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?

Since the Lincoln Administration is neither observable or repeatable, how can we conclude that Abraham Lincoln was ever the President of the United States?To you, what evidence does it take to substantiate hisorical claims? Somehow I doubt that you have a problem when other kinds of historical claims are made, such as in courtroom forensics (after all, a murder can't be repeated). Just because something happens in the past, or over a great period of time, doesn't mean we can't substantiate it with evidence.

I think that your problem is that you need to think a bit more about the subject. You can't judge whether the processes are the same or not just by looking at the results. You do need to understand what is going on and take into account the circumstances.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.

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]

Hi there, If mutation is random yes. If mutation is do to viruses, no.
When you say different population, do you mean definitively separate population?Denesha

No, I haven't cited different processes. Just different circumstances. The processes of mutation and natural selection are exactly the same. NOT interbreeding is certainly not a process - and indeed the diverging groups are only diverging with each other. Within each group there is still the same tendency to converge.

From Merriam-Webster online: We have seen species formation, examples of which can be found here and here. Speciation is the only known barrier to evolution. Speciation causes a previously interbreeding group to split into two non-interbreeding groups. This causes different mutations to build up in the separate species, which can only lead to divergent morphology.Macroevolution has been observed, since speciation has been observed. Microevolution, as it is used by scientists, refers to changes within a species, usually adaptive. Change that results in speciation is macroevolution.

I think he(?) misinterpreted your original post to say thatgroup (A) was interbreeding within the group while
group (B) was not interbreeding within the group(which would be a different process) rather thangroup (A) was interbreeding within the group and
group (B) was interbreeding within the group and
group (A) was no longer interbreeding with group (B)thus allowing divergence of group (A) from group (B) while maintaining convergence within each group.hope that helps.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

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]

A group of persons from Germany is different than a group of persons from Nigeria. Nonetheless they are able to interbreed.But if you took the group from Germany and put them on Mars, so that there was no longer any circumstance where genes could flow between the two groups, then the group on Mars would accrue mutations until they were no longer able to breed with the group in Nigeria, no matter what. At that point they would be different species. That's macroevolution - new species arising through reproductive isolation.

Before you laugh too loud, I made another response to your post #25 before this (though I haven't seen it come up yet) and I repeat it here: My post #24 was referring to your misconception of the breeding patterns within each group after separation into two groups from the parent group -- your misconception of where "non-interbreeding" fits into the picture.Note that there is no need for both groups to diverge significantly from the parent population, in fact one could remain {species consistent} with the parent group while the other diverges from it into a new species, but that in both cases each population interbreeds within the population. Nor is there need for the lake level to rise for the speciation event to have occured.Let me know if this is not specific enough for you.AL.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist

For someone who claims to have thought about this you seem to be awfully confused.Lets just take a simple case of two populations. Interbreeding occurs within each population (with no breeding, you soon have no population) but there is no interbreeding BETWEEN the two populations.Within each population there will be convergence. Between the two populations there will be divergence. There is no special process and there doesn't need to be. Each population has the same opportunities to pass its genes on.

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]