Evidence for macroevolution

[lucaspa]

A common statement by creationists -- the latest by JohnR7 -- is that "there is no evidence for macroevolution".

First, Macroevolution is speciation.  Species are the only biological reality.  All "higher taxa" are simply groups of species.  What is the Class Mammalia?  Mammals is a group of species that 1) has hair, 2) warm blood, suckle their young. Darwin showed that once you have speciation, then the rest follows.  See his diagram at http://pages.britishlibrary.net/charles.darwin/texts/origin_6th/origin6th_04.html

There are two lists below.&nbsp;The first is a <B>few </B>examples of <B>observed </B>speciation in the lab and the wild. Then comes examples of transitional series of fossil individuals linking various types of "higher taxa".&nbsp; It is very dangerous&nbsp;to declare "there is not one speck of evidence"&nbsp; Anyone tempted to do so should first consult the thread "Pubmed".

1.&nbsp; G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos.&nbsp; A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster&nbsp; Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.&nbsp; Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures.&nbsp; Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2.&nbsp; Speciation in action&nbsp; Science 72:700-701, 1996&nbsp; A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species.&nbsp; Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
3. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection.&nbsp; Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
4.&nbsp; KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis.&nbsp; Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950.&nbsp; Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
5.&nbsp; LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies.&nbsp; American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
6.&nbsp; Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
7.&nbsp; Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
4.&nbsp; M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998.&nbsp; Primary article is:&nbsp; CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene.&nbsp; Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998.&nbsp; As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
5.&nbsp; V Morell, Earth's unbounded beetlemania explained.&nbsp; Science 281:501-503, July 24, 1998.&nbsp; Evolution explains the 330,000 odd beetlespecies.&nbsp; Exploitation of newly evolved flowering plants.
6.&nbsp; B Wuethrich, Speciation:&nbsp; Mexican pairs show geography's role. Science 285: 1190, Aug. 20, 1999.&nbsp; Discusses allopatric speciation. Debate with ecological speciation on which is most prevalent.
7. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
8.&nbsp; M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
9.&nbsp; M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
10. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
11. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
12. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. target=_blank>www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are:&nbsp; AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000


Transitional series
Transitional individuals from one class to another
1.&nbsp; Principles of Paleontology by DM Raup and SM Stanley, 1971, there are transitional series between classes.&nbsp; (mammals and reptiles are examples of a class)
2.&nbsp; HK Erben, Uber den Ursprung der Ammonoidea. Biol. Rev. 41: 641-658, 1966.

Transitional individuals from one order to another
1. C Teichert "Nautiloidea-Discorsorida"&nbsp; and "Actinoceratoidea" in Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology ed RC Moore, 1964

Transitional individuals in hominid lineage
1. CS Coon, The Origin of Races, 1962.

Transitional series from one family to another in foraminerfera
1. target=_blank>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/foram/foramintro.html
2.&nbsp; target=_blank>http://cushforams.niu.edu/Forams.htm

Whale transition:
1.&nbsp; target=_blank>http://www.neoucom.edu/Depts/ANAT/whaleorigins.htm
2.&nbsp; target=_blank>http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaP...13277a0_fs.html

target=_blank>http://www.gcssepm.org/special/cuffey_04.htm
target=_blank>http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

Intermediate fossils
1.&nbsp; Milindovitch, MC and Thewissen, JGM.&nbsp; Even toed fingerprints on whale ancestry.&nbsp; Nature, 388, 622-623, 14 Aug. 1997.&nbsp; Refers to primary article on page 666.&nbsp; Molecular evidence of whale evolution.&nbsp;
2.&nbsp; J A Clack,&nbsp; A new early Carboniferous tetrapod with a melange of crown-group characters Nature 394, 66: 1998 (July 2).
3.&nbsp; R Motani, N Minoura &amp; T Ando, Ichthyosaurian relationships illuminated by new primitive skeletons from Japan, Nature 393, 255: 1998 (May 21).
4.&nbsp; H Gee, Relics: The creature from the black lagoon
target=_blank>http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve.../update662.html&nbsp; Transitional fossil between amphibians, reptiles, and mammals.

 

[chickenman]

creationist response: but thats just change within a kind, show me a bacteria turning into a kangaroo and i'll beleive in macroevolution

 

[sulphur]

I think you are a few years out of date

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by chickenman
creationist response: but thats just change within a kind, show me a bacteria turning into a kangaroo and i'll beleive in macroevolution

I am still waiting for their evidence that they can produce a grape from a fig tree. Or was it a olive from a grape vine?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

"I am still waiting for their evidence that they can produce a grape from a fig tree. Or was it a olive from a grape vine?"

That would be cool. However, I don't see what impact it would have on evolution one way or the other.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by sulphur
I think you are a few years out of date

Who? Me? John?&nbsp;Chickenman?&nbsp;

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by JohnR7
I am still waiting for their evidence that they can produce a grape from a fig tree. Or was it a olive from a grape vine?

How about a flower from a fern?&nbsp; That was one of those in the list. But I suppose you didn't even bother reading the titles of the papers, did you?

 

[Cute Tink]

Why should we set out to evolve one thing into another thing when such things already exist?

I suggest you prove that all such things did not evolve, cannot evolve (which would mean no adaptation), and were in fact dropped here in their present state.

 

[Matthew]

First, Macroevolution is speciation.&nbsp;&nbsp;Species are the only biological reality.&nbsp; All "higher taxa" are simply groups of species.

When creationists refer to macroevolution, they are not referring to speciation. Some of them happen to believe in speciation. Further, AIG has encouraged that creationists stop using the distiction micro/macro, and use the distinction of gain/loss of information.

Although they mean the same thing as before, they are using better words for it.

 

[chickenman]

thats dangerous ground for AIG to be walking on, because there are clear instances of gains of information in evolution

 

[Matthew]

Thats dangerous ground for AIG to be walking on, because there are clear instances of gains of information in evolution

If you are going to disagree with them, evidence would be helpful. Part of the reason why this debate continues is that too many assertions are made without evidence.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Matthew
If you are going to disagree with them, evidence would be helpful. Part of the reason why this debate continues is that too many assertions are made without evidence.

The main problem is that "information" is a fairly difficult concept. If I start from:

AAAA

and migrate like this:

AAAB
AAABAAAB
AAABAAAC
AABAAAAC
AABAAAACAC
ABAAAAACAC
ABAARACAC
(... many more ...)
ABRACADABRA

at what point, *exactly*, did information get added?

If we use the information theory model, new information is added to genetic codes *CONSTANTLY*. Mutation and selection can both potentially increase information.

Mutations can:
1. Change the information encoded by a given stretch of genetic material.
2. Duplicate an existing stretch of genetic material.
3. Omit part of some genetic material.

Note that a combination of the first and second examples gives you substantially more information than you used to have; that's the change from "AAAB" to "AAABAAAC", which is a real gain in "information" in any meaningful sense.

The thing is, in most cases, the amount of information involved is large enough that you need *hundreds* of cycles to be able to show any real overall change - meaning that, at any given cycle, it's very hard to see how there's "more information", but you can clearly show that, going from one point to another, information got added.

There are solutions to this, but none particularly accessible to laymen.

 

[Matthew]

The main problem is that "information" is a fairly difficult concept. If I start from:

AAAA

and migrate like this:

AAAB
AAABAAAB
AAABAAAC
AABAAAAC
AABAAAACAC
ABAAAAACAC
ABAARACAC
(... many more ...)
ABRACADABRA

at what point, *exactly*, did information get added?

Since none of that is words, never. (Unless you are referring to genetic code.)

If we use the information theory model, new information is added to genetic codes *CONSTANTLY*.

What sort of model are you referring to?

Mutations can:
1. Change the information encoded by a given stretch of genetic material.
2. Duplicate an existing stretch of genetic material.
3. Omit part of some genetic material.

Omission is loss of information, change is not necessarily gain, and duplication is not gain.

Note that a combination of the first and second examples gives you substantially more information than you used to have; that's the change from "AAAB" to "AAABAAAC", which is a real gain in "information" in any meaningful sense.

Not really. You have to look at the role that that sequence plays in the genome. If your change, for example, made a protein less specific (targets more things) that would be a loss. If you made it more specific, that would be a gain.

The thing is, in most cases, the amount of information involved is large enough that you need *hundreds* of cycles to be able to show any real overall change - meaning that, at any given cycle, it's very hard to see how there's "more information", but you can clearly show that, going from one point to another, information got added.

By "cycles" what are you referring to?

 

[choccy]

Omission is loss of information, change is not necessarily gain, and duplication is not gain.

Which is why seebs took the trouble of showing several sequences in his post:

The main problem is that "information" is a fairly difficult concept. If I start from:

AAAA

and migrate like this:

AAAB
AAABAAAB
AAABAAAC
AABAAAAC
AABAAAACAC
ABAAAAACAC
ABAARACAC
(... many more ...)
ABRACADABRA

at what point, *exactly*, did information get added?

It's difficult to point out exactly which single steps are adding information, but there is no doubt that ABRACADABRA contains more information than the starting point (AAAA). And the information is increased by duplication and change, two of the effects mutations can have on our genome. Thus it is trivial to show that mutations indeed can add information to our genome.

Btw:

Since none of that is words, never. (Unless you are referring to genetic code.)

I'm not an expert on information theory at all, but I think you're confusing information with meaning. Those are slightly different concepts I think, but other people might want to correct me on this.

Choccy

 

[Matthew]

I'm not an expert on information theory at all, but I think you're confusing information with meaning. Those are slightly different concepts I think, but other people might want to correct me on this.

If you are referring to Shannon's information theory then I would be I if I was also referring to that theory. (But I am not.) Information and meaning are identical. (Although for genetic code, the meaning of the code is its role in the genome.)

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by #1 Nonbeliever
Why should we set out to evolve one thing into another thing when such things already exist?

Some of them don't exist.&nbsp; For instance, take this paper:&nbsp; G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos.&nbsp; A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster&nbsp; Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.&nbsp; In this study the authors split a population of "fruit" flies and put them on different diets and temperatures. They got new species in the lab after 5 years.&nbsp; Some of the flies -- on diets of bread or meat --&nbsp;are now "meat" or "bread" flies.&nbsp;

One study was looking at the plant woodsias -- Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.&nbsp; The result is a woodsia species that can survive a Minnesota winter, where before there were none.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Matthew
When creationists refer to macroevolution, they are not referring to speciation. Some of them happen to believe in speciation. Further, AIG has encouraged that creationists stop using the distiction micro/macro, and use the distinction of gain/loss of information.

Although they mean the same thing as before, they are using better words for it.

LOL!! No, they aren't.&nbsp; They are just trying to shift the debate into an area where they think evolutionists don't have evidence.&nbsp; It's god-of-the-gaps theology at work.

There are 2 problems with this.&nbsp; One is theoretical and the other is data.

1. William Dembski, the darling of the IDers, has shown that natural selection must increase information!! Whenever you have a selection between possibilities, information increases. The equation is -log2(M/N)&nbsp; M is the entities selected and N is the total entities.&nbsp; Since natural selection has each population producing more individuals than are selected to survive and reproduce, information must increase with each generation.

2. Data.&nbsp; This, of course, is the deciding factor in any idea. Just a few of the examples showing increases in information (ability to do something new) we have:

1.&nbsp; Ohno, S, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 81:2421-2425, 1984.&nbsp; Frame shift mutation yielded random formation of new protein, was active enzyme nylon linear oligomer hydrolase (degrades nylon)
4.&nbsp; Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials.In: J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.
5.&nbsp; Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, vol90(3): 28-38, 1981
&nbsp; J Diamond, Evolving backward.&nbsp; Discover 19: 64-71, Sept. 1998. Discusses loss of eyes in the blind mole rat. But is not indiscriminate loss of eye. Rather it is addition of info.
1a.&nbsp; http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature716_fs.html&nbsp; Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan. Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, McGinnis W.&nbsp; Nature 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):914-7&nbsp;Mutate one serine to alanine and change limb # from multiple limbs of crustaceans to 6 limbs of insects.
31. Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene involved in speech and language.&nbsp; Wolfgang Enard, Molly Przeworski, Simon E. Fisher, Cecilia S. L. Lai, Victor Wiebe, Takashi Kitano, Anthony P. Monaco, Svante Pääbo&nbsp; Nature 418, 869 - 872 (22 Aug 2002)&nbsp;
1.&nbsp; BG Hall,Evolution on a petri dish. The evolved beta-galactosidase system as a model for studying evolution in the laboratory.&nbsp; Evolutionary Biology 15: 85-150,1982.
2. BG Hall, Evolution of new metabolic functions in laboratory organisms. in Evolution of Genes and Proteins ed. by M Nei and RK Koehn, Sinhouer Associates,Sunderland, MA, 1983.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by Matthew&nbsp;
Omission is loss of information, change is not necessarily gain, and duplication is not gain.

Duplicating genes and chromosomes gives you more of the storage medium of the information, doesn't it? The problem here is that it is difficult to separate "information" from the medium it is stored on.&nbsp; Creationists often try to confuse the issue&nbsp;by using what I call the "shell game". They will say that information can't increase because natural selection can't increase DNA and then say that information can't increase because increased DNA isn't increased information!

The two are obviously linked.&nbsp; If you want to store more information, you obviously have to&nbsp;have more of the medium the information is&nbsp;stored on.&nbsp; If you want to increase the information on your CD-ROM, you have to either have a new tract to put the information on or&nbsp;have a second CD.&nbsp;

But, increasing information&nbsp;in those tracts involves selecting the content of those tracts.&nbsp; So, when you select to put Beethoven's 5th Symphony on the tracts or the second CD, you are increasing the information in your CD collection.&nbsp; It is the process of selection that&nbsp;increases the information.&nbsp;

Not really. You have to look at the role that that sequence plays in the genome. If your change, for example, made a protein less specific (targets more things) that would be a loss. If you made it more specific, that would be a gain.

Not necessarily. For instance, take this protein:&nbsp; 1a. E Cabiscol and RL Levine, The phosphatase activity of carbonic anhydrase III is reversibly regulated by glutathiolation.&nbsp; Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA93: 4170-4174, 1996.&nbsp; This&nbsp;enzyme has two active sites, one for phosphatase and the other for carbonic anhydrase. Taking the ancestor protein and having a mutation that added the carbonic anhydrase activity&nbsp;is the addition of information, isn't it?

Or take serine proteases.&nbsp; They were specific for&nbsp;particular proteins in the organism.&nbsp;&nbsp;A mutation made them less specific and made them able to cleave blood proteins. This set up the clotting system -- an increase in information according&nbsp;to all creationists.&nbsp;
5.&nbsp; Blake CC, Harlos K, Holland SK,&nbsp; Exon and domain evolution in the proenzymes of blood coagulation and fibrinolysis.&nbsp; Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1987;52:925-931

 

[Nathan Poe]

Originally posted by Matthew
When creationists refer to macroevolution, they are not referring to speciation. Some of them happen to believe in speciation. Further, AIG has encouraged that creationists stop using the distiction micro/macro, and use the distinction of gain/loss of information.

Although they mean the same thing as before, they are using better words for it.

Of course they want to stop using those terms; most people are getting a clear idea of what they mean. Macro- and Micro- evolution are too specific and easy to understand, so now they need vague terms like "gaining information" and "losing information," unscientific terms they can define or change at will.

It takes ignorance to build a decent strawman.

 

[chickenman]

duplications and mutations can increase information - for instance, the expansion of the hox cluster, which has been a major force in morphological evolution - creationists will claim that the hox cluster wasn't expanded by duplication and divergence, that god did some copy/pasting in his DNA editor or something - even though these phenomena both occur and are the most parsimonious explanation for the hox gene expansion