Macro and Micro Evolution

Hello, I am new at the forums. Although this question was not directed to me, I find this idea interesting. Macroevolution (any evolutionary change at or above the level of species) has not yet been achieved in a lab, correct? Although it is claimed to be a million-year, possibly billion-year process, given our technology we should be able to mutate a species to the point of macroevolving to another. Any thoughts?Apollyon

quote:

---

Only that what you have said is wrong.

---

Chiroptera: It was not rude, just did not include any concrete details; thereby allowing me to question its validity.

quote:

---

I may be wrong but I believe we have already done this.

---

Once again, no concrete details.

quote:

---

Why the insistence on this occuring 'in the lab' by the way? Could you justify that stance?

---

Ned, I was simply speculating on the absence of macroevolution in a laboratory. (Scientific method, testing the hypothesis) That is what makes Darwinian Evolution a theory and not a law, is it not? It would be much more plausible if we were able to take single-cell prokaryotic cell and 'evolve' it into a multi-celled eukaryote. But if we have even failed to create the emergence of life from non-life, why bash those who do not accept this theory?I am by no means an expert on this field myself, so I would appreciate clarification on any incorrect information I have provided.Apollyon

The thread is titled "Macro and Micro Evolution". I do not think a discussion on the absence of macro evolution in the laboratory is irrelevant. Some statements I made in my previous post seem to have been overlooked. Let me attempt to clarify my skeptical ideas. Maybe some will shed light on the subject for me.A species is defined as:
"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature." (Mayr)Now, what I fail to understand is not adaptation, but how a mutation that makes me immune to malaria (which is not heriditary) can allow the emergence of a new reproductively isolated specie. It would be much easier to understand the concept if it were performed in a lab. (possibly on a smaller scale, such as an earthworm or a fruit fly)Any help?

quote:

---

And sorry if my initial post was a little out of line - there are several other message boards where a more combative style is expected, and sometimes I don't switch modes.

---

Understood. Apollyon[This message has been edited by Apollyon, 11-16-2003][This message has been edited by Apollyon, 11-16-2003][This message has been edited by Apollyon, 11-16-2003]

quote:

---

I can see why you pick these particular examples. These steps occurred millions of years ago and took a loooong time to happen, is it any wonder why we don't know how to recreate them?

---

I agree, it takes a leap of faith to believe in the consistency of macroevolution.

quote:

---

If you accept that maybe the step between us and apes is not that large and well within the processes of 'micro' evolution,

---

That, friend, I cannot accept. Apes and humans are relatively different; genotypically and phenotypically. That is why modern evolution was "refined" to believe that apes did not evolve into humans. We're simply too different.I am humbly trying to understand more about macroevolution. I am no expert on the subject.

Thank you for the useful information, Chiroptera.However, there are still some questions left unanswered. How does the mechanism of 'natural selection' or an accumelation of mutations account for the complementary male and female reproductive organs? I understand the concept of speciation from a same genus, but a lizard acquiring wings is something to speculate.Any clarifications?

Thank you, Frog. That is helpful.