary biology use these terms, and a good example is the University of Michigan:
quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
A full explanation of evolution requires that we link these two levels. Can small, gradual change produce distinct species? How does it occur, and how do we decide when species are species? Hopefully you will see the connections by the end of these three lectures.
(that last paragraph was one of the purposes behind this thread and my Evolution and the BIG LIE thread)
I changed my mind about this "micro\macro let's call the whole thing off" issue for a number of reasons. One was the common usage issue, it is a fact (particularly to creationists). Another was that it does not make much difference to the argument as long as you ARE clear about what you mean by the terminology (another one of the purposes of THIS thread).
But the kicker for me was that the differentiation between {what happens below the level of species} and {what happens above the level of species} IS different in one very simple but profound way - the population dynamics works in the opposite direction.
Within a population of breeding organisms the dynamics within the population will be to breed and mix genetic\hereditary traits. In a steady-state ecology this will give selective advantage to the more average phenotypes within the population, the ones that "stayed" in the middle - eek\stability. In a changing ecology this will give selective advantage to those phenotypes with similar trends to fitness for the new ecology, the ones that "moved" to a new center - punk\change in a unified direction. In both cases the "population dynamics" will tend to make the whole population tend towards an average phenotype, whether that average is an old one or a new one.
When we look at a (non-arbitrary) speciation event, where a population has divided into two (or more) subpopulations that are no longer interbreeding, no longer mixing genetic\hereditary traits towards a common trend, we have a sudden change from a single population with a common purpose, to two very similar but slightly different populations in competition for food, habitat, protection from predators, etc.
As I see it, this means that the biggest impact on natural selection in both those new populations will be for divergence from each other to lessen the competition, lower negative selection back towards the level that existed before speciation. I see this as a period of marked, high selection pressure that can result (and has resulted) in extinction for one or more populations. This added selection pressure to diverge did not exist before speciation and is caused directly by speciation. This higher level of selection pressure will also result in a higher rate of fixed changes in hereditary traits for divergence between populations and will cause one or both to diverge from their common ancestor population - a branch at an angle to the trend of the old population.
You can see both of these population dynamic trends - the tendency to stay to the middle and the tendency to diverge - in this example, a speciation of pelycodus:
quote:
The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.
The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.
One daughter population diverged "rapidly" from the other and at an angle to the ancestral trend. If we wanted to draw a distinction between the branches one could say that Notharctus venticolus showed continued evolution along the ancestral trend, while Notharctus nunienus showed macroevolutionary divergence from that ancestral trend. Both branches change by normal evolution - change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - by "microevolution" within each species, however this does not explain the rate of change of Notharctus nunienus away from the ancestral trend that it should have been equally well adapted to.
When there is change in genetic information over time, use the term evolution. When a new species is created, use the term speciation.
The issue is that macroevolution - the divergence of related species - occurs after speciation has already occurred. This is the area of evolution that creationists are concerned about, because this is directly related to the issue of common ancestry, and whether they know it or not (usually not) their problem is not evolution per se, but common ancestry - when and how many. They are also comfortable with the concepts of a division in levels of evolution for this reason, and to make progress you need to talk with, not at, people.
That's my take on it.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : finished
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
Edited by RAZD, : clarity again
Edited by RAZD, : fixed random mutation duplication error. must be bedtime.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more 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 73 by mobioevo, posted 12-16-2007 11:39 PM mobioevo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by mobioevo, posted 12-18-2007 5:12 PM RAZD has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 75 of 908 (441575)
12-18-2007 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by MartinV
05-30-2007 4:12 PM


Re: front-loaded macroevolution
One of them is phylogeny of human tapeworms. Listen to what absurd conclusion this "phylogeny" led: The closest relatives of human
MartivV writes:
tapeworms did not colonize either cows or pigs. Instead, they lived inside East African herbivores such as antelopes, with the lions and hyenas that kill them as their final hosts. So the darwinian conclusion (or better another weird darwinian fancy) is this one: human ancestors followed lions and ate the remains after them.
So the parasite switch to humans and afterwards to pigs. So human were scavengers by parasite phylogeny conclusion. Believe it if you like.
What's so crazy about the above?
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by MartinV, posted 05-30-2007 4:12 PM MartinV has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024