|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I suggest you read what CreationWiki has to say on the issue. quote: Anyone get whiplash there? Sounds like "Arguments we think Creationists should NOT use ..." eh? I also noticed that they have Hyenas as canines ... (and three varieties of wolf but no dogs???) in their picture of "Macroevolution of the Biblical Kind" ...
quote: If you can only object to "macro"evolution on the basis of a pre-supposed limited time scale, then what is the creationist limit to "macro"evolution - given the time that we actually have eh? Certainly if they include Hyena with Wolf from a common ancestor they are talking about going back to the order of carnivora for the beginning of divergence into modern species. That's pretty macro. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5938 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes: I also noticed that they have Hyenas as canines ... (and three varieties of wolf but no dogs???) in their picture of "Macroevolution of the Biblical Kind" Lol...I'd point that out to them, but it would be even more fun to make fun of their error on EvoWiki. That and CreationWiki is far more restrictive in allowing criticism by non-members. Edited by Doddy, : No reason given. "Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Lets review the definitions used by two universities from the list of definitions of evolution on Message 71:
(A) Berkeleyquote: Note the clear reference to change in species over time (descent with modification) and the application of that to both microevolution and macroevolution. It then goes on to discuss the relation of the vast evidence of time and fossil data to these concepts.
(B) University of Michiganquote: Note that these are very similar, down to the distinction between (small-scale) microevolution and (large-scale) macroevolution. Proposed Combined Definition: We can combine these to formulate a statement of the scientific theory of biological evolution as represented by these schools that (actually) teach biological evolution:
Definition of Biological EvolutionBiological evolution is descent with modification, resulting in a change in hereditary traits within species over time. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (microevolution) and large-scale evolution (macroevolution) as follows:(a)
(a) - Where the division between the two levels of evolution is marked by non-ambiguous speciation, the seperation of a previous parent population into non-breeding daughter populations. The only difference of any significance between microevolution and macroevolution as listed above is the inclusion of the concept of descent from previous common ancestors, parent populations that existed before non-arbitrary speciation separated the daughter populations. Hereditary relationships and hierarchies are not new at this point - that is the basis for the change in the frequency of alleles from generation to generation, for descent with modification, for the change in species over time - but it is now being applied to populations of species rather than to individuals within species. Note how this also conforms to what I previously proposed for elements for microevolution:
Message 17
(edited to match structure below)
The purpose will be to fully define what "micro"evolution is and what "micro"evolution is NOT. We can further stipulate that speciation here refers to non-arbitrary speciation, where daughter populations no longer interbreed, although this "line" may take a while to be formalized completely. From this, and from application of what we know about microevolution, we can hypothesize that recent daughter populations will:
So what can we infer would be a similar description for the elements of macroevolution based on these combined scientific definitions of biological evolution?
Information related to hereditary hierarchies: Classic taxonomyhttp://www.msu.edu/%7Enixonjos/armadillo/taxonomy.html is based on observed hereditary hierarchies in the fossil record and current life. The levels of the different taxons is based on the length of time from the common ancestor population that is the parent of the taxon group, whether that group is species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, kingdom or all of life as we know it -- seeing how the evidence that we have fits the theory at each different level. It is also NOT dependent on the whole picture being valid to investigate the hereditary hierarchies at any level desired: that is all part of testing the theory against the evidence. CladisticsFossilNews.com – A Blog On All Things Fossil And More… is based on analyzing the evolutionary relationships between groups to construct their family tree. ... classified according to their evolutionary relationships, and that the way to discover these relationships is to analyze what are called primitive and derived characters. This does away with taxon groups above species and replaces them with "Clades" Cladistics is just a different way of looking at the same data and developing the same hereditary hierarchies, without any confusion with the (un)importance of different taxons. Cladistic analysis also lends itself to analyzing genetic hereditary hierarchies with homologous genes. The classifications are not based on, nor dependent on, special features, abilities, functions, forms or any other aspect derived by evolution, but on the hereditary relationships. Instead such derived aspects are used as the evidence of the hereditary relationships. You are not a mammal because you have four limbs, you have four limbs because you are a mammal, evolved from the first common ancestor mammal that happened to have four limbs and who's own ancestor had four limbs. The evolution of that first common ancestor mammal - by the application of the theories of biological evolution as discussed above - would still have been a speciation event, the result of microevolution within the population of it's ancestor species until the speciation event, and then by microevolution within the daughter species as it diverged from it's ancestral stock and then diversified with speciation events that then developed new species of mammals from the first one. This proposed combination definition shows how general evolution both involves everyday evolution and how it can result in "higher" taxonomic classifications, ... with a mechanism that exists and that can be tested (common descent). No creationist "sudden new features" or chimeric morphing from one "kind" into another needed. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : refined compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Allopatrik Member (Idle past 6216 days) Posts: 59 Joined: |
quote: Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
As scientists use the terms, microevolution is evolution which happens in a short period of time, and macroevolution is evolution which happens over a long period of time.
That's all. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
He also suggested the term "meso evolution" but where is the description of *this* in=between evolution in the literature?
The best you will find is probably my own references to it on EVC!! That is pretty b(r)ad, for a state of evolUtionary thought!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Allopatrik Member (Idle past 6216 days) Posts: 59 Joined: |
quote: I know of several papers by Spiess, Wallace and Dobzhansky himself where it’s mentioned or described. But that doesn't change the basic fact that these terms (including 'megaevolution', for that matter, which Dobzhansky also coined) do not imply different processes at work. A Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
mick wrote:
I find it interesting and revealing that two Harvard luminaries in evolutionary biology, Ernst Mayr and E. O. Wilson, do not specifically agree on how to define microevolution and macroevolution. E. Mayr defines these terms in his glossary of What Evolution Is (2001):
Finally, they often just mean "microevolution can be observed in a lab experiment, while macroevolution cannot". So microevolution can be observed in real-time and in living organisms, while macroevolution must be inferred (for example from fossils, systematics, or whatever). The attack on evolution then amounts to an attack on the validity of scientific inference. quote:E. O. Wilson defines these terms differently, combining them under one definition: quote: It will be difficult for evolutionary biologists to agree on one set of standard definitions for these terms, and others, too. So much of their reasoning comes pre-loaded with contextual biases that are nearly impossible to resolve. Contextual battles persist in other threads (e.g., Message 101 over these terms and the contexts in which they are used. I think it is good to have multiple opinions on these issues. But some posters here are so convinced in their contextual righteousness that they call other posters "stupid" for not agreeing with them. I have personal experience with this, concerning the definitions of evolutionary terms. What I should have done experimentally was to post Wilson's and Mayr's definitions of microevolution and mavcroevolution as my own, and then sit back and watch the dogs clamor at my "stupidity." ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Allopatrik Member (Idle past 6216 days) Posts: 59 Joined: |
How are the two definitions you cite conceptually different?
A Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Allopatrik wrote:
Look carefully at those definitions in Message 23, Mayr has macroevolution occurring above the species level, while Wilson has it occurring at the species level. They also disagree on this: Mayr says microevolution can happen at the species level, while Wilson says the species level is where macroevolution occurs. How are the two definitions you cite conceptually different? ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Allopatrik Member (Idle past 6216 days) Posts: 59 Joined: |
quote: Wilson says nothing of the kind. He simply calls micro small and macro large. A Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
Wilson says nothing of the kind. He simply calls micro small and macro large.
I took this part of Wilson's definition”"A large amount of change would be referred to as macroevolution or simply as evolution"”to imply speciation. I beieve that's fair. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Allopatrik Member (Idle past 6216 days) Posts: 59 Joined: |
quote: So, you think that Wilson considers macroevolution to occur at the level of the species and above, while Mayr considers it to be at the genus and above. Does it matter where the line is drawn, conceptually? How does the process that results in speciation differ from the kind of divergence that results in different genera? Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Fosdick  Suspended Member (Idle past 5529 days) Posts: 1793 From: Upper Slobovia Joined: |
So, you think that Wilson considers macroevolution to occur at the level of the species and above, while Mayr considers it to be at the genus and above. Does it matter where the line is drawn, conceptually? How does the process that results in speciation differ from the kind of divergence that results in different genera?
Is there only one process? I can think of five know processes that can provoke an evolutionary event, or a divergence, or at least disturb a population's Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Knowing for sure at which levels they operate could be helpful. ”HM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Allopatrik Member (Idle past 6216 days) Posts: 59 Joined: |
quote: It is divergence--of one population from another-- that underlies the existence of all taxonomic groups, from species to kingdoms. So it doesn't matter how many ways that divergence can occur. Divergence is the process common to both micro and macroevolution. Therefore, the terms are, as Dobzhansky said, merely descriptive in nature. A Edited by Allopatrik, : No reason given. Natural Selection is not Evolution-- R.A. Fisher
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024