MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Thanks for explaining that.Yes bring in Pelycodus again. As I showed before the difference between dogs of the SAME species is greater than the difference in the two varieties in the Pelycodus example. Even if it is speciation it does not show whether this was due to microevolution or macroevolution. It would at best show speciation within the kind which most Creationists have no problem with.

Durston in the link previously given says that both "statistically significant" and "functional information" are measurable and provides links. Go back and re-read my previous posts. Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

Fell free to contact Durston yourself.

... from Message 107
microevolution = changes in gene frequencies and trait distributions that occur within populations and species
macroevolution = large evolutionary change, usually in morphology, typically refers to evolution of differences among populations that would warrant their plaecment in different genera or higher-level taxa

There is no requirement of evolution theory that the parent population go extinct (although this is often the eventual result).
In the case of the Peppered Moth the white variety was never completely eliminated and today both varieties are common.However beneficial information adding mutations are very rare. Most cases of new varieties and species is due to partitioning of the original gene pool so that each of the new ones has less genetic diversity than the parent population.

No, what we have is two isolated sub-populations of the OG species. Isolation does not immediately confer speciation.Now we have several hypothetical mutations. Probably neutral mutations that are fixed by genetic drift. So at the end you might have two alleles that have no effect on the phenotype and and still have one species. Perhaps you will have two varieties of the one species. Perhaps speciation will occur. Perhaps all that has occurred is that one variety has straight hair and the other has wavy hair. Perhaps H & I have accumulated so many defects they are now both non-functional.What we do know is that sometimes populations can develop significant changes in morphology in times too short to be attributed to the mutation selection mechanism; whether due to epigenetic changes or selection from the original gene pools. This sort of thing has been observed in Italian Wall Lizards, Trinidad Guppies, Galapagos Finches, and others. Probably not even separate species, let alone separate kinds; and hence not even macroevolution.One of the few observed examples of speciation I know of is the London Underground Mosquito, and that's still incipient speciation since complete reproductive isolation has not been achieved at last report I saw. Speciation is macroevolution IFF that is the definition accepted by all parties.

Jerry Coyne has said that there are no ring species. Perhaps he didn't know about the Asian Greenish Warblers or perhaps their failure to interbreed has been exaggerated.This could be a good example of why we should not equate speciation with macroevolution.Other examples could be Lake Malawi cichlids that don't interbreed in the wild but do interbreed in captivity. Some butterflies exhibit similar behaviour.

Here's what Jerry Coyne said;

quote:

---

There are no ring species

​

TRIGGER WARNING: Evolutionary biology.

​

A while back, when I said in the comments of an evolution post that there were no good ring species, a few readers asked me what I meant by that. What about the salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii? Or seagulls in the genus Larus? Aren’t those good ring species? My answer was that those had been shown not to be ring species in the classic sense, but there was still one species that might be a candidate: the greenish warbler Phylloscopus trochiloides around the Tibetan Plateau.

​

But now that one, too, has been struck off the list of ring species, leaving no good cases.

---

(So he did know about the greenish Warbler)I don't know what his opinion about "species complexes" is, or even what that means.Edited by CRR, : No reason given.

There are 2.

quote:

---

He [Dawkins] demonstrates this by the example of the weasel program. Dawkins then describes his experiences with a more sophisticated computer model of artificial selection implemented in a program also called The Blind Watchmaker, which was sold separately as a teaching aid (open source implementations are currently available, as are more advanced versions of the idea).
The Blind Watchmaker - Wikipedia

---

Let's have a look at a simple hypothetical example. We will start with Species OG (for original gangster).

Species OG allele A
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Speciation begins by the creation of two isolated populations of the OG population so that we have Sub Species OGa and Sub Species OGb

Subspecies OGa allele A Subspecies OGb allele A
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Mutation and selection occurs in each population, but since different mutations and selection pressures occur in each subspecies they end up with different alleles:

Subspecies OGa allele B Subspecies OGb allele C
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTATTT    TTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Those separate subspecies have now diverged, all through microevolution. This same process occurs again.

Subspecies OGa allele D Subspecies OGb allele E
TTCTTTTTTTTTTTTTATTT    TTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTT

And it occurs again:

Subspecies OGa allele F Subspecies OGb allele G
TTCTTTTTGTTTTTTTATTT    TATTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTT

And it occurs again:

Subspecies OGa allele H Subspecies OGb allele I
TTCTTATTGTTTTTTTATTT    TATTTTGTTTTCTTGTTCTT

Let's freeze time and compare these new subspecies with the OG species

Subspecies OGa allele H Subspecies OGb allele I
TTCTTATTGTTTTTTTATTT    TATTTTGTTTTCTTGTTCTT
Species OG allele A    Species OG allele A
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT    TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Now when the isolated populations merge we have two different alleles. Note that no new genes have been created, just two corrupted versions of the original. Hence this can be regarded as microevolution.In most cases this won't prevent interbreeding; like blue eyed and brown eyed people can still have children.If however this and other changes hampers interbreeding you might get two separate species within the same kind; such as horses and donkeys. We have speciation by microevolution.
This may well have been one of the mechanism by which the relatively few kinds on Noah's Ark developed into the much greater number of species we see today. Edited by CRR, : Amended last sentence.

That is so, and very few of the beneficial mutations are due to increases in genetic information.In fact many of what were regarded as neutral, where the same amino acid is coded for, may turn out to be detrimental. Sometimes the alternative coding is a Duon which will change the regulation of the gene; and sometimes it results in a transcription pause or the loss of one, which can hamper proper folding of the protein.

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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list...

"Now when the isolated populations merge ..."
Maybe they won't interbreed, maybe they can't, but probably they can and will.You can tell your story, I'll tell mine.