Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,835 Year: 4,092/9,624 Month: 963/974 Week: 290/286 Day: 11/40 Hour: 2/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Biological Evolution ⇒

Macro and Micro Evolution

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Macro and Micro Evolution
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 59 of 301 (68539)
11-22-2003 12:56 PM

Over on the Biblical Accuracy forum, Quiz posted this paragraph.
​
Quiz writes:
​
There are so far 2 theories which have many mechinisms that I know of: Macroevoltion and Microevolution. Macroevolution has Biogenisis, Acquired Characteristics, Mutation and Recombinations, as the mechinisms, and might I say that all mechinisms of macroevolution are still in a theoretical state and none of them are factual. Remember that I understand theory is not just a guess. Now their is also Microevolution which has, Natural Selection, Large Scale Phenotypic Changes, Sexual Selection, Genetic Drift, and a few others mechinisms that I didn't mention or may not know of.
​
I am hoping that he will join the discussion over here to see just what is wrong with his statement.
​
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Quiz, posted 11-22-2003 3:54 PM Asgara has not replied
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 11-22-2003 4:04 PM Asgara has not replied
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 80 of 301 (68636)
11-22-2003 7:54 PM 		Reply to: Message 79 by Trump won
11-22-2003 7:46 PM

Re: macro-micro difference
Which "information theory" would this be? Maybe you could explain it.
​
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Trump won, posted 11-22-2003 7:46 PM Trump won has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Trump won, posted 11-23-2003 4:28 PM Asgara has not replied
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 222 of 301 (69752)
11-28-2003 6:59 PM 		Reply to: Message 216 by Sonic
11-28-2003 6:44 PM

Re: I am responding to my self so I may answer all of you in one swoop
Excuse me for butting in here, but I have a question for Sonic.
​
Well, not necessarily a question, but more of an observation.
​
We would need to see a species with no eye then see a species with a eye .... Now concerning you information on the eye, those changes would be considered microevolution because it is a small genetic change, which changes frequently from generation to generation but regardless it would still be microevolution because each change is done in small steps. In otherwords the formation of an eye would be considered macro and the changes to that eye would be micro.
​
Evolution doesn't claim that one species had NO eye and then another species had a fully formed eye. Correct me if I am reading your posts wrong, but it seems that you are claiming macro-e would be a fully functioning organ coming into being in one fell swoop. The biologists onboard can get into particulars, but MOST evolution is seen as small genetic changes adding up to eventually make large differences.
​
Sticking with the eye, evolution doesn't look for one species without an eye and then the next species have a fully formed eye. The evolution of the eye is seen as starting with photosensitive cells, then a small indentation to hold these cells, this indentation gradually deepening, then gradually closing in to make a pin-hole...etc. There are innumerable examples of each and every step in this process right now.
​
I just think that you are still a little confused as to what exactly the TOE predicts. Just remember that arguing against major organs coming into being fully formed is arguing a strawman. That is not what the TOE predicts.
​
Once again, I may be reading these posts incorrectly, but that is the impression that I am getting from your posts.
​
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 6:44 PM Sonic has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by NosyNed, posted 11-28-2003 7:00 PM Asgara has not replied
 Message 224 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 7:12 PM Asgara has replied
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 226 of 301 (69760)
11-28-2003 7:31 PM 		Reply to: Message 224 by Sonic
11-28-2003 7:12 PM

Re: More on understanding of macro vs micro
Sonic,
​
Genetic drift is PART of the TOE. Most evo's here do NOT differentiate between micro and macro. What we see as small micro changes, adding up to large macro differences, you see as something totally different.
​
What you are arguing against is not what scientists believe.
​
Could you do me a big favor and read this site? The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQs
​
Talk Origins has some great pages on just what evolution is and the evidences for it.
​
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 7:12 PM Sonic has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Sonic, posted 11-28-2003 7:49 PM Asgara has not replied
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 242 of 301 (69801)
11-28-2003 10:32 PM

On the Creationists as Hyperevolutionists thread, Sonic posted the following.
​
steps of TOE:
1. micro-e
2. (medium-e)genetic drift and hidden mutation
3. macro-e
​
I would be interested in what mechanisms you see as occuring in micro-e and macro-e. As has been said before, genetic drift and mutation are some of the mechanism in TOE. I don't understand the need for the differentiation.
​
Maybe one of the biologists here could simply list the various mechanisms that contribute to the TOE.
​
On the same thread Sonic also posted this:
I believe we have clarified macro-e as the development of an organ through the process of genetic drift and hidden mutation(i.e. through this process the new organ appears as if it were new and never seen and also appears as if it came out of no where). The actual definition is a little confusing so I will state it the way I did above.
​
I am of the opinion that if macro-e involves organs appearing as if they came out of no where, then macro-e is a moot point as far as evolution goes.
​
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 252 of 301 (69828)
11-29-2003 2:55 AM 		Reply to: Message 250 by Sonic
11-29-2003 2:31 AM

Re: Divider for Micro and Macro would be Genetic drift
Sonic, genetic drift is simply a random sampling issue between various alleles. The smaller the population, the easier that drift will affect the allele frequency in the next generation.
​
I may be wrong, (someone please correct me if I am), but it doesn't seem to me to be a mechanism that would need to be "proven". It is an issue of ratio.
​
------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato
This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Sonic, posted 11-29-2003 2:31 AM Sonic has not replied
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024