Macro and Micro Evolution

This topic seems to come up pretty frequently but I didn't find anywhere that it was being focussed on. Let's see if we can keep it in here.

Messenjah posted here
post in emailsMark responded with
messenJah,
So the only form of evolution that is micro is speciation?An obviously false definition.Mark

Messenjah, my question is:
What then is macro evolution?

Hello, I am new at the forums. Although this question was not directed to me, I find this idea interesting. Macroevolution (any evolutionary change at or above the level of species) has not yet been achieved in a lab, correct? Although it is claimed to be a million-year, possibly billion-year process, given our technology we should be able to mutate a species to the point of macroevolving to another. Any thoughts?Apollyon

quote:

---

Any thoughts?

---

Only that what you have said is wrong.By the way, welcome to EvC (says I, being relatively new myself). Sorry if I sound rude.

quote:

---

given our technology we should be able to mutate a species to the point of macroevolving to another.

---

That would be macroCREATION and not macroevolution. I may be wrong but I believe we have already done this. I know there are some patented new species of mice or rats, and there was that glowing rabbit.Anyhow, macroevolution has been seen outside of labs. Usually in plants. It takes a while, but I believe the evolutionary process is thought to be able to form a new species within as little as 10,000 years. Maybe it was 100k. This is a reason why transitional entities are unlikely to end up in the fossil record.------------------
holmes

Holmes:
He wasn't asking for new speces. So far on this thread I think that both sides agree that new species have arisen and are arising now.Apollyon:
Since all taxa above the species level are simply groupings of the species being examined how is it that if new species can arise they can not be different enough to be grouped into new genera? If the appearance of a new genus was documented then you would agree that "macroevolution" does in fact occur?Why the insistence on this occuring 'in the lab' by the way? Could you justify that stance?[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-16-2003]

Hi Ned,You asked for a definition of both micro & macro evolution. Messenjah said micro=speciation. Clearly it is possible for evolution to occur on the micro scale without speciation, rendering speciation an inadequate definition for microevolution.As an aside, macroevolution can be defined as, "the sum of those processes that explain the character-state transitions that diagnose evolutionary differences of major taxonomic rank" (Levinton 1983). I agree witrh Levinton when he says that defining macroevolution as "change above the species level" is insufficient. It leads the unwary to ideas of saltationism, & also confuses the unwary into thinking one (above species level) taxa gives rise to another by spawning a new one via "genusiation", "classiation", or "phyligiation", etc. When in fact a species gives rise to another via speciation that is different enough to warrant a new taxonomic rank.Mark------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

quote:

---

He wasn't asking for new speces.

---

Sorry if I confused things, but I took the following quote to imply he did not accept that there were changes at the species level, and that macroevolution was change at the species level...

quote:

---

Macroevolution (any evolutionary change at or above the level of species)

---

Did I miss something in this?------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-16-2003]

quote:

---

Only that what you have said is wrong.

---

Chiroptera: It was not rude, just did not include any concrete details; thereby allowing me to question its validity.

quote:

---

I may be wrong but I believe we have already done this.

---

Once again, no concrete details.

quote:

---

Why the insistence on this occuring 'in the lab' by the way? Could you justify that stance?

---

Ned, I was simply speculating on the absence of macroevolution in a laboratory. (Scientific method, testing the hypothesis) That is what makes Darwinian Evolution a theory and not a law, is it not? It would be much more plausible if we were able to take single-cell prokaryotic cell and 'evolve' it into a multi-celled eukaryote. But if we have even failed to create the emergence of life from non-life, why bash those who do not accept this theory?I am by no means an expert on this field myself, so I would appreciate clarification on any incorrect information I have provided.Apollyon

Let's not get to distracted by this topic here. There are discussions of this elsewhere. However to make it quick: the term law isn't used much for any new things. E.g., special relaviity isn't a "law" though it replaces Newton's "laws". The term that is used now is "theory" and it means just what "law" did before.The tests do not have to be performed in the lab. Many theories are tested outside of the lab. Even if we take a lab to be anywhere we can perform a current experiment. What do they predice we will see? Do we find that? Even if we don't create the conditions it is still a test of the theories predictions.Now I understand where you confusion arises I think we can leave that one or you may carry it on in a thread more appropriate for it.

You do have a good point, Chiroptera could supply a little backup for what he has to say. I'm sure he will in due time.

Oh, grumble, grumble! If I actually have to start backing up my wild assertians.... Actually, I was going to add more, but holmes already answered better than I was going to.What I was referring to is that there is no reason to expect to be able to see "macroevolution" in the laboratory - this is a slow, gradual process, and anything that would be seen in a laboratory would not be slow nor gradual, hence not evolution of the Darwinian sort.That said, there are examples of speciation events, especially involvining polypoloidy in botany, nylon-utilizing bacteria, and others that have been observed, as well as beneficial mutations of the sort that has to be information-increasing (a mutation in Italy that helps protect against artherioslerosis, a mutation in Africa (not sickle cell) that helps provide immunity against malaria without any deleterious effects). These things aren't considered "macro-evolution" by creationists, but they are excellent arguments against the attempts to say macro-evolution is impossible.And sorry if my initial post was a little out of line - there are several other message boards where a more combative style is expected, and sometimes I don't switch modes.

The thread is titled "Macro and Micro Evolution". I do not think a discussion on the absence of macro evolution in the laboratory is irrelevant. Some statements I made in my previous post seem to have been overlooked. Let me attempt to clarify my skeptical ideas. Maybe some will shed light on the subject for me.A species is defined as:
"... a reproductive community of populations (reproductively isolated from others) that occupies a specific niche in nature." (Mayr)Now, what I fail to understand is not adaptation, but how a mutation that makes me immune to malaria (which is not heriditary) can allow the emergence of a new reproductively isolated specie. It would be much easier to understand the concept if it were performed in a lab. (possibly on a smaller scale, such as an earthworm or a fruit fly)Any help?

quote:

---

And sorry if my initial post was a little out of line - there are several other message boards where a more combative style is expected, and sometimes I don't switch modes.

---

Understood. Apollyon[This message has been edited by Apollyon, 11-16-2003][This message has been edited by Apollyon, 11-16-2003][This message has been edited by Apollyon, 11-16-2003]

Hello Apollyon I can see why you pick these particular examples. These steps occurred millions of years ago and took a loooong time to happen, is it any wonder why we don't know how to recreate them?Try looking at a 'macro' change that has occurred relatively recently. How about the changes required for the common ancestor of us and chimpanzees to change into modern man? I'll admit that we don't know enough about developmental biology and genetics to actually predict what these changes are BUT to me they seem quite small. We do know that small changes in genes and their regulation can have very large effect, and small changes is exactly what is happening when you talk about speciation. If you accept that maybe the step between us and apes is not that large and well within the processes of 'micro' evolution, where do the steps actually get too big? Mammals to primates? Sea to land?