Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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:   Macro and Micro Evolution
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 31 of 301 (66974)
11-17-2003 12:12 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Brad McFall
11-17-2003 12:07 AM


Re: Figure 8
It means absolutely nothing to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 12:07 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 12:24 AM NosyNed has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 32 of 301 (66976)
11-17-2003 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by NosyNed
11-17-2003 12:12 AM


Re:Go Figure!
If thinking about flying out of water is not macroevolution then there only IS microevolution! What's harder than that? You started this thread not me. Last time you didnt understand me you thought what I said was too complicated but I cant make it more elementary than this.
Herpetology IS really the taxa of focus when it comes to discussions of changes in Meso Evolution (between "micro and macro"). People really tend to substitute entemological species notions (for purely contigent historical reasons) often when discussing via "mutation" changes of higher categories but you avoided this so far by talking about mammals and fish etc. Blood can have iron or copper. This may mean nothing to you indeed but thinking about flying fish as evolving IS often a thought about macroevolution even for highschoolers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 12:12 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 12:56 AM Brad McFall has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 301 (66977)
11-17-2003 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Brad McFall
11-17-2003 12:24 AM


Re: Re:Go Figure!
Since different people seem to use the term macroevolution in different ways I can't tell if a flying fish would be an example or not.
Additionally, I know nothing about the cladistics of flying fish so I don't know how closely related they are to other non-flying fish.
Why on earth would you introduce another term "mesoevolution" when we don't need the micro - macro terms in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 12:24 AM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 1:25 AM NosyNed has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 34 of 301 (66981)
11-17-2003 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
11-17-2003 12:56 AM


Re: Re:Go Figure!
Based on our interaction, actually rather lack of one, I introduced a difference of opnion among biologists (not any random posters) but now you ask why in the "first place."? Well, I guess then in this place you would have students find no necessity to read, follow nor take to heart as being in such place at first Bate's
quote:
"THE EVOLUTION OF MAJOR BODY TYPES Richard Goldschmidt (who lives in California) has maintained stoutly, in the face of almost universal disagreement from other biologists, that there are two very different kinds of evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The taxonomists with their subspecies and the geneticists with their large accumulations of slight mutations, are studying micro-evolution, which, he thinks, is essentially different from the large discontinuties that seperate genera, families and so forth. I have never understood his arguments, so I cant give a lucid explanation of them here. Goldschmidt's terminoglogy provides, though, a means of breaking up the remaining evolutionary carcass, especially if we add "mega-evolution"."p232 THE NATURE OF NATURAL HISTORY Princeton Press.
even if one KNEW that Gould wanted to leave open some room for using Goldschmidt in his last tome. That seems against my understanding of faciltating the next generation of students on the subject. If you think that evo-devo means* that organic types will all be explained by drug discovery company promoted genomics style protocols etc then you would have meant to put for instance cytogenetics ahead of biogeography and I do not hold in this place that opnion and that is why I would use Dobshansky's difference before fullfilling Gould's dream.
I am fairly sure you are still not ready for me to try to explain again how creation model biology is needed BEFORE tests of vicariance vs dispersal in order to test for error of filiation to Croizat's term vicariism which recognizes both geographic and taxonmic splitting as found in any cladogram. You will have to appreciate baraminology as a logical grammetological adjunct AT LEAST to cladistics. I cant even get you to see the snakes perspective so I am not going to try with a primates' yet.
If you do not think we need baraminology you will likely not realize the use of the FURTHER breaking up"" gained by use of the lexicology but perhaps I will explain to you in the future how I see the use of catastrophe theory for the phylogentic DIScontinutiy ( so as to get your PHYSICS opinion) but I am not going to unless I read people here are acutally favorable to peace and raising the level of discussion generally wich means acceptance not mere "faking" 'both sides.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 12:56 AM NosyNed has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 301 (67035)
11-17-2003 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by NosyNed
11-16-2003 10:34 PM


There are also marine Iguanas:
Page not found – Pulse of the Planet
...and flightless birds and flightless winged-insects.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 11-16-2003 10:34 PM NosyNed has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 36 of 301 (67055)
11-17-2003 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Apollyon
11-16-2003 1:16 PM


I couldn't quite figure out where to jump in on this thread, so I figured I'd start back at the beginning. There was another thread arguing about the relevance of the terms macro- and micro-evolution, so I won't rehash those arguments. I do think a review of some of the basic misconceptions evidenced here might be useful, however.
Apollyon states that s/he understands macroevolution to mean "any evolutionary change at or above the level of species". Although fairly close to what paleontologists mean when they discuss the concept, I still find the term grossly misleading when taken out of the technical context it was intended to describe - the branch nodes in lineages that ultimately give rise to distinct higher taxa. For various reasons, in most cases we can only infer changes in major taxonomic groups while looking at the past history of life. IOW, fossils generally only record gross morphological change in lineages over vast stretches of time. There are, of course, exceptions: trilobites in the fossil record show enough divergence that systematists have classified them into four distinct orders - but they remain trilobites.The trilobite example is a nice lead in to a discussion of just what is meant by "change above the level of species" (a paleontological concept) as it relates to evolution (a biological concept).
I'll start with a "working definition" of evolution - the change in allele frequency in a population of organisms over time. Variation (through mutation and drift) are constantly arising in any population from generation to generation. Here's the catch: evolution doesn’t proceed by sudden leaps — saltation — in major morphology. The basic reason is that the larger the effect of a given mutation, the more likely it will be deleterious — and kill the mutant. That’s not to say small mutations can’t have a deleterious effect on the organism, just that large ones would be almost invariably fatal. What normally happens is that a small mutation occurs in a population, splitting it into two different varieties. Now if these two varieties lived close by one another, the odds are that they would interbreed, and the mutation would be suppressed or eliminated. Allele frequency tends to be pretty hard to budge once fixed. However, what would happen if a portion of the population carrying the mutation were to become geographically or behaviorally isolated from the parent population? The mutation, if it provides a net survival advantage in the new area, will rapidly become fixed in the new population. In addition, both populations continue to change due to environmental conditions, or even chance (genetic recombination, additional mutations, etc leading to changes in allelic frequency in both populations). If the two populations are reunited eventually, and they don’t interbreed, then we can say they are in fact two distinct species. The longer they are apart, the more differences we would expect. This is more or less the commonly accepted (even by most creationists) definition of microevolution (or if you're a creationist, "change within created kinds).
I assume everyone knows scientists classify life based on species, genus, etc. I also assume that everyone is aware that these classifications are simply how systematists show relatedness. What isn't immediately obvious (although it would be if you think about it), is that all these different hierarchies are simply larger groups of species. A genus is a bunch of species that are really closely related - sharing some traits, being different in others. Familes are a group of genera, etc. All these categories are simply names given to ever-larger groupings of related species - nothing more. IOW, any mechanisms (say, natural selection) working at the population or species level will axiomatically operate in identical fashion at the level of a class or even phylum, etc. Why? Because a phylum is simply a very large grouping of species that share some common trait (such as a spinal cord). So when scientists talk about transitions between, say, orders, especially within the fossil record, they're saying they've found a species that shares traits across order boundaries (which really get blurry anyway). In short, they're merely describing the relative closeness of members of two species. There isn't some mystical barrier based on taxonomic nomenclature. It's just two different species - more or less related - and ultimately identical to comparisons between two living species of hare (say, between Lepus arctus and Lepus townseii). So although the trick (and lots of glorious arguments among paleontologists) is to determine, based on morphology and other evidence, just how related two temporally separated fossils are, if they share enough traits we can be fairly confident that they are related.
The reality is there is no fundamental difference between macro- and microevolution. The former describes trends or patterns in the fossil record, and the latter describes changes within species or populations (assuming Apollyon grants microevolution=speciation). Populations are the only "real" category in nature, and species are the only "real" taxonomic grouping; anything above that (genus, family, order, etc.) are not found in nature, but are convenient organizational categories invented by humans. Once speciation occurs, and if the two species remain separated from each other, then they will evolve differently from each other. As time goes by, they will become increasingly differentiated. In terms of the time scale of the earth, humans have only been around long enough to have observed the tiniest slice of time. If we happen to observe two species who have recently diverged, we see how similar they are to each other and categorize them by placing them into the same genus. If, however, we observe two species that diverged long ago in the distant past, we see that while they might retain some very basic similarities to each other, they are much too different to belong in the same genera and so we place each into a higher category: family, or order, perhaps, depending on our criteria of "difference" for that organism.
I'd like to close with my favorite relevant quote (from Carroll, R, 1997, "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution", pg 392, Cambridge Uni Press):
quote:
Nearly all the factors that have been used to distinguish the origin of higher categories can be attributed to the same processes of speciation, behavioral adaptation and the gradual accumulation of morphological differences that characterize evolution at the levels of populations, species, and genera. There are no fundamental differences between the early stages in the radiation of placental mammals in the earliest Cenozoic and what is known to have occurred in the origin of the species flocks in the East African Great Lakes...Although formulation of a distinct theory of macroevolution does not appear to be justified, it may be convenient to retain the terms microevolution and macroevolution to describe the different patterns of evolution that are observed at the level of populations and species versus higher taxonomic levels and time spans exceeding 5-10 million years. (emphasis in original)
Hope this answers both your question on macroevolution, and explains why we don't expect to see it in the lab.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Apollyon, posted 11-16-2003 1:16 PM Apollyon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 2:13 PM Quetzal has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 37 of 301 (67086)
11-17-2003 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Quetzal
11-17-2003 11:05 AM


Thank you
This is what the thread should have started with. Excellent.
Now are there any arguments with this? Coherent ones?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Quetzal, posted 11-17-2003 11:05 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 2:33 PM NosyNed has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 38 of 301 (67093)
11-17-2003 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by NosyNed
11-17-2003 2:13 PM


Re: Thank you
Of course there WERE nose, dont be so stuck on me. Call me out if you must but dont MISS and KISS off what I said. You only gave me the color blue.
There IS logic in Q,s post but because of the conclusion you seem to find this logic and not the one I also used. I was going to come on with a better tone but your sticking in for this without answering me even to say once more you didnt understand makes me cry wolf again. You are only trying to find tha creation is not to be a part of WHAT IT ALREADY IS.
Q wrote
quote:
-What isn't immediately obvious (although it would be if you think about it), is that all these different hierarchies are simply larger groups of species. A genus is a bunch of species that are really closely related - sharing some traits, being different in others. Familes are a group of genera, etc. All these categories are simply names given to ever-larger groupings of related species - nothing more.
but this sufers the same fault of the current electronic versions of creationism. You refuse to recognize I am bringing something unique and differnt than is available anywhere else.
The "further" father - and please DO UNDERSTAND THIS - is that even graninting Appolyons microevolution=speciation in fidelity to Qs not NOSY's logic the criticism is that the nested hierachy that NOSY Says immediately is good MISSED MY POINT!. Q may not have missed it but N did!!!! Nested hierarchies may only be physics or chemsitry. THIS IS NOT INCOHERENT BUT BROADER APPRECIATION of diversity over pluarlity.
But as long as vicariance biogeography and cladistics is not able to determine this barrier if it is ecological or some physcio-chemical niche (and it can not and does not do this provided it does not even teach how taxonomic and geographic vicariism are for instance different carabid genitalia carcasses... the simpler could have been written for the high school curriculum but you, N, refused to try to draw this out) we can not DEDUCE what is obvious immediately to Q. But as this was in the context of a discussion on the basis of A's all is well except for N? N can induce this and did. He would be wrong even if B is wrong about nested heirarchies for even though I may be mistaken about truth (we need a full test of Wolfram's NeW kind of science at least before we can all know that) I am not off language or coherence OR Meds to know, write and apply Baraminology to the carabids of the Alps.
MY point was MISSED and this is enough to PROOVE its theoretical reality.
Darwin's position of gemmules comeing from finger nails was biology in his day but today we understand that process as wholly a matte of physcis and chemistry. I assume no one is going to calim nine inch nails had its' soul in its alpha and beta keratin. Q simply likely holds to some kind of organicism which I reject BIOLOGICALLY but this has nothing to do with the logic he suggested which is clear enough provided A is assumed. Now asume B. I dare you to look below the belly button.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 2:13 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 4:10 PM Brad McFall has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 301 (67133)
11-17-2003 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Brad McFall
11-17-2003 2:33 PM


Re: Thank you
Brad, when I say I don't understand what you are saying that is ALL I am saying. I have read your last couple of posts (twice!). I simply don't get it. I tried, really I did. I'm sorry that I can't "get it". I will go back to ignoring your posts for awhile. When I've had a rest maybe I will try again. You are, of course, free to ignore mine if you wish?
[qs=Brad]MY point was MISSED and this is enough to PROOVE its theoretical reality.[qs] I'm sorry but there is now way that something that is incoherent is proven by the very fact that it is incomprehensible. (If I understand even that sentence. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 2:33 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Brad McFall, posted 11-17-2003 5:10 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 11-18-2003 9:41 AM NosyNed has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 40 of 301 (67163)
11-17-2003 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
11-17-2003 4:10 PM


Re: Thank you
you did!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 4:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 41 of 301 (67314)
11-18-2003 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
11-17-2003 4:10 PM


Re: Thank you
Brad writes:
MY point was MISSED and this is enough to PROOVE its theoretical reality.
Perhaps we need a new term - there's logical, illogical, counterintuitive, antithetical, etc. We need a term for Brad-logic, like Bradalogical or McFallapropism. These terms are too clumsy, but they give an idea of what is needed. Anyone have some good ideas?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 11-17-2003 4:10 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2003 10:21 AM Percy has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 42 of 301 (67323)
11-18-2003 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
11-18-2003 9:41 AM


Re: Thank you
PseudoSyamsu
Ad hocFall
Occam's Ghetto Blaster
Saline logic
Methodological ninkompoopism

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 11-18-2003 9:41 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 11-18-2003 3:04 PM Mammuthus has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 43 of 301 (67439)
11-18-2003 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Mammuthus
11-18-2003 10:21 AM


Re: Thank you
bump!
Have we ALL agreed on the definitions given above by Quetzal then? There seems to be no further discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Mammuthus, posted 11-18-2003 10:21 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 3:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 44 of 301 (67447)
11-18-2003 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by NosyNed
11-18-2003 3:04 PM


Re: Thankyou
I didn n0t. How come now that there are more admins there is a presumption that "we" are evos? I USE evolution in my work but that did not make me part of this "we". It is only as far as I can see becuase the difference as *seen* by the posting can be LISTED in the minority BEcAUSE it is easeir than dealing with every difference of majority. When I was actually threading my topic discussions I was able to use a "presumption" of a difference of opnion. It neigh appears that the balance against creation has actually made the net precense here a Summary of what was really groundless as far as I have seen. I cant get to the evolutionary content because the presumption substitutes for the often common reply to me. MrHambre told Dan that a lot of creation can get done in a week, well a lot of evolution can get done in a million years. Please admins figure out how to make this space per posters cycling cylce available else? well that is a good question that has nothing to do with logic but also has not as much a doo with biology either. One's lack is not luck in this case-Brad Steven McFall

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by NosyNed, posted 11-18-2003 3:04 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by AdminNosy, posted 11-18-2003 7:25 PM Brad McFall has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 45 of 301 (67536)
11-18-2003 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Brad McFall
11-18-2003 3:17 PM


Re: Thankyou
Ok, let's see what other defintions are put forward. Perhaps you would like to get the non-evo's together to agree on one. You may need a bit of help editing your posts to get one clear enough to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Brad McFall, posted 11-18-2003 3:17 PM Brad McFall 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