Macroevolution Observed?

According to Talk.Origins, Macroevolution can not be directly studied or observed like microevolution has. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html Specifically this section:"Evidence for Common Descent and MacroevolutionMicroevolution can be studied directly. Macroevolution cannot. Macroevolution is studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms and inferring process from pattern. Given the observation of microevolution and the knowledge that the earth is billions of years old -- macroevolution could be postulated. But this extrapolation, in and of itself, does not provide a compelling explanation of the patterns of biological diversity we see today. Evidence for macroevolution, or common ancestry and modification with descent, comes from several other fields of study. These include: comparative biochemical and genetic studies, comparative developmental biology, patterns of biogeography, comparative morphology and anatomy and the fossil record. "Here is a good article about the differences.
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and HistoryI have a problem with the paragraph mentioned and the article about Macroevolution. You see the Question for me, and perhaps for you, is; if Macroevolution has NOT been directly observed and CANNOT be directly studied then why should we accept it? How do we really know that the other fields of study POINT TO an, admittedly, un-observed and un-studied theory like Macroevolution? Ya get what I'm saying?Let me put it another way. And I'm not trying to make fun of this, really. I'm just trying to simplify what I'm saying. I can find foot prints on top of my snow covered roof top that are clearly Reindeer foot prints. I might even find some new toys under my Xmas tree, perhaps some white whiskers on my fire place and the cookies and milk I left are all gone. Now based on these different observations I can probably conclude that Santa was here but how could I really be sure if I've never observed him in any way and he can't even be seen? The Macro thing gives me problems.Notice also in the Macro article in the second to last paragraph the author says, There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species)." Sorry guys, but that last paragraph is not making any sense to me either. To me "diverging" and "combining" are OPPOSITE processes or even "Mechanisms". Right?The sexual apparatus is a major enough change that the species can no longer breed with the pre-existing one and so yes this would be a Macro change, "that's" what makes it Macroevolution. But that change was the result of the "same" process that caused Micro changes as well. Yet that's not what he's saying. He's also saying it is the same thing, but they're not, not if one "diverges" and the other "combines" and not if the process that cause the Big change cannot happen in the little ones! Get what I'm saying?If little by little I'm taking parts to make my log cabin into a larger home, the process I take to build it is not going to change but once I've completed the house it will no longer be considered to be a log cabin anymore. (I'm not saying evolution works this way, I'm just trying to focus on the "Mechanism" or "Processes" that make up Micro and Macro evolution.) If the process is the same then they're both basically the same thing except that the "Result" (Not that I could even use that word to describe evolution but just for the sake of clarifying my meaning) is different. But he's saying that the process is "Including" things that can't happen when I'm making my cabin into a house. I'm saying that that makes no sense, unless you're actually saying that Micro and Macro require two "Different" processes or mechanisms. But you can't say that micro cause’s macro then tell us that the macro result includes things that cannot happen to micro. Because to say that would make them "Different" NOT the "Same". You see what I'm saying? He says the process is the SAME but includes something that makes it DIFFERENT, in my mind then they are NOT the same. The only thing that should be different is "the END RESULT NOT the PROCESS."You see why I'm having a problem with this?

Yo Crash... Apples and Oranges bud.
One is based on "Testimony" another on Scientific "Data".The difference with a "Murder" case is that we "KNOW a Murder has occured" as opposed to the fact that we CANNOT be sure that "Macro" has. We may not know WHO did it (murder), but what we DO know is that it happened.

Paul K
"I think that your problem is that you need to think a bit more about the subject."On the contrary I think it's because I have thought about it which is giving me cause for questioning it.Paul K
"For instance the evolutionary processes are the same for both the cases of divergence and convergence. New versions of genes (and sometimes new genes) appear through mutation. Successful genes spread through an interbreeding population. The only difference is that where two populations do not interbreed a gene cannot spread from one into the other and it is unlikely that the same mutation will independently appear in both populations. So an interbreeding population will tend to converge within itself, and to diverge from other populations that it does not interbreed with. "But you see you have just cited 2 different process, or lack there of. One population is "Interbreeding" the other "isn't". How is that the "Same" process? I mean you said it yourself, "the only difference.." One process uses "Interbreeding" the other "doesn't"[This message has been edited by Milagros, 03-25-2004]

Paul K
Yes, I understand the different circumstances but that doesn't make any difference to what we're saying. Yes, Mutations occur and yes, Natural Selection is happening but that doesn't explain how Macroevolutionary changes occur either. Why? Well because you are not providing a process for the "non-interbreeding" population to pass on any of those mutations that natural selection has chosen. However if there IS a process for those changes (Micro OR Macro) to be passed on OUTSIDE of the "interbreeding" population then that would make that process "Different" simply by the mere fact that the "non-interbreeding" population is NOT using the breeding process to pass those changes on.The one circumstance provides a process for the information to be passed on while the other circumstance does NOT provide the "Same" process for that to occur. In order for the "non-interbreeding" population to survive, somehow the changes occuring in them must be passed on otherwise they die out and any evolutionary change dies with them. Right? So a "Different" process would be required.

AbbyLeever
lol...I'm not laughing at you I just thought that was funny.
You're just making a slight error, if I may, in your chart that can be misleading.
Group A and Group B are different from the START? And you're saying that these different groups were interbreeding with each other? How would that be possible?Rather Group A must slowly change into Group B to the point where Group B can no longer interbreed with Group A. This is how I thought the micro to macro was supposed to work. However the article is saying that Group B or the process that caused Group B includes things that CANNOT occur with Group A. This is where we have the problem.How can the process, "from" Group A, eventually cause Group B to seperate itself from Group A (by the fact that they can no longer interbreed) include things that can only happen in Group B? Group B was the "Result" of all those micro changes. So how could you say that those changes that happen to cause Group B to form CANNOT happen to Group A, when it's BECAUSE of those changes that Group B evolved? Either Group B was the result of many many micro changes from Group A, which would include EVERYTHING that would have needed to evolve for Group B to exist, or it didn't.Here, let's try some numbers Let's try this. You have number 1 and 1 has these small changes occuring that show us -1,+1,.1,x1 or =1. In all those examples it's still a 1, micro changes. Eventually 1 changes into 10. So now evolution continues with -10,+10,.10,x10 and so on. But it's no longer a 1 it's a 10. What was said is that what happened to 10 includes things that CANNOT happen to 1. But it must have happened to 1 otherwise we wouldn't even have 10. If it can't happen to 1 then those things that made 10 must use a "different" process that cause this "above the single digits" species to occur.[This message has been edited by Milagros, 03-25-2004]

Ok, before we lose ourselves here.
The populations separate but the question is, what CAUSED the separation? The answer is Macroevolution. NOT a group arbitrarily leaving the pack or population to make camp somewhere else.The confusion lies in that you're trying to infuse the two ideas into one. On one hand, as per your examples show, you're showing how if a group or population split up and continue on their separate ways that eventually, through continued evolution, they wont be able to "interbreed" with the other original group or population. As opposed to the "result" of many micro changes that eventually make a Macro one as being the "CAUSE" of the seperation itself between the groups. You see? The Macro change "is what causes the separation between the populations" NOT the "separation" itself. In essence you're saying that the separation happened "First" BEFORE any Macroevolution even occurred. But I can understand why there might be some confusion because what was said in the article is somewhat confusing. And that's kind of why I'm questioning it.Notice what he says: The same processes that cause within-species evolution (the interbreeder's populations) are responsible for above-species evolution,(the "above" species population that can't interbreed with it's previous population.) except (and this is key) that the processes that cause speciation (And what process caused the separation of the species? A Macroevolutionary change is what causes it, is it not? A macroevolutionary process.) include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, (That's obviously because the change is a Macro one NOT a micro one.) such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (a macro change).
In other words: the same processes that cause micro changes (within-species evolution) are responsible for macro ones (above-species evolution) except that macro ones (the processes that cause speciation) include macro changes that cannot happen to the micro ones. See why that's confusing? It's basically a circular argument.Of course genes BETWEEN species diverge, because they're NOT the same. And of course genes WITHIN species converge, because they ARE the same. But which came first the divergence that caused macroevolution or macroevolution that caused the divergence? THIS is the problem.[This message has been edited by Milagros, 03-25-2004]

Paul K
"The usual hypothesis to explain how the populations become separated is to start with geographic isolation."(You're basically making a proposition which is always true and somewhat "tautological", since it's pretty obvious that to isolate something is to separate it from something else.)"Given such a barrier the populations will diverge ( they will diverge because they are separated?) and if the isolation continues for long enough then they will diverge to the point where the two populations cannot interbreed.(And THIS is the question, WHAT is causing the divergence? Is it the geographic isolation or is it Macroevolution (which makes the interbreeding with the separated population impossible.) You're still confusing two ideas into one. Which is it, the "barrier" or "time", respectively the "geographic isolation" (which is a given barrier) or "Macroevolution (which requires time)? Or are you applying divergence to mean BOTH geographical isolation AND Macro changes. Divergence means what to you, their inability to interbreed anymore based on a Macro change or their inability to interbreed anymore based on a separation via geographical isolation. Which is causing the divergence?)"So we have a separation that happens before any evolutionary change. (Ok?) Once the separation is in place you can get changes between the separated groups that could not happen within an interbreeding group.""In all cases the basic separation happens first, and THAT leads to macroevolution."And HOW exactly does the separation lead to Macro? See here's the problem. I know what you guys are trying to say here that if you split ,or diverge, group A into 2 groups that each specific separated group will have (macro) changes occur that eventually makes it impossible for them to inerbreed if they were reintroduced later. But it's the CHANGES WITHIN those Separated Groups that is the issue. What you guys don't realize is that there's a smoke screen occurring because the idea of "separation first, leads to macro" still does not explain how a Large Change like Macro occurs. Just splitting the groups does not a Macro change make. However if you were to say that a Macro change happened FIRST which THEN CAUSED the separation or divergence then we're getting somewhere and we get back to my initial problem. But just to say that a group separated itself geographically first which then brought about macro changes avoids the real issue of how it is that in EITHER group a Macro change occurred.The separate circumstances are irrelevant to the question. Which is, again, WHAT CAUSES Macro changes? Putting a group in an isolated circumstance doesn't explain, show or otherwise make evident that Macro changes either Have, or Will occur.?

Quetzal:
"The point is that speciation occurs when something happens to two populations"That's exactly what I am trying to get at. That "SOMETHING".
I can only assume that that "something" is Macroevolution because it's the "something" that causes the separate populations to no longer be able to interbreed (which happens to be one of the definitions used to define one species from another). But you can't say that the initial "separation" was the "something" that caused the divergence, THEN turn around and say the "Macro change" was the "something" that caused the divergence. These are 2 different ideas and what's happening is that they are being looked upon as 1 idea or they are trying to be infused to mean the same thing. You get what I'm saying here? Basically what made the new species (what diverged them?), the fact that they were separated or the fact that macro occurred?If you simply say it was the separation causing the divergence itself that doesn't explain Macroevolution per se at all. If you say Macro caused the divergence THEN the question is how can Macro include things that CANNOT happen to Micro changes (which was my initial question based on what the paragraph I cited stated)?

Crash
That's how I've always understood it to be as well. The small or Micro changes occur until so many have occurred causing a Macro change because of the fact that the species can no longer interbreed with it's initial population. But the paragraph is saying that what happens to Macro include things that CANNOT happen to the Micro ones.Macro is a result of millions of mutations as apposed to Micro being the result of some mutations. In either case mutations are the cause for BOTH. We're just talking a matter of amount. Walk only a mile, walk 1000 miles, we're still just walking except that I've advanced to another city while you're still stuck in the same city. Right? Why does it even matter if a population has been isolated for these Macro occurrences to happen? In other words Why should it matter if you walked from Chicago and I walked from Detroit (we're separated) for me or you to "have the ability" to walk to Las Angeles? Some are saying it's because we were "separated" that I was able to walk to Las Angeles and at the same time saying that the mere fact of me walking so long "separating" myself further is the reason I was able to walk to Las Angeles. But which is it, Me "being" separated by moving to Detroit or the fact that I've walked so far which makes me separate? In essence is it me being isolated that will get me to Las Angeles or the continual micro changes causing me to get to Las Angeles? You can't use both as the reasons.

Melchoir
By George (Melchoir)I think you've got it! "You can have a single group and still get changes in the genetic code.
However, that group won't split into two different species since any changes would be 'spread' out in the whole group. "Now we're talking.And that's the question, WHY won't they split into two different species? Well, we're told because they're still part of the same group. So...we separate them. Now we have 2 separated groups. So that now any changes occurring will be separate. But you see, Houston, we still have a problem. You have just "doubled" the REAL issue. Because even in the second separated group the changes, micro ones, will be spread into THAT group as well, albeit different changes from the initial group. What we REALLY want to know is WHEN or HOW does a Macro result occur in EITHER group? I've always read that it's through many many micro changes a Macro result is achieved. So... HOW could the resulting Macro change include things that CANNOT happen to the "lesser groups" of which micro changes are occurring that eventually lead up to the resulting Macro change? If you say by "seperating" them you've just completed a circular argument.