Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
23 online now:
AZPaul3, Dr Adequate, vimesey (3 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,768 Year: 16,804/19,786 Month: 929/2,598 Week: 175/251 Day: 4/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 114 of 908 (671289)
08-24-2012 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Big_Al35
08-24-2012 6:17 AM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
Big_Al35 writes:

Still waiting for that "observed" example or at least a definition of what you mean by observed.

If you accept that microevolution is evolution within a species, and that macroevolution is evolution beyond a species, then given that it takes many, many generations for macroevolution we have only directly observed macroevolution in very short-lived species, such as bacteria, fruit flies, etc. We have indirectly observed macroevolution in all of life through fossil and genetic evidence.

Of course, if you instead define macroevolution as evolution beyond a kind and will claim that "it's still just a bacteria" or "it's still just a fruit fly" then you're using a different definition than everyone else, plus you're using a term with no definition ("kind"). We need to agree on definitions before providing examples makes sense.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Big_Al35, posted 08-24-2012 6:17 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Big_Al35, posted 08-25-2012 2:25 PM Percy has responded
 Message 140 by Big_Al35, posted 08-25-2012 2:30 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 141 of 908 (671484)
08-26-2012 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Big_Al35
08-25-2012 2:25 PM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
Big_Al35 writes:

Surely, macro-evolution in bacteria should be referred to as micro-evolution by its very nature?

"Micro" is a modifier of "evolution", not of "bacteria". "Micro" refers to the degree of evolutionary change, not to the size of the organism. Bacteria can experience a macroevolutionary degree of change.

Big_Al35 in Message 140 writes:

You might want to check out this link regarding fruit flies ---> http://www.icr.org/article/2602/

You might want to check out rule 5 of the Forum Guidelines:

  1. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

But you seem to be arguing away from the topic. The question is the difference between micro and macroevolution. You seem to want to argue whether macroevolution ever happens.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Big_Al35, posted 08-25-2012 2:25 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Big_Al35, posted 08-26-2012 11:04 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 144 of 908 (671491)
08-26-2012 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Big_Al35
08-26-2012 11:04 AM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
Big_Al35 writes:

All references to evolution on bacteria are referred to as micro not macro. A simple google search will tell you that. Here is one example
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/...ary/article/_0/evoscales_03

A simple Google search of "bacteria macroevolution" returns 148,000 results, and of "bacteria speciation" returns 740,000 results. Perhaps you had a typo when you tried it?

Well there is no point in defining macro-evolution if it doesn't happen.

How can you tell whether some undefined thing has ever happened? As I said before, if you yourself are defining macroevolution differently from everyone else here then there's no point in arguing whether it has ever happened.

But again, whether macroevolution has ever happened is not the topic of this thread. No one here is trying to avoid discussion of the evidence for macroevolution. There are some old threads about macroevolution that are still open:

Or you could propose a new thread. But I think all this thread is trying to do is reach a consensus on the definition. If you go back to Message 1 you'll see that RAZD was hoping to explore the distinction between micro and macroevolution at quite a detailed level.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Big_Al35, posted 08-26-2012 11:04 AM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Big_Al35, posted 08-26-2012 3:10 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 147 of 908 (671495)
08-26-2012 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Big_Al35
08-26-2012 3:10 PM


Re: So, Big_Al35, what is MACROevolution?
Hi Al,

This thread is about how science distinguishes between micro and macroevolution. Providing bare links to creationist websites in an attempt to show that macroevolution doesn't happen is a) contrary to the Forum Guidelines (please, no bare links); and b) irrelevant (it's not what this topic is about).

Do you have anything to say about the definition of macroevolution?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Big_Al35, posted 08-26-2012 3:10 PM Big_Al35 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Big_Al35, posted 08-27-2012 7:28 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 297 of 908 (817034)
08-15-2017 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
08-14-2017 10:24 AM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes:

... in order to get new varieties or races or breeds or species the genetic material for other varieties must be reduced, and completely lost in some cases.

This is as untrue as it has ever been.

I brought this up because the necessary genetic loss is never acknowledged in discussions of evolution,...

That's because genetic loss isn't necessary.

Evolution has a built-in stopping point

Where?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:24 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by PaulK, posted 08-15-2017 8:00 AM Percy has responded
 Message 396 by DOCJ, posted 08-16-2017 4:02 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 399 of 908 (817256)
08-16-2017 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by PaulK
08-15-2017 8:00 AM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
PaulK writes:

I hope that you mean that there is no overall loss, Percy.

Yes. There's genetic gain and loss happening in populations constantly, and a loss or gain can produce "new varieties or races or breeds or species."

Certainly alleles are removed from the population ...

And added.

It's just that mutation increases variation is overall there is balance (in the species that survive).

Balance, meaning that the amount of genetic information remains unchanged, is probably the least likely possibility.

And I would expect a species formed by the rapid allopathic speciation expected in PE to have less genetic diversity than the parent species (quite likely less than the founding population, IMHO)

PE is just an illusion created by the nature of the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record must involve many agencies operating both singly and together - allopathic speciation is just one among many.

Faith is fixated on a single scenario and insisting it's the only possible one.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by PaulK, posted 08-15-2017 8:00 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by PaulK, posted 08-16-2017 8:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 405 of 908 (817266)
08-16-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 310 by Faith
08-15-2017 11:05 AM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes:

That's one of the ways the analogy breaks down because you are not getting beneficial mutations that frequently...

Just using some ballpark figures, if each individual has 100 mutations, and the probability of a beneficial mutation is 0.000001%, and the population is 1 billion, then there are 1000 beneficial mutations per generation.

A recent study showed the probability of beneficial mutations at the SNP level is far higher than thought. I read about this recently, wish I could find it again. Adaptive Mutations in Bacteria: High Rate and Small Effects isn't the study I read about, but seems somewhat similar, and it says in its abstract:

quote:
We found a rate on the order of 10−5 per genome per generation, which is 1000 times as high as previous estimates,...

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 11:05 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 11:50 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 452 of 908 (817366)
08-17-2017 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 424 by Faith
08-16-2017 1:05 PM


Re: Breeding possibilities
Faith writes:

(And by the way the bottleneck at Noah's Ark didn't bring about the same degree of genetic depletion we see today from bottlenecks because there would have been much more genetic diversity (heterozygosity) in all the animals on the ark.

A population reduction to 2 or 14 is a far, far more severe bottleneck than anything seen with species like the cheetah. All the species on the ark, even if every gene was heterozygos (a completely unsupported assertion), would have possessed much less genetic diversity than any species alive today that isn't on the edge of extinction.

I also think they would have had much less junk DNA in their genomes, so they would have had many more functioning genes than any animal has today,

Another completely unsupported assertion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 424 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 1:05 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 08-17-2017 11:54 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 453 of 908 (817368)
08-17-2017 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 441 by Stile
08-16-2017 3:42 PM


Re: Breeding possibilities
Stile writes:

Now, 2000 years goes by and, due to random mutations we have a dog population like this:

I've been following skeptically along because mutations have played a very minor role in the history of breeding, even if you extend the breeding period to 2000 years. And if you're waiting for a specific mutation, then that seems very unlikely. I think all animal breeding programs depend upon manipulation of existing variation, rather than waiting for mutations. Poking around on the web I did notice the some plant breeding programs use chemicals and radiation to induce mutations.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Stile, posted 08-16-2017 3:42 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by Stile, posted 08-17-2017 9:21 AM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 454 of 908 (817369)
08-17-2017 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by CRR
08-16-2017 6:24 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
CRR writes:

Do you have any science to back up this assertion?

Yes.
In the book "Biological Information: New Perspectives" the chapter entitled "Getting There First: An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations" looks at the likelihood of gain-of-function and loss-of-function mutations occurring in a given population and finds loss-of-function mutations to be more probable in general, both in theory and in practice.

Here is the original exchange, where Taq is asking that you back up your assertion that "beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information":

Taq writes:

CRR writes:

That is so, and very few of the beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information.

Do you have any science to back up this assertion?

I agree with your claim that "beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information", but how does your response about the probability of a beneficial mutation support that contention, or even have anything to do with it?

If I could attempt to answer the question myself, I think any mutation that results in an allele not previously in the population must be considered to have increased genetic information. The number of alleles across the population has increased from n to n+1. How could that not be an increase in information?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by CRR, posted 08-16-2017 6:24 PM CRR has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 455 of 908 (817371)
08-17-2017 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 415 by Faith
08-16-2017 11:50 AM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes:

Remember, it has to occur in a germ cell to be passed on.

Well, duh! That's a given. What good would it do to talk about mutations in a kidney cell or a liver cell? Those mutations would have no chance of propagating throughout the population.

So just using some ballpark figures, if each individual has 100 mutations, and the probability of a beneficial mutation is 0.000001%, and the population is 1 billion, then there are 1000 beneficial mutations per generation. So when you say:

Faith in Message 310 writes:

That's one of the ways the analogy breaks down because you are not getting beneficial mutations that frequently...

Apparently untrue.

Plus beneficial mutations are more likely than previously thought.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Faith, posted 08-16-2017 11:50 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Faith, posted 08-17-2017 12:02 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 513 of 908 (817539)
08-18-2017 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Faith
08-17-2017 11:54 AM


Re: Breeding possibilities
Faith writes:

Not if they were, as you yourself suggest, all heterozygous at all loci,...

I was responding to your claim that "every gene was heterozygos", not suggesting it myself. I called your claim "a completely unsupported assertion." Animals then were like animals now, and animals now are not completely heterozygous. The animals on the ark were drawn from existing populations, not specially made by God for the ark.

If it's also true that there was very little junk DNA in their genomes, it all being functional genetic material, then there would have been a lot more genetic diversity available than just the heterozygosity.

If junk DNA had been functional genes then there would have been a great, great many more genes, and they would have been completely different animals.

Of course it's hypothetical,...

"Made up" would be more accurate.

...just as all the ToE's stuff is too.

This is also "made up."

...the selection processes that bring about new varieties and species lose some genetic diversity with every new daughter population.

Mutations add genetic diversity with every new daughter population.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Faith, posted 08-17-2017 11:54 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by Faith, posted 08-18-2017 8:19 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 514 of 908 (817540)
08-18-2017 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 465 by Faith
08-17-2017 12:02 PM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Faith writes:

I feel it necessary to point out that the mutation has to occur in a germ cell because the usual reference to the constantly occurring mutations in every generation don't distinguish between those very very rare occurrences and the huge number of somatic mutations that don't get passed on.

In these discussions we're hardly ever talking about somatic mutations. Reproduction, and the mutations that occur in germ cells, are essential parts of evolution. We're talking about evolution here.

Repeating what you're spurious objection led you to ignore, so just using some ballpark figures, if each individual has 100 mutations, and the probability of a beneficial mutation is 0.000001%, and the population is 1 billion, then there are 1000 beneficial mutations per generation. So when you say:

Faith in Message 310 writes:

That's one of the ways the analogy breaks down because you are not getting beneficial mutations that frequently...

Apparently untrue.

Plus beneficial mutations are more likely than previously thought.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Faith, posted 08-17-2017 12:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 515 of 908 (817541)
08-18-2017 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by Stile
08-17-2017 9:21 AM


Re: Breeding possibilities
Stile writes:

If we did have a dog species that was "all the same"... how long do you (approximately) think it would take to produce differences in the population like long hair/short hair and strong smellers/weak smellers for 5 different traits?

Not recently, but I have done a little reading about the breeding history of dogs. My recollection is that single breeders within their lifetimes were able to bring about substantial changes/improvements in the qualities they were selecting for. 20-50 years seems a reasonable answer.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by Stile, posted 08-17-2017 9:21 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18842
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 516 of 908 (817542)
08-18-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by Stile
08-17-2017 12:35 PM


Re: Breeding possibilities
Stile writes:

They started out all the same, and then the population had some differences in it (long/short hair, strong/weak smelling ability...).
All coming about through random mutations changing the genes. No selection. No environment pressures. Just a population living and reproducing and getting random mutations that eventually result in a few differences within the population.

I confess to not having a clear picture of the scenario described here, but it bears repeating that mutation has played an exceptionally minor role in the breeding history of dogs. Most of the diverse qualities in dog breeds come from existing variation.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Stile, posted 08-17-2017 12:35 PM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019