Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 156 of 248 (255414)
10-28-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Cold Foreign Object
10-28-2005 2:20 PM


Re: What Are the GENETIC Limits to Macroevolution?
Your one-line drive-by to the Darwin withdrawal. Please address the evidence of Darwin rescinding this claim and the evidence pointing to why he did so.
What I can rationally and logically conclude from the evidence that is known, is that we don't know why he took that part out of the book.
Making up scenarios about him "rescinding" his position on the basis of speculation over this "withdrawal" evidence is the most flimsy of hearsay arguments based on a molehill of microscopic proportions.
If I were to make some wild hypothesis for the 3 most likely reasons he took it out, what I would come up with would be more on the lines of:
(1) he felt it was an unnecessary analogy and did not add materially to the argument for the theory,
(2) that he saw some people (critics) focusing on the analogy and missing the point of the argument altogether (as did the author of the {wild suppositions re why he deleted the comment} you quoted),
(3) he felt it wasn't a scientific enough comment to include in a text like Origin of Species.
I could probably come up with others but it would still be irrelevant because it would still be speculation and totally unsubstantiated -- just like your author's comments (but probably closer to the mark because ... he didn't change the theory, just took out an example analogy)
In reality, your comment above is an insult caused by the inability to refute. I will not press this point any further as the facts speak for themselves, and until they are answered the silence and evasions confirm their veracity.
ROFLOL. That's an ad hominem, Appeal to Consequences, and Prejudicial Language logical fallacies combined into one (pointless) statement.
Barest of assertions.
Do you deny that speciation has occurred? Hmmm?
If you "have now" bred several new species....what the hell was your theory based upon prior to "now" ?
gosh, I wonder ... maybe something like "change in populations over time" ... yeah, that might be it, eh?
How can I evidence a negative ?
You claim a barrier exists. Thus you are not trying to "evidence a negative" but rather the opposite. When there is a barrier in the street it is rather hard "evidence" to ignore.
You are the one claiming bears can change into whales.
False misrepresentation of what I said. What I said was "you could develop a totally aquatic bear."
Your argument is microevolution is a fact. Everyone agrees. Then from this fact you assert macro must have occurred. But the data from experimentation says there are natural barriers preventing change beyond a certain point.
What experiments show barriers exist? What are the barriers?
What we see is that species just keep changing. And changing. And changing.
At the genetic level there is no point where scientist can say "this is {horse kind} and cannot change" - mutations are observed everywhere in the genome.
Mayr, the staunchest of evolutionists, was so brainwashed by his creator Evolution, he was blinded to the fact that genetic homeostasis falsified his false Creator.
Or he was just quoted out of context by a creatortionista trying to make a buck off a book.
In fact the Bible says the real Creator blinds every mind that denies Him Creator credit with the poison of Naturalism/evolution - a place where you will never run into Him again
Can you prove the veracity of this assertion? This is the science forum.
RAZD, you ignored the Crick data I posted, and let me say it very plainly: I cannot provide what you ask because I am not aware of any evidence supporting it. If there was evidence, we would not be having this debate.
No evidence of a barrier, and you say I am ignoring evidence.
Speciation cannot and has not been observed. Saying it does not make it true.
Ah, so you do deny that speciation has occurred. Fascinating. You are, of course, aware that one of the AIG (click) is:
”No new species have been produced.’ This is not true”new species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model. But this speciation is within the ”kind’, and involves no new genetic information.
Plainly stated, you are wrong.
The process as you know takes millions of years.
Also false. It has been observed, therefore this "time limit" is not true.
Then you hand-wave away the fact of genetic homeostasis.
FACT? How can I hand wave away something that has not been demonstrated to exist? Do magicians make {thin air} disappear on stage?
Hundreds of years of these experiments have established a natural barrier and its uncrossability.
You are obviously confused by the difference between {breeding a species for specific augmentation of certain preferred characteristics while retaining the other desirable characteristics} and evolution.
Ad hom attack indicates the inability to refute.
ROFLOL again! I demonstrated logical fallacies and false arguments, so they are NOT an ad hominem attack but a statement of fact. That means I have every right to question the validity of the source of such statements.
You have accepted the Mayr data, now, because you do not like the messenger (Milton) this somehow erases the message.
False. What I have said is that you still have not quoted Mayr directly to verify that what was quoted is actually applicable to the argument as used by your source. Indications from other posters are that it is not applicable, so Mayr could well be meaning something else.
I could easily and arbitrarily brand Darwinian sources as "questionable etc.etc."
Actually you do.
Milton is an atheist, Mensa member, and 30 year science journalist.
Argument from authority -- another logical fallacy. Who he is has no bearing if what he says is false and\or logically invalid.
Btw, I've known a lot of Mensa members and I am underwhelmed.
or continue ad hom/poisoning the well tactic which is only done because you cannot refute.
What it appears - from this whole post - is that you cannot refute the points I made about this argument.
So, no barrier exists. There is no barrier to "macro" evolution because there is no difference from the genetic changes that occur in "micro" evolution, in fact it is the same mechanism of evolution and there is really no differentiation into "macro" and "micro" just more of the same old plain vanilla evolution ... the change in populations over time. Accumulated changes on top of accumulated changes.
As for your questions in yellow. Why can't you answer them ?
Because they are about the absence of a barrier at the genetic level, and my point is that there is no observed genetic barrier, but to prove it I would have to ...
"evidence a negative"
Enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-28-2005 2:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2005 4:29 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 157 of 248 (255416)
10-28-2005 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by NosyNed
10-28-2005 7:13 PM


Re: Inconsistent or not?
If you are doing this then you need to back WAAAAAY off and learn a lot more before you engage in the discussion at his level.
And particularly about odd and even digit numbers of toes in groups of mammals.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2005 7:13 PM NosyNed has not replied

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


Message 168 of 248 (255689)
10-30-2005 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Cold Foreign Object
10-29-2005 4:29 PM


Re: What Are the GENETIC Limits to Macroevolution?
The evidential reasoning was cited by me and you have ignored = inability to refute.
But it doesn't matter, Darwin withdrew, and logically, it was because he felt there wasn't any amount of evidence to support, yet his theory ploughed ahead - driven by atheistic needs.
The fact that my points show that (1) there is no single logical conclusion possible and (2) that there are many valid reasons for doing so and (3) that the theory itself is independent of any examples used
Mean that your point is refuted. Denial of this is not logical.
Why post the preceding speculation in the first place then ? (rhetorical)
To show you how silly it is to make any speculation on this issue, expecially when it doesn't affect the theory in question at all.
When I said speciation has not occurred/no evidence exists I was talking about Darwinian speciation.
Just for chuckles, what would "non-Darwinian speciation" be?
There is only one {level\type} to speciation. Speciation is when a new species is {observed\classified}. Period. This has been observed. There are no special "types" of speciation.
The Bible accuracy Forum is part of the Science Forum.
This is not the Bible accuracy Forum, but the
EvC Forum ’ All Forums ’ Science Forums ’ Biological Evolution
Forum
90 percent of your post is ad hoc.
Substantiate that claim, demonstrate it. With a calculation of the actual percentage.
I will not go round and round with you and give dignity to a ignorant view denying the establish fact of genetic homeostasis.
(sigh) another ad hominem ... {turns other cheek}
What they all have in common is that they are the source/origin of something. Genetic homeostasis is caused by Genesis being true.
ROFLOL the logic there is stunning ... ly absent. The origins of words has absolutely no {effect\interaction\control} on the behavior of the natural world.
When you can falsify genetic homeostasis ...
It has been: speciation has been observed. Denial of this is not logical.
I suspect the Admins let you by on previous reputation that did not hold up in this case.
LOL - I get no special treatment from admins here ... this amounts to another ad hominem .... {turns other other cheek}
Speciation occurs, there is no limitation to it at the genetic level. The changes that are involved in new speciation events are not restricted to only certain zones that prevent what could be called "macro" evolution ... if such a thing really existed as a different mechanism than plain old simple vanilla evolution.
Enjoy.
{fixed quote box}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*06*2005 09:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-29-2005 4:29 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

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


Message 170 of 248 (257372)
11-06-2005 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by mick
11-06-2005 9:38 PM


Re: Macro Evolution - a definition?
We could have handled a small Creationist website... but a large one???
But at the large one it will receive more peer review eh?
{more people will peer at it?}

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 9:38 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by mick, posted 11-06-2005 9:54 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 173 of 248 (261134)
11-18-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2005 8:37 PM


topic please
the TOPIC is
A {macro vs micro} genetic question for creationists:
IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?
At the level of DNA there is no real difference in all levels of organisms other than the progression of the different pairs of the appropriate (4) amino acids (CTAG).
Random mutations can cause any pair to be changed to another, thus at the molecular level it is entirely possible to change one {"macro" organism} into another {"macro" organism} with the correct series of mutations of exactly the same kind as are known to occur in "micro"evolution.
The whole system was supposedly set up during those original 6 days, so there must be a mechanism in place that prevents "macro"evolution ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?
I suggest if you want to discuss editing differences beteen volumes of "Origin of Species" that you start a new topic as there is absolutely no way this is relevant to the discussion of genetic evidence for or against "macro" evoloution.
Note in particular that the field of genetics came long after Darwin.
Enjoy.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2005 8:37 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2005 9:16 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 175 of 248 (261148)
11-18-2005 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2005 9:16 PM


Re: topic please
Again, you have not presented any genetic evidence of any barrier to "macro"evolution. Repeating nonsense about an editorial change to a book that predates the science of genetics is both off topic and totally irrelevant.
Start a new thread if you want to discuss your pet theory, but don't try to hijack another.
YOU ARE OFF TOPIC.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2005 9:16 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

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


Message 177 of 248 (261229)
11-19-2005 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Buzsaw
11-18-2005 11:12 PM


Re: DNA INFO
So aren't you implying by your question that, "we don't know" is unacceptable for creationists who don't advocate evolution but ok for evolutionists?
No, because it is creationists that claim that "macro"evolution is impossible (and thus they do claim to know). The question is: if it is impossible, then where is the mechanism that makes it impossible.
Conversly, if no mechanism can be discerned, then why would "macro" evolution not be inevitable as just more "micro" evolution?
Here is where the creationist should say "I don't know" ...
The concept of the common ancestor means that each branch in the tree of life at the moment of branching was no more different than a speciation event: "micro" evolution occured. After that initial division more speciation events followed (more "micro" evolution) until first genus became divided, then family, and on .... these divisions above species being purely human constructs for convenience with little real meaning of course.
The genetic tree matches this concept with genetic divergence patterns, patterns that show the ability to mutate is not restricted at the genetic level.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*19*2005 08:15 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2005 11:12 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Buzsaw, posted 11-19-2005 9:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 180 of 248 (341775)
08-20-2006 5:50 PM


Refining the concepts
I have come to the conclusion that there is some value to the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution -- as long as they are properly defined.
This has turned up in a number of threads subsequent to this one but is summarized on this one:
Message 25
After a speciation separation, each population now has a new {stasis equilibrium} point that it will try to "center" (chose mates) around, and there is no mixing of genes between the divided populations so those {stasis equilibrium} points can diverge.
But there are other population dynamics that are involved both before and after that are different. Take pelycodus:
(Image copied to mirror site to save bandwidth originally from A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus)
Where you see a general (normal) trend toward larger individuals as time passes, and then a speciation event with subsequest divergence between two populations. The right branch continues with the linear increase in size, however the left branch dives back to re-occupy the original {size\niche\function}. This would be forced by competition between the two groups, a selection pressure that doesn't happen while they are one population. Once they have diverged sufficiently that such competition does not threaten survival of one population, then each are free to take whatever evolutionary paths they want, but they will not be the same path - that bridge is burned.
Note that the reduction in size is faster than the general increase in size. This is the effect of being de-linked.
Note also that the population variation is restricted to the same general width rather than getting broader at each time level. This is the effect of the trendency towards stasis.
Stasis doesn't have to be a result, btw, it can be {static relative to a continued trend} as above; it is just a tendency inherent in sexual selection (imho) towards average individuals in a population -- ie sexual selection could be a two-edged sword, allowing greater (liberal) mixing of genes along with quick (conservative) selection to omit extreme divergence.
I tried to find the post where I had come to this conclusion last night and couldn't (silly ol search system + tired brain + impatience), but you can think of all the selection pressures that operate within a population and all the selection pressures that operate between populations as being the essential difference in the shape of the evolution that is observed.
Wait, I finally found the post
Message 267
"micro"evolution is the individual changes in species over time (and space), each change is a separate "micro"evolutionary event. This represents short term trends and fluctuations (larger beaks or smaller beaks etc), the change that occurs before speciation takes place.
"macro"evolution is the accumulation of changes over long periods of time, thus "macro"evolution is not the {change in species over time due to mutation and natural selection} but the {accumulation of changes incorporated into species by "micro"evolution ... and natural selection}. This represents long term trends - the change that continues (by continued "micro" changes) to occur once speciation has been achieved.
Which is further refined in
Message 278
The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that it's more than that, it's also the difference between application at different levels:
(1) the individual level -- each individual is conceived with it's basic kit of mutations and the fitness of the individual is tested to survive to live and breed, those with non-lethal mutations live, those without disabling mutations survive and grow, those without disadvantageous mutations - and maybe a bit of luck - breed. This is where continued mutation and adaptation occur.
(2) the population level -- the population is made up of individuals with a wide variety of mutations, adaptations and abilities, and the dynamics of interactions of the members of the population in reaction to the environmental pressures is where change versus stasis tendencies are selected, this is where the dynamics of the different adaptations and abilities come into play, whether for survival or for breeding. It can only act on the basis of the net accumulation of mutations that are available.
You could also say that "micro" changes are not fixed in the population, as the population as a whole can revert under changed selection pressures (the way the beak size can revert). Whether the {features\alleles\variations} can become part of the defining characteristics of the species is debatable, as this gets into what distinguishes one species from another (especially on a timeline).
Once a speciation has occurred those changes have become part of the {defining genome} of the species and so do become fixed (as part of the previous amount of variation is discarded in the divide), albeit still subject to "micro" changes around that {center\node\nexus}.
Speciation is the dividing line then between "micro" and "macro" -- and once two speciation events occur in succession the fact that "macro"evolution (by this definition) has occurred cannot be denied either: that is all that is needed to show that evolutionary branches occur and that the result is a nested hierarchy, which is the basis of all upper level taxonomy divisions.
You could also use the genetic differences between the species in these subsequent speciations and of their ancestors to validate the genetic tree derivations. I would think this has been done and that there would be ongoing work on it to refine the marker systems used (anybody know of papers on this?).
You can't have "macro" without "micro" -- the basic mechanism of change is still the same -- but you could have "micro" without "macro" ... hence evidence of such effect is different than evidence of (species) change over time.
Note that this does not mean that there is a barrier to "macro"evolution, as it rather confirms that it is the accumulation of "micro"evolution, and there is no mechanism yet proposed to stop or prevent change at a genetic level.
Enjoy.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 09-24-2006 5:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 181 of 248 (351853)
09-24-2006 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
08-20-2006 5:50 PM


From the {Peppered Moths} thread ... for tuned2g
In Message 183 states:
Yes--the documented changes of coloration of peppered moths is an example of natural selection. But does this prove evolution? Natural selection is the premise of the survival-of-the-fittest--organisms that exhibit traits more ideal for their environment will out-survive organisms without these traits and reproduce, ie dark-colored moths survive near the factories because light-colored moths stand out on the bark of dark-colored trees and are more easily seen by predators, while the dark-colored moths are hidden better. Thus the population is dominantly darker colored after several generations of moths reproducing since the lighter ones are being eaten! Anyway, natural selection can and does cause such variation in the natural world that can give rise to new species and even new genus. This has been observed and well, I know it used to be called microevolution, though I have heard that term is somewhat out of date. But natural selection cannot account for macroevolution, ie taking a one-celled organism and evolving it into a vertebrate through many transitional forms, because microevolution deals with only with genes that are already in place! Macroevolution requires the addition of new genes! These peppered moths will always be peppered moths, no matter how much they mutate. They will need an entirely new genome to become something else. Thus, natural selection is proven scientific fact... but the theory of evolution is not.
Rather that take the {Peppered Moth} thread off topic to discuss the majority of this post, I have moved my response to this thread for further debate as necessary. Quotes below are selected from the above quoted post.
Anyway, natural selection can and does cause such variation in the natural world that can give rise to new species and even new genus. This has been observed and well, I know it used to be called microevolution, though I have heard that term is somewhat out of date.
Actually natural selection does not cause the variation, it only selects among the available variations those traits that get born into the next generation. This is both a question of survival and reproduction, as an individual can survive and not reproduce, or one can reproduce and then die.
The variation comes from shuffling the gene deck -- by sex and by mutations. Sex shuffles which genes are passed to the offspring with the typical Mendelian possibilities for things like blue eyes and blond hair, and mutation makes those different variations possible.
Many will be lethal (2/3rds of human zygots never make it to become fetuses for instance) or prevent fertilization (basic incompatability -- and may occur in hybrid populations, as in mules), but there will also be some that are neutral (have no apparent effect under then current selection conditions), and the occasional one will have some benefit such that either reproduction or survival will be enhanced (under then current selection conditions). Some mutations will be only slightly deleterious, or only deleterious in double doses (from both parents) and these mutations will also tend to survive within the species populations.
The end result of mutation and natural selection is speciation -- an observed fact, both in experiments in labs and in wild populations -- where two or more populations become reproductively isolated for a number of different reasons and diverge due to the accumulation of change over time.
Yes this has been called "microevolution" by both creationists and by some evolution biologists.
The creationists have been backed into "microevolution" being speciation by the undeniable evidence that this actually occurs (they previously argued that speciation was the "macroevolution" that couldn't occur), and the evolutionary biologists that use the terms use them to differentiate between the slightly different population dynamics that occur before speciation as compared to after speciation.
But natural selection cannot account for macroevolution, ie taking a one-celled organism and evolving it into a vertebrate through many transitional forms, because microevolution deals with only with genes that are already in place! Macroevolution requires the addition of new genes!
Funny how you think "microevoloution" could be {antiquated\archaic\obsolete}, but you have no qualms about asserting your opinion on "macroevolution" ...
Mutation is the process that adds new genes into the mix, it is the source of the ones "already in place" for "microevolution" -- although technically you are mixing "micorevolution" with natural selection there eh?
Mutation provides variety, natural selection weeds out deleterious new genes, is indifferent to neutral new genes, and boosts beneficial new genes.
The difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is not in how much evolution occurs in a generation, but how many generations are involved for the change to be significant enough to human observers to classify into different categories (taxonomy classifications are a purely artificial human intellectual construction): classification by species and ancestry is all that is really needed (and for an individual organism the necessary classifications are even simpler: is it mate material, food, predator, or environment?).
Before speciation occurs there is a re-mixing of genes within the species population with each generation, so that beneficial, neutral, and some (not too lethal) deleterious (see sickle cell anemia) mutations are continually mixed and remixed within the gene pool for the species population. Some old variations are sometimes lost through sexual selection and genetic drift, and some new variations from mutations get spread throughout major portions of the population before they appear to have any effect.
Over time this results in gradual change in the species population, and sometimes those changes are 'significant' (to the human observer) enough that they get classified as a new species -- although at no time is there reproductive incompatability within the population and there is no way to verify whether reproductive isolation would be valid if populations of current and ancestral species were somehow able to bridge the time barrier to breed.
This is still "microevolution" within each generation: mutation and natural selection causing change in species over time.
Once speciation occurs the population dynamics change. Once speciation occurs there is no re-mix of the genetic material within the total population but only within each 'daughter' populations. The 'daughter' populations are now free to diverge genetically as much or as little as mutation and natural selection allow -- there is no mechanism to constrain them ... other than the limitations of what is provided by mutation and what is passed to the next generations by natural selection.
These peppered moths will always be peppered moths, no matter how much they mutate. They will need an entirely new genome to become something else.
Even with a new genome they will still be peppered moths, just as dogs will always be dogs, and apes will always be apes, etcetera. This is the structure of the family tree -- that all subsequent species will still be children of ancestral species, in the same way that your children will always be the progeny of your parents and their parents.
But dogs will always also be canines, but they will never be foxes (who will also always be foxes and always be canines but never dogs) or coyotes (who will also always be coyotes and always be canines but never dogs or foxes).
When there was only one species of canid there were variations in the species population but there were only canids ... and then speciation occurred with the results that there are now dogs, wolves, foxes and coyotes.
Or look at horses, donkeys, zebras and onagers. They will always be equines ... that is the nature of descent from common ancestor populations.
If the two varieties of peppered moths became reproductively isolated so that they became different species they would still both be peppered moths, but you would have one species of light peppered moths and one species of dark peppered moths. Then over time each species would develop different varieties within their species populations.
So far this has not happened. They are still considered one species. As such the evidence of their population shifts -- from predominantly light with some dark, to predominantly dark with some light, and then back to predominantly light with some dark -- is clearly a result of preferential predation as a selection mechanism with the change being due to altered environment that change the relative fitness of the different varieties for blending into the predominant environment.
And until speciation occurs this will only be evidence of natural selection in action.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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 180 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2006 5:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by tuned2g, posted 09-25-2006 9:04 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 184 of 248 (352149)
09-25-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by tuned2g
09-25-2006 9:04 AM


Re: From the {Peppered Moths} thread ... for tuned2g
Hey, thanks for pointing out several flaws in my terminology ... Sorry about getting a little off topic in the peppered moths thread.
Not a problem. That's typical for everyone when they first post. You can also learn some 'trick' (like quote boxes) by using the {peek mode} button at the top right corner of the "Text of message you're replying to:" window, and seeing how others format their posts.
The main point I am trying to make is microevolution cannot produce macroevolutionary changes. I would love to see some documentation stating the contrary, but I have yet to.
At least you are on the right track with "macro"evolution being a product of "micro"evolution. Many cycles of "micro"evolution.
The question back to you is what could prevent it from happening?
To really understand this we need to look at what a "macroevolutionary change" involves.
Note that part of the question involves what we as humans consider remarkable, versus what is just another {difference between species} in the real world: why do we classify animals the way we do?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} 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 182 by tuned2g, posted 09-25-2006 9:04 AM tuned2g has not replied

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


Message 185 of 248 (494547)
01-16-2009 8:11 PM


Convergent Evolution shows there is no "Genetic Barrier" of any "kind"
In Message 26, seekingfirstthekingdom says:
still stand by my comments that the overwhelming evidence in the fossil record points to kinds staying within genetic boundaries instituted by our creator in genesis.
Seeing as that is a Great Debate thread, I thought I would move my response, Message 33,here to let any other people reply to it:
quote:
The problem I have with this claim is convergent evolution. Consider these fellas:
Berkeley - evolution 101:
quote:
However, these animals also have some key differences:
  • Sugar gliders live in Australia, and flying squirrels live in North America.
  • Sugar gliders have a pouch (like a kangaroo does), which provides shelter and safety for their tiny babies ” at birth, a baby sugar glider is smaller than a peanut! Flying squirrels, on the other hand, have much larger babies and no pouch.
    By studying their genes and other traits, biologists have figured out that sugar gliders and flying squirrels are probably not very closely related. Sugar gliders are marsupial mammals and flying squirrels are placental mammals.
  • From this (and many other examples) I would conclude that there is no barrier that prevents a marsupial from evolving to be virtually identical in behavior, size, appearance, etc, to a placental mammal.
    When you look at the fossil record the ancestors of these animals are less similar than these two, so they have been evolving separately to be similar towards a common end.
    added by edit:
    The alternative is that all mammals back to the first mammal are one "kind" - thus including not only duckbilled platypus, kangaroos, koala bears and echidna, but elephants, whales, giraffes, and mole rats ... to say nothing of humans.
    And in Message 41 of that thread:
    quote:
    Another example of convergent evolution, one that extends even further into the dark ages of life on earth, is the killer whale and the white shark:
    quote:
    KILLER WHALE
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    The Orca or Killer Whale (Orcinus orca), less commonly, Blackfish or Seawolf, is the largest species of the dolphin family. It is found in all the world's oceans, from the frigid Arctic and Antarctic regions to warm, tropical seas.
    Orca are versatile and opportunistic predators. Some populations feed mostly on fish, and other populations hunt marine mammals, including sea lions, seals, walruses and even large whales. They are considered the apex predator of the marine world.
    Great white shark - Wikipedia
    quote:
    WHITE SHARK
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Chondrichthyes
    The great white shark, also known as white pointer, white shark, or white death, is an exceptionally large lamniform shark found in coastal surface waters in all major oceans. Reaching lengths of more than 6 m (20 ft) and weighing up to 2,250 kg (5,000 lb), the great white shark is arguably the world's largest known predatory fish. It is the only surviving species of its genus, Carcharodon.
    (except that a shark is not a "true" fish ...)
    It appears there is no "genetic barrier" that prevents mammal evolution from becoming similar sharks, which are from an ancient order:
    Cartilaginous fish diverged from the branch that mammals are on over 450 million years ago, and pre-date "true fish" ... that's a lot for one "kind" eh? This puts true fish, amphibians, birds and mammals together with Cartilaginous Fish into one "Kind" ... or does this make Chordata the "kind" division?
    The ultimate conclusion is - once again - that all life is of one "kind" ... as shown by the structure of DNA in all life, that there are no apparent genetic barriers that divide life into two or more groups of organisms.
    The response was tepid ... (Message 46 and Message 51):
    im going to research this.anymore proof apart from a chart that what you say here: ... is actually true or you just defending a belief system?
    i will research the orca shark thing tho but i suspect its just another atheist red herring.
    with my response in Message 56:
    quote:
    Atheist? Curiously that includes a lot of christians, including Linnaeus. How about realist people that cover the full spectrum of beliefs.
    Here's a hint:
    Great white shark - Wikipedia
    quote:
    Scientific classification
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Chondrichthyes
    Subclass: Elasmobranchii
    Order: Lamniformes
    Family: Lamnidae
    Genus: Carcharodon
    Species: C. carcharias
    Elasmobranchii - Wikipedia
    quote:
    Elasmobranchii is the subclass of cartilaginous fish that includes skates, rays (batoidea), and sharks (selachii).
    Elasmobranchii is one of the two subclasses of cartilaginous fishes in the class Chondrichthyes,...
    Chondrichthyes - Wikipedia
    quote:
    Chondrichthyes or cartilaginous fishes are jawed fish with paired fins, paired nostrils, scales, two-chambered hearts, and skeletons made of cartilage rather than bone. They are divided into two subclasses: Elasmobranchii (sharks, rays and skates) and Holocephali (chimaera, sometimes called ghost sharks, which are sometimes separated into their own class).
    They don't have a bone in their body.
    Orca - Wikipedia
    quote:
    Scientific classification
    Kingdom: Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    Order: Cetacea
    Suborder: Odontoceti
    Family: Delphinidae
    Genus: Orcinus
    Species: O. orca
    Notice that you have to go to the phylum level of Chordata to include both organisms.
    Chordate - Wikipedia
    quote:
    Chordates (phylum Chordata) are a group of animals that includes the vertebrates, together with several closely related invertebrates. They are united by having, at some time in their life cycle, a notochord, a hollow dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal slits, an endostyle, and a post-anal tail.
    That's a pretty big group. Classification is by existing observable traits.
    That is, of course, according to classical taxonomy, which was originally developed by Linnaeus to sort out living forms into "kinds" ...
    What we have is the evidence of convergent evolution to show that there is no barrier to what an organism can evolve into.
    A bat
    A bird
    A pterosaur
    Three different evolutionary paths to the same end. Either they are the same "kind" or there is no genetic barrier to the evolutionary convergence between different "kinds" of organisms.
    These are just a few of the many examples of convergent evolution.
    Enjoy.

    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) • • •

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


    Message 188 of 248 (496533)
    01-28-2009 9:19 PM
    Reply to: Message 186 by AlphaOmegakid
    01-28-2009 4:01 PM


    lists aren't limits.
    Hi AlphaOmegakid, been a while.
    The "mechanisms" that you are looking for are in all living organisms, and all of them have been discovered and are well documented. That is the answer to the last two questions.
    Just to be clear you are claiming that this list encompasses all the processes that prevent evolution from wandering too far afield and ending up like some other kind of animal.
    So what are the mechanisms that prevent or limit the evolution of different biblical "kinds" of animals...
    1. Death by mutation
    2. Disease by mutation
    3. Sex
    4. Speciation
    5. Protein folding - this may come under disease or death.
    6. Genetic capacity
    Should be easy to deal with.
    Let's start with the stipulation that we are talking about limiting one form of life from being similar to another, that we are NOT talking about identical reproduction of another life form. Why? Because evolution does not say that identical forms occur from different lineages of organisms, rather the opposite: organisms will diverge to take advantage of the opportunities of their ecology/ies.
    1. Death by mutation
    Interestingly, death by mutation occurs when a mutation is deleterious, removing the deleterious mutation from the genetic pool of the population. Amazingly the death of some organisms in a population does not prevent the rest of the population from evolving - changing hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation - as such quickly removed mutations don't last long enough to impact the population.
    Death does not occur with neutral or beneficial mutations, nor does it limit the occurance of these types of mutations in other members of the population. Mutations that allow an organism to take advantage of a different ecology/ies, gives them more options, not death.
    So I don't see how "death by mutation" necessarily limits the rest of the population in the slightest, in how they can evolve to take advantage of their ecological opportunities.
    2. Disease by mutation
    This is just a lesser deleterious version of (1) above, and curiously this can have more impact on a population than death ... if the organisms that are diseased reproduce and pass on their mutation, or if they interfere with the mating of others (think of women married to sterile men).
    The fascinating part though, is that mutations that may be deleterious in one ecology can be beneficial in another, and so what is "sick" in one ecology may be "pre-adapted" for a different ecology, thus diversifying life as it spreads into new systems. Stout fins may be less adapted to swimming in the open ocean, but have an advantage to pushing around on muddy bottoms and for crawling out onto land.
    So I don't see how "disease by mutation" necessarily limits the rest of the population in the slightest in how they can evolve to take advantage of their ecological opportunities.
    3. Sex
    Humorously, sex is how genetic traits are passed from one generation to the next. The organisms that are better at it have more offspring. Surely you've noticed that sex results in progeny? Isn't that what the big deal about birth control and abortion is about?
    Interestingly it is sex that mixes traits in different combinations, each organism being composed of many hereditary traits with different levels of advantages and disadvantages for survival and breeding, and sex allows these to occur in different mixes\combinations. Again, this results in increased diversity in a population, not in a limitation.
    So I don't see how "sex" necessarily limits the population in the slightest in how they can evolve to take advantage of their ecological opportunities.
    4. Speciation
    Fascinatingly speciation is just the point where evolution isolated two populations formerly sharing hereditary traits into two or more populations developing new traits to adapt to different ecologies, so that after speciation they become more different. Speciation adds diversity to life, not limiting it.
    So I don't see how "speciation" necessarily limits the daughter populations in the slightest in how they can evolve to take advantage of multiple ecological opportunities.
    5. Protein folding - this may come under disease or death.
    Yes, it would be one of the mutations that causes death of the fetal organism. As in (1) above this would have very little effect on the population. So you are down to 5 processes, with only one more to go to actually show some way of limiting evolution ...
    6. Genetic capacity
    Curiously, when I use google scholar to find discussions of "genetic capacity" I get a series of articles about the ability of organisms to diversify into new and different ecologies, not prevent them from changing.
    So I don't see how "genetic capacity" necessarily limits a population in the slightest in how it can evolve to take advantage of their ecological opportunities.
    There is a list of six biological mechanisms that are fully known to limit or prevent evolution beyond a certain levels.
    And amazingly all of them fail to demonstrate a mechanism that prevents evolution from occurring, continuing to take advantage of ecological opportunities to diversify and spread.
    The problem is that you did not show how they result in preventing evolution beyond any kind of level. Assertion is not evidence.
    A capacity is a limit.
    So the capacity to add is a limit. Interesting. Presumably this is how you prevent mutations from adding up ... oh wait that would be the inability to add, not the capacity.
    Now look at these little fellas:
    Flying Squirrel (on left):
    quote:
    Kingdom:           Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Subphylum: Vertebrata
    Class: Mammalia
    Order: Rodentia
    Family: Sciuridae
    Subfamily: Sciurinae
    Tribe: Pteromyini

    Rodentia includes mice, rats, squirrels, chipmunks, gophers, porcupines, beavers, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, degus, chinchillas, prairie dogs, groundhogs, and others.
    Sugar Glider (on right):
    quote:
    Kingdom:            Animalia
    Phylum: Chordata
    Class: Mammalia
    Infraclass: Marsupialia
    Order: Diprotodontia
    Family: Petauridae
    Genus: Petaurus
    Species: P. breviceps

    Diprotodontia includes kangaroos, wallabies, possums, koala, wombats, and many others.
    How is it that these two species, evolving from quite different backgrounds, with many diverse relative of other kinds of animals in between them and a common ancestral pool, have come to evolve to be such similar kinds of organisms?
    I look forward to your presenting evidence of the process that prevented this from occurring.
    Enjoy.

    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 186 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 01-28-2009 4:01 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 189 by Coyote, posted 01-29-2009 1:06 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 192 by Annafan, posted 01-29-2009 6:45 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 197 by IchiBan, posted 01-29-2009 12:35 PM RAZD has replied

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


    Message 195 of 248 (496586)
    01-29-2009 7:06 AM
    Reply to: Message 193 by olivortex
    01-29-2009 6:53 AM


    Hey olivortex,
    ... can't import any image from another page.
    For other formating tips see Posting Tips
    One should (a) be careful not to post copyright pictures, and (b) reference sites of origin etc.
    http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/...mals/red-panda.html
    quote:
    An endangered red panda sits on a branch
    Photograph by Mark W. Moffett
    ... Like giant pandas, they have an extended wrist bone that functions almost like a thumb and greatly aids their grip.
    The red panda has given scientists taxonomic fits. It has been classified as a relative of the giant panda, and also of the raccoon, with which it shares a ringed tail. Currently, red pandas are considered members of their own unique family”the Ailuridae.
    Cute. WIth a Panda's Thumb. One wonders what "kind" they are.
    Enjoy.

    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 193 by olivortex, posted 01-29-2009 6:53 AM olivortex has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 196 by olivortex, posted 01-29-2009 8:43 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


    Message 199 of 248 (496665)
    01-29-2009 8:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 197 by IchiBan
    01-29-2009 12:35 PM


    Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
    Thank you IchiBan,
    Heavier than air powered flight = maintaining level flight at a given altitude under its own power.
    I fully agree, however this thread is not about flight, but about finding out if some barrier to evolution exists as creationists claim. You may be just using this as an example, which is how I will answer. However, if you want to discuss the evolution of flight, please start a new thread. You may want to read How do you evolve a BAT? first.
    The creationist claim being discussed is whether there is a genetic limit to evolution, a limitation from within the organism that limits how much it can evolve.
    Convergent evolution invalidates the concept that there is some mechanism that stops two types of animals from evolving to be similar organisms, as two different types of animals have evolved to be similar organisms in order to take advantage of similar ecologies.
    That's all it takes to show such a concept is invalid in science.
    There is no evidence that the ... any ... gliding creatures ever mutated into a creature capable of heavier than air powered flight, ....
    This seems to imply you think that there should be a direction to evolution, a progression from gliding to flight: there isn't. The failure of gliding animals to evolve full flight is simply because they do not need to evolve the rest of the mechanisms of flight to survive and breed. In addition, the organisms that can fly did not necessarily start with gliding.
    Interestingly, there are an amazing number of species that can glide with varying degrees of lift to drag ratios. Many different existing features have been adapted to provide wing surfaces with varying success. Frogs, lizards, snakes, spiders, plant seeds, etc. - and none of these species have any genetic block that prevents this evolution.
    http://www.squidoo.com/wildgliders (cool information on lots of gliders: lizards, snakes, geckos, frogs ...)
    ... which is what the bird, bat, insects and airplane are capable of.
    And aside from the airplane (that is not an organism subject to evolution through inheriting genetic traits), these are organisms that have evolved flight independently. Bats and birds are also convergent evolution products, taking advantage of opportunity to expand their ecologies. Bugs apparently have evolved flight many times. We also see pterodactyls in wide variety that evolved flight similar to bats -- another example of convergent evolution.
    The difference between flying organism and gliding organism is a function of opportunity and selection pressure, rather than genetic limitation.
    For instance the flying fish: it just needs to outrun it's predator, a much larger, heavier fish that is too big and heavy for similar wing fins to evolve. This predator is also limited to how fast it can swim, so all the flying fish needs is to go faster, which it does.
    It also is not capable of living in the air very long, so flight would be impractical even if there were more pressure to evolve flight to escape the predators.
    As long as all the current known many kinds of gliders are currently able to survive and breed, and as long as additional flight ability does not offer any selection advantage, then they will not evolve further in ability to move through the air.
    But the lack of a flight inducing ecology, or the lack of flight to provide an opportunity for improved survival and breeding is not a genetic limitation, not a limitation from within the organism. Different ecologies, different opportunities will result in different evolution from a common ancestor population.
    Enjoy.
    Edited by RAZD, : from within

    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 197 by IchiBan, posted 01-29-2009 12:35 PM IchiBan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 200 by IchiBan, posted 01-29-2009 9:44 PM RAZD has replied

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


    Message 208 of 248 (496692)
    01-30-2009 12:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 200 by IchiBan
    01-29-2009 9:44 PM


    Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
    Thanks for the clarification, Ichiban.
    What I was keying on is that very often the gliding creatures are interjected into the discussion with the inference that they were/are an example of creature in an early stage of evolution into another creature towards powered flight. Darwin even had it in his own writings specifically about the flying fish evolving into something more.
    But the basic assumption here, is that there is some kind of "progress" involved from gliding to flight, that once gliding was accomplished, that this "progress" would continue to flight. This is not how evolution works. Darwin may have speculated on what further evolution might occur for flying fish as he did for swimming bears, however, this too, does not mean that such speculations must occur in general and in the last 150 years specifically.
    Again, if you want to have a discussion about the evolution of flight, a new thread is called for. As pointed out by Ned, the topic of this thread is whether there is a genetic barrier to evolution. So far, no such barrier has been demonstrated.
    The thesis of this debate topic is really simple, Message 1:
    quote:
    A {macro vs micro} genetic question for creationists:
    IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?
    At the level of DNA there is no real difference in all levels of organisms other than the progression of the different pairs of the appropriate (4) amino acids (CTAG).
    Random mutations can cause any pair to be changed to another, thus at the molecular level it is entirely possible to change one {"macro" organism} into another {"macro" organism} with the correct series of mutations of exactly the same kind as are known to occur in "micro"evolution.
    The whole system was supposedly set up during those original 6 days, so there must be a mechanism in place that prevents "macro"evolution ... what is the built-in biological mechanism that prevents this from happening? Where is it located? Why hasn't it been found?
    Those arguing for the proposition that there is a genetic mechanism have failed to present any evidence that this in fact is true.
    Those arguing against the proposition have shown evidence that there is no barrier, evidence like convergent evolution, where quite different evolutionary lineages have produced similar adaptations to similar ecologies.
    Sugar gliders and flying squirrels
    Bats and pterosaurs and birds
    Sharks and killer whales
    This genetic barrier to macro-evolution, It is a false challenge to the creationists because it assumes evolution as true, when the evidence shows only adaption and variation within limits.
    No, all it assumes is that if there is "only adaption and variation within limits" that there must then be a barrier that prevents macroevolution at the genetic level.
    Clearly the evidence of convergent evolution demonstrates that there is no barrier to what can evolve starting from different ancestral lineages.
    What stops macroevolution at the genetic level?
    Enjoy.

    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 200 by IchiBan, posted 01-29-2009 9:44 PM IchiBan has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 222 by IchiBan, posted 01-31-2009 6:45 PM RAZD has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024