Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
43 online now:
DrJones*, GDR, PaulK, ringo, Tangle (5 members, 38 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,068 Year: 19,104/19,786 Month: 1,524/1,705 Week: 330/446 Day: 69/59 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 398 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 226 of 248 (497003)
01-31-2009 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by RAZD
01-31-2009 9:12 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
That there is no barrier is demonstrated by convergent species, like the sugar glider and the flying squirrel: nothing prevented them from evolving such similarity to fill a similar ecological niche.

What this means is that the concept of a barrier that would prevent such evolution is invalidated, demonstrated to be a false concept.


Those who insist that there is such a barrier have never proposed a verifiable mechanism that shows how and why such a barrier would function, let alone that one even exists.

That is the topic of this thread--to provide an opportunity to those who believe in such a barrier to present their evidence.

I have not seen any evidence presented that such a barrier exists. What I have seen in this thread is the unsupported belief that such a barrier exist, repeated over and over as if that made it evidence.

If I'm wrong, there is still a chance to present evidence to the contrary. We have a few posts to go.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2009 9:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 227 of 248 (497004)
01-31-2009 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by xongsmith
01-31-2009 8:36 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Hi, Xongsmith.

xongsmith writes:

Yes, I would have a problem with Creationists trying to do real science.

I think everybody should try it at least once: science isn't just for the elite, it's for anyone who's willing to work for it.

-----

xongsmith writes:

i think you need to emphasize that the first "kind" has to be a manymanymanymanymany,many times over the ancestor of the second "kind".

Well, okay... creationists generally accept that extinct animals like trilobites and dinosaurs were unique "kinds," and most on this forum in particular realize that evolution doesn't entail a modern organism turning into another modern organism, so I didn't feel the necessity to push too hard in that direction.

-----

xongsmith writes:

perhaps you had an ulterior motive to get them all to go off somewhere and eagerly run this experiment to test the hypothesis, an experiment that takes infinity, just to get them out of the way and off our backs?

Shhh!

What are you trying to do, man? It'll never work if you go and tell them what we're up to. ;)


-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by xongsmith, posted 01-31-2009 8:36 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
IchiBan
Member (Idle past 3229 days)
Posts: 88
Joined: 07-07-2008


Message 228 of 248 (497005)
01-31-2009 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by RAZD
01-31-2009 9:12 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Hello RAZD

I note that you have not provided an alternative definition for macroevolution to what I presented to you.

I did not give that a lot of thought before I replied. While I may not agree with your definition to varying degrees, I can work with it for purpose of discussion.

That there is no barrier is demonstrated by convergent species, like the sugar glider and the flying squirrel: nothing prevented them from evolving such similarity to fill a similar ecological niche.

We still do not see any evidence that they broke out of the niche went beyond it in an evolutionary sense as Darwin imagined would happen with the flying fish. He imagined it might have been modified into that perfectly winged animal. In this manner the gliding frog, snake, lizard, fish, mammal, and marsupial all share the end point, in that way these creatures are failures of his theory to substantiate macro-evolution.

Darwin

seeing that we have flying birds and mammals, flying insects of the most diversified types, and formerly had flying reptiles, it is conceivable that flying-fish, which now glide far through the air, slightly rising and turning by the aid of their fluttering fins, might have been modified into perfectly winged animals. If this had been effected, who would have ever imagined that in an early transitional state they had been inhabitants of the open ocean, and had used their incipient organs of flight exclusively, as far as we know, to escape being devoured by other fish?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 01-31-2009 9:12 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Modulous, posted 02-01-2009 5:39 AM IchiBan has not yet responded
 Message 230 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2009 9:02 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 229 of 248 (497020)
02-01-2009 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by IchiBan
01-31-2009 10:46 PM


There's Darwin in them thar hills!
We still do not see any evidence that they broke out of the niche went beyond it in an evolutionary sense as Darwin imagined would happen with the flying fish.

Darwin didn't imagine it would happen. The flying fish example was, in Darwin's own words, an "imaginary illustration". If you care to read Chapter 6 of the origin of species you will see what he is illustrating.

He imagined it might have been modified into that perfectly winged animal.

More accurately he is asking the reader to imagine the initial population sizes of fish that are using wings for full flight. That is to say: such a population would start off small until that population adapted to be good at it.

Darwin is simply anticipating the objections surrounding transitions between major ecologies (notably land to water but his flying fish illustration is Darwin showing the concept working backwards). He accepts that he is lacking in evidence on this point, but goes on to hypothesise some possible solutions to the objections. He didn't use his theory to predict that within the next 150 years flying fish would literally become as adept at flying as bats are.

In this manner the gliding frog, snake, lizard, fish, mammal, and marsupial all share the end point, in that way these creatures are failures of his theory to substantiate macro-evolution.

And yet, in the same chapter that you quoted, Darwin wrote:

quote:
has been asked by the opponents of such views as I hold, how, for instance, a land carnivorous animal could have been converted into one with aquatic habits; for how could the animal in its transitional state have subsisted?

And he goes on to comment

quote:
Look at the family of squirrels; here we have the finest gradation from animals with their tails only slightly flattened, and from others, as Sir J. Richardson has remarked, with the posterior part of their bodies rather wide and with the skin on their flanks rather full, to the so-called flying squirrels; and flying squirrels have their limbs and even the base of the tail united by a broad expanse of skin, which serves as a parachute and allows them to glide through the air to an astonishing distance from tree to tree. We cannot doubt that each structure is of use to each kind of squirrel in its own country, by enabling it to escape birds or beasts of prey, or to collect food more quickly, or, as there is reason to believe, by lessening the danger from occasional falls. But it does not follow from this fact that the structure of each squirrel is the best that it is possible to conceive under all natural conditions. Let the climate and vegetation change, let other competing rodents or new beasts of prey immigrate, or old ones become modified, and all analogy would lead us to believe that some at least of the squirrels would decrease in numbers or become exterminated, unless they also became modified and improved in structure in a corresponding manner. Therefore, I can see no difficulty, more especially under changing conditions of life, in the continued preservation of individuals with fuller and fuller flank-membranes, each modification being useful, each being propagated, until by the accumulated effects of this process of natural selection, a perfect so-called flying squirrel was produced.

So he predicts that natural selection will lead to increasingly more fit flying squirrels. So how, exactly, are they 'failures' when he was aware of them and discussed them in the 'Origins...'?

Also, a failed prediction by Darwin is not relevant since original Darwinism has been abandoned. Or rather, the good bits were kept, the bad bits (and there were plenty) were expunged. Then the good bits from other ideas were integrated into the good bits of Darwin's ideas to create what might be called a modern synthesis of ideas like sixty years ago.

Finally, problems (real or imagined) to Darwin's imagination are do not demonstrate any kind of barrier that would prevent the kind of evolutionary change the evidence would otherwise indicate has actually happened.

Edited by Modulous, : This is my 3000th post. Gives me an average of 2.2 posts every day for 3 years and 9 months. Shocking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by IchiBan, posted 01-31-2009 10:46 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 230 of 248 (497128)
02-01-2009 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by IchiBan
01-31-2009 10:46 PM


Re: Convergent Evolution Invalidates Evolution Barrier
Thank you Ichiban,

I did not give that a lot of thought before I replied. While I may not agree with your definition to varying degrees, I can work with it for purpose of discussion.

Good, common understanding is important to honest debate.

Let me add to what Modulus has already pointed out.

We still do not see any evidence that they broke out of the niche went beyond it in an evolutionary sense as Darwin imagined would happen with the flying fish. He imagined it might have been modified into that perfectly winged animal. In this manner the gliding frog, snake, lizard, fish, mammal, and marsupial all share the end point, in that way these creatures are failures of his theory to substantiate macro-evolution.

The question is not what has NOT happened according to evolution. The question is whether there is a genetic barrier that prevents one kind from evolving into a different kind.

Message 1

quote:
IF the concept of "kinds" is correct, THEN there must be mechanism(s) in the DNA that allows "micro"evolution but prevents "macro"evolution?

All of these examples are evidence of already existing animals that, it could be argued, have already "broke out of the niche went beyond it in an evolutionary sense" and become something different from their non-gliding cousins. Snakes are not mammals are not frogs are not reptiles are not fish, but all of these "kinds" of animals also have some that have evolved the ability to glide, with no genetic barrier preventing this from happening.

It is, however, the examples of convergent evolution that unequivocally show that any kind can evolve to be similar to another kind.

Simply put, if a placental squirrel can evolve into a flying squirrel, and a marsupial possum can evolve into a sugar glider, a lemur can evolve into a colugo, and they have all evolved into similar organisms, there is no barrier to this evolution.

Simply put, if a placental shrew-like mammal evolved into a bat, a dinosaur evolved into a bird, another to a pterosaur, and they have evolved into similar organisms, there is no barrier to this evolution

Simply put, if a warm-blooded true-boned hoofed mammal evolved into a killer whale and a cold-blooded cartilaginous fish evolved into a white shark, and they have evolved into similar organisms, there is no barrier to this evolution.

This is not "what if" thinking of what someone thinks could or even should evolve, this is actual factual evidence of what HAS evolved. Without barrier. A cow became a fish, a reptile and a mammal became a bird.

It is not a matter of their having "broke out of the niche went beyond it" but of their evolving to fill the same niche from a number of different evolutionary paths, unencumbered by any barrier in their genetics that prevents such evolution.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by IchiBan, posted 01-31-2009 10:46 PM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
olivortex
Member (Idle past 3070 days)
Posts: 70
From: versailles, france
Joined: 01-28-2009


Message 231 of 248 (497173)
02-02-2009 9:00 AM


animal basket ball
Once an ID supporter told me that i should use "common sense", and also liked to recall that science is, in the first place, observation of nature.

I agree and when i look at an ape and then at myself, at a bat and then all gliding animals, a picture of a tasmanian "tiger" and then all hopping marsupials, a turtle and then a snake, i mean, i feel i'm using common sense. It's not a true scientific way of watching the animal kingdom, but i can't help myself, i always find wonderful coincidences everywhere.

From this point of view, i can't understand why "macroevolution" scares some people so much. The concept of evolution is simply beautiful.


    
infidel
Junior Member (Idle past 3806 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 232 of 248 (499857)
02-21-2009 4:46 AM


poking fun at creationeist's micro/macro evolution divide
To add a little humor to the argument, I put together this Image. It pretty much has the same argument, but in picture form! You kind of have to click the link to see it all (its a LONG image!).


microevolution = macroevolution + time


http://www.curefaith.com

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by anglagard, posted 02-21-2009 5:01 AM infidel has responded

    
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 233 of 248 (499859)
02-21-2009 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by infidel
02-21-2009 4:46 AM


Re: poking fun at creationeist's micro/macro evolution divide
infidel writes:

To add a little humor to the argument, I put together this Image. It pretty much has the same argument, but in picture form! You kind of have to click the link to see it all (its a LONG image!).

Pretty cool. Perhaps it may help those who don't understand a lot of discrete points add up to a continuous trend (like in series or calculus).

Or not, for those who deny that an infinite amount of discrete data points becomes a line.

Math and Science, a marriage made in heaven. ;)

BTW, welcome to EvC!


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by infidel, posted 02-21-2009 4:46 AM infidel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by infidel, posted 02-21-2009 5:09 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
infidel
Junior Member (Idle past 3806 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 234 of 248 (499860)
02-21-2009 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by anglagard
02-21-2009 5:01 AM


Re: poking fun at creationeist's micro/macro evolution divide
Thanks for the welcome!

Yeah, the argument really is that simple : ).


http://www.curefaith.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by anglagard, posted 02-21-2009 5:01 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Black
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 77
Joined: 11-28-2008


Message 235 of 248 (500365)
02-25-2009 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
06-23-2004 11:33 PM


BUMP

Edited by Black, : edit

Edited by Black, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 06-23-2004 11:33 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by DrJones*, posted 02-25-2009 2:59 AM Black has responded
 Message 237 by RAZD, posted 02-25-2009 7:34 AM Black has not yet responded
 Message 240 by AdminNosy, posted 03-02-2009 9:41 AM Black has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1960
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 236 of 248 (500369)
02-25-2009 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Black
02-25-2009 2:41 AM


What is the biological mechinism that allows evolution to process from microevolution to macroevolution?

mutation and natural selection


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Black, posted 02-25-2009 2:41 AM Black has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Black, posted 03-02-2009 4:32 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20156
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 237 of 248 (500384)
02-25-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Black
02-25-2009 2:41 AM


I think you're asking the wrong question. What is the biological mechinism that allows evolution to process from microevolution to macroevolution?

The first thing necessary to answer this question is what you think macroevolution means.

In the science of evolutionary biology macroevolution is speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies of organisms related to a common ancestral population.

The process that causes speciation is what is normally called microevolution -- the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation -- however this same process is going on in two or more populations of a parent species, with reproductive isolation such that traits in one population are not shared with another population. This results in an increase in differences in the selection of traits that arise through mutation and that are selected for their benefit to survival and reproduction in the different ecologies for the different daughter populations.

Once two or more populations are reproductively isolated, there is no mechanism to homogenize the genetic pools between the daughter populations. They will each continue to evolve, and in each case this evolution will be to adapt to different ecologies, and thus increasing divergence is basically inevitable.

These daughter populations become parent populations when their populations diversifies into different ecologies, and the whole pattern repeats.

That is the process that causes speciation and the formation of nested hierarchies, and thus what evolutionary biologists consider macroevolution.

Over time this same basic process is capable of evolving from a marsupial ancestor to a sugar glider and from a mammal ancestor to a flying squirrel


Click to enlarge

Thus we see no genetic barrier to what can evolve, instead we see adaptation of existing traits and variations on a theme provided by mutation for selection to take advantage of opportunities to adapt to an ecology in order to survive and reproduce.

Your turn.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Black, posted 02-25-2009 2:41 AM Black has not yet responded

  
Black
Member (Idle past 3475 days)
Posts: 77
Joined: 11-28-2008


Message 238 of 248 (500719)
03-02-2009 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by DrJones*
02-25-2009 2:59 AM


BUMP

Edited by Black, : edit

Edited by Black, : edit

Edited by Black, : edit

Edited by Black, : edit

Edited by Black, : edit

Edited by Black, : edit

Edited by Black, : edit

Edited by Black, : edit

Edited by Black, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by DrJones*, posted 02-25-2009 2:59 AM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Percy, posted 03-02-2009 9:19 AM Black has not yet responded
 Message 241 by RAZD, posted 03-02-2009 8:55 PM Black has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18881
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 239 of 248 (500735)
03-02-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Black
03-02-2009 4:32 AM


Black writes:

I think you're asking the wrong question. The question should be; Where did our universe, in its smallest form, come from? rather where did the first biological atom come from?

I hope you meant to say that the question is *not* where the universe came from. If so, then in a thread about evolution, right you are!

There's no such thing as a biological atom. All atoms of the same isotope are identical chemically. Did you mean to ask where the first organic molecule came from?

Whatever you meant, whether about the universe or the origin of organic molecules, neither has anything to do with the topic of this thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Black, posted 03-02-2009 4:32 AM Black has not yet responded

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


Message 240 of 248 (500737)
03-02-2009 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by Black
02-25-2009 2:41 AM


Poor practice
It appears you edited you post to change it totally after there were replies. This is not a good practice. If what I think occurred you should have replied to the replies to post 235 with your revisions after commenting on the replies you got.

Please be more careful in the future.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Black, posted 02-25-2009 2:41 AM Black has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019