Evolution?

[juvenissun]

If your conclusion is not explained by the results, the reviewers are just going to throw your paper back at you. The results should speak for itself. The discussion isn't just there to tell the idiots what the results mean, it's supposed to indicate the implications of the results and what it means for future research and such.

If you are not writing one, there is no point to argue about it here.
If you are writing one, you will know it very soon.
This is not the issue of interest.

 

[TheGnome]

I guess that is it. So, let me rephrase my OP: Bacteria did not show any macro-evolution in the past 4+ billion years. (while everything else did)

Why could someone point this out at earlier time?

It hasn't? Did you know that bacteria is an entire KINGDOM of organisms?

The problem stems from your idea that evolution is long-term goal oriented. You can't seem to get this idea out of your head: humans are not the goal of evolution, humans are one of the many products. Eukaryotes aren't more advanced than prokaryotes, they're just different. The statements that you've made would make my molecular microbio professor cringe.

 

[TheGnome]

If you are not writing one, there is no point to argue about it here.
If you are writing one, you will know it very soon.
This is not the issue of interest.

This is not an argument.

Care to make a real one?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It hasn't? Did you know that bacteria is an entire KINGDOM of organisms?

The problem stems from your idea that evolution is long-term goal oriented. You can't seem to get this idea out of your head: humans are not the goal of evolution, humans are one of the many products. Eukaryotes aren't more advanced than prokaryotes, they're just different. The statements that you've made would make my molecular microbio professor cringe.

This is a masively important point

 

[juvenissun]

It hasn't? Did you know that bacteria is an entire KINGDOM of organisms?

The problem stems from your idea that evolution is long-term goal oriented. You can't seem to get this idea out of your head: humans are not the goal of evolution, humans are one of the many products. Eukaryotes aren't more advanced than prokaryotes, they're just different. The statements that you've made would make my molecular microbio professor cringe.

Of course I know.

Not at all.

By the way, I want to make a correction on myself:

The definition of evolution said by Tomk80 and agreed by a few is, in fact, what I would call the definition of "nano-evolution", not even one for micro-evolution.

Micro- and macro-evolution are mostly focused on the change of morphology. So, the definition contains mutation does not apply. I think the term NANO-EVOLUTION is a perfect one.

And we should recognize the un-bridged huge gap between the nano-evolution and the micro, macro evolution. However, I do agree that the only hope to prove the concept of evolution is to bridge this particular gap.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Of course I know.

Not at all.

By the way, I want to make a correction on myself:

The definition of evolution said by Tomk80 and agreed by a few is, in fact, what I would call the definition of "nano-evolution", not even one for micro-evolution.

Micro- and macro-evolution are mostly focused on the change of morphology. So, the definition contains mutation does not apply. I think the term NANO-EVOLUTION is a perfect one.

And we should recognize the un-bridged huge gap between the nano-evolution and the micro, macro evolution. However, I do agree that the only hope to prove the concept of evolution is to bridge this particular gap.

Huh?

I'm not sure what this gobledegook is meant to mean, but I'll take a stab and try telling you that there is more genetic diversity between some species of bacteria than there are between humans and plants.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Koalas
They live only in Australia. Their diet is so restricted--to a few subspecies of eucalyptus--that they're threatened now by destruction of the only kinds of trees they will eat. It's also hard to imagine them migrating. Over many generations they might slowly spread through an area--but travelers, they ain't.
And when they did migrate over 9,000 miles, in a tiny herd from Ararat to New South Wales, eating a convenient trail of long-disappeared eucalyptus (which took how many years after the Flood to grow?), they left no trail of koala fossils behind.
A suggestion for creation "researchers": instead of wasting endless hours combing through the writings of real scientists to find phrases to yank out of context that make them seem to doubt evolution--instead of that, put together a real research expedition! Find us that bee-line trail from northern Turkey to Australia. Find us those fossilized eucalyptus leaves, koala footprints, and koala bones. While you're at it, it would be lovely if you turned up a few kangaroos, giant moas, marsupial lions, Tasmanian wolves, and platypuses along that superhighway to the South Pacific. Enjoy yourselves in Afghanistan.

 

[TheGnome]

Of course I know.

Not at all.

By the way, I want to make a correction on myself:

The definition of evolution said by Tomk80 and agreed by a few is, in fact, what I would call the definition of "nano-evolution", not even one for micro-evolution.

It took me awhile, but I found the definition of evolution that TomK80 gives:
Same with evolution. It has already been explained to you that in biology evolution is defined as "the change of allele frequencies in a population over time".

Very few agree to this? This is the standard definition of biological evolution. I'm in a population genetics lab, and this the definition given in population genetics textbooks. On the most fundamental level, evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population from one generation to the next. Population geneticists, after all, are the champions of micro-evolution.

Micro- and macro-evolution are mostly focused on the change of morphology. So, the definition contains mutation does not apply. I think the term NANO-EVOLUTION is a perfect one.

You're making up scientific terms again? Stop that, you're not a biologist and you have no training in biology, you're not at the level where you can coin terms.

Microevolution is evolution within a species, and macroevolution is evolution of one species to another. The importance of macroevolution is speciation. It's hard to explain speciation to a creationist, however. Speciation is a gray area, not a black and white issue no matter what kind of creature we're speaking of.

Let me just say that speciation can happen with hardly any changes to morphology--look up cryptic species. Cryptic species cannot be determined from a very related species by examining morphology, only by examining genetics. I would explain the details, but I won't so that I won't create a boring text wall.

And we should recognize the un-bridged huge gap between the nano-evolution and the micro, macro evolution. However, I do agree that the only hope to prove the concept of evolution is to bridge this particular gap.

What?

Population genetics and ecology are used to study the evolution of populations (Microevolution)

Phylogenetics and paleontology are used to study the evolution from the species up (Macroevolution)

Phylogeography is the mediator between microevolution and macroevolution. (Uses geography, geology, ecology, genetics, anatomy and physiology, and paleontology to tie microevolution and macroevolution together)

Your conclusions are always made too impulsively.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I just wanted to say, as some one who hasn't studied biology or the bits and pieces of evolutionary theory I appreciate this thread very much. So just wanted to say thank you.

It makes me feel better about when I got in trouble in third grade when asked to draw some animals I included a human being.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I just wanted to say, as some one who hasn't studied biology or the bits and pieces of evolutionary theory I appreciate this thread very much. So just wanted to say thank you.

It makes me feel better about when I got in trouble in third grade when asked to draw some animals I included a human being.

And rightly so.

Human-hominid-primate-Mammal-Chordate-ANIMAL

(EPII is always bemused by the way Creationists seem happy to accept that humans are mammals and chordates, but rail against the idea of humans being primates and animals)

 

[Split Rock]

What you said is very different from that of Split Rock. I take his as a much better one.

No it is not. Please show how my definition is different from Tom's.

We have discussed the relationship between gene and morphology. The conclusion is: We knows very little. You may "believe" that the gene controls the morphology. But that is only a belief.

This is nonsense. Are you playing games withe the definition of "belief" now? It is well established that morphology, physiology, development, etc. are all ultimately controlled by the organism's genetic sequence. This does not mean that the environment or nutrition does not play a role, but even so, the DNA determines how an organism will respond to these parameters as well.

I was asking for the definition, you gave the this and that except the definition. What do you want me to think about your reply?

I don't know.... what do you want me to think about how you shift the goalposts so quickly it is hard to keep up with you?

I guess that is it. So, let me rephrase my OP: Bacteria did not show any macro-evolution in the past 4+ billion years. (while everything else did)

Why could someone point this out at earlier time?

What is your definition of "macro-evolution?" You may have already ststed this, if so, then I missed it. The definition we use, includes speciation; therefore bacteria certainly have undergone "macro-evolution."

 

[Tomk80]

We have discussed the relationship between gene and morphology. The conclusion is: We knows very little. You may "believe" that the gene controls the morphology. But that is only a belief.

Nonsense. We know genes control morphology, that follows directly from the experiments we have performed with genetic modification. That we do not know exactly which genetic mechanisms are the most important (modifications in regulatory regions versus modifications of regulatory genes versus modifications of genes) but that morphology is determined by genetics is not controversial in the slightest.

 

[Naraoia]

We have discussed the relationship between gene and morphology. The conclusion is: We knows very little. You may "believe" that the gene controls the morphology. But that is only a belief.

Oh, I think you've got to familiarise with homeotic mutants. They are rather spectacular examples of genes controlling morphology. Here's one, probably one of the most widely known.

Antennapaedia:

(In case you don't read the link, where this picture comes from, the head on the left belongs to a normal fruit fly; the fly on the right has a mutation in the Antp gene. The mutant has legs in the place of antennae.)

By the way, when did we come to the conclusion that "we know very little"? Was this my warning that I know very little about sigma factors?

 

[Naraoia]

It hasn't? Did you know that bacteria is an entire KINGDOM of organisms?

Even worse. And entire DOMAIN

Just to put it into context, Juvenissun, animals are a kingdom, eukaryotes are a domain (not that I like naming taxonomic ranks but they are sometimes good for illustration).

 

[Naraoia]

Micro- and macro-evolution are mostly focused on the change of morphology. So, the definition contains mutation does not apply. I think the term NANO-EVOLUTION is a perfect one.

Leave biological terminology to the biologists PLEASE. Neither micro- nor macroevolution is defined by morphology. They are defined by the "threshold" amount of change that leads to speciation (and I really don't want to get into species definitions again, please).

This "threshold" could be anything including things like genome duplications (plants like to do that) and incompatible genital morphology (male insects often to have highly... artistic genitals...), but nothing in the definition says that it must be morphological. [Also, there isn't a set amount of genetic change that makes two species different.]

 

[Radagast]

Leave biological terminology to the biologists PLEASE. Neither micro- nor macroevolution is defined by morphology. They are defined by the "threshold" amount of change that leads to speciation (and I really don't want to get into species definitions again, please).

This "threshold" could be anything including things like genome duplications (plants like to do that) and incompatible genital morphology (male insects often to have highly... artistic genitals...), but nothing in the definition says that it must be morphological. [Also, there isn't a set amount of genetic change that makes two species different.]

Indeed, speciation can result from a purely behavioural change. If a species divides into diurnal and nocturnal groups, for example, they will stop interbreeding, and further differences will accumulate.

 

[Naraoia]

Indeed, speciation can result from a purely behavioural change. If a species divides into diurnal and nocturnal groups, for example, they will stop interbreeding, and further differences will accumulate.

Yes, thanks for adding that. I should probably have added something like hawthorn/apple maggot flies. From what I know, they are well into just that kind of speciation. Not yet visibly different but reproduce at different times of the year on different host plants and apparently the hawthorn and apple races hybridise very little. And the apple feeding race only appeared somewhere in the 19th century.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, thanks for adding that. I should probably have added something like hawthorn/apple maggot flies. From what I know, they are well into just that kind of speciation. Not yet visibly different but reproduce at different times of the year on different host plants and apparently the hawthorn and apple races hybridise very little. And the apple feeding race only appeared somewhere in the 19th century.

Everybody seems to use that example, although the story may be a little more complex, with a possible initial geographical population divide, followed by adaptations specific to apples in the apple maggot fly (such as a preference for the smell of apples).

 

[Naraoia]

Everybody seems to use that example, although the story may be a little more complex, with a possible initial geographical population divide, followed by adaptations specific to apples in the apple maggot fly (such as a preference for the smell of apples).

Yes, I got them from a lecture as a possible example of sympatric speciation. Will look at that geographical interestingness (when I'm not in a stats workshop ).

 

[Bombila]

If juvenissun is really interested (which i doubt) in biology and evolution, it might help if he actually understood some basic developmental biology, as in what genes do, maybe starting with genes like Hox genes.

I've always had an interest in evolution, but it was more dedicated to paleontology and paleoanthropology. Eventually, though, you can't understand what "ologists" are talking about unless you go read more stuff, and here's where people like PZ Myers come in: he's really good at dumbing down biology for the likes of me - and maybe juvenissun and others.

Below is a sampling of posts primarily about Hox genes and how they function. They helped me immeasurably, and clarified a lot of the muddy understanding I had about evolution, because it is easy to understand how a tiny change at this level, whether from mutation or current environment (i.e., scientists poking pipettes in yer eggs or yer mother being a chain smoker and so on) can lead to significant changes in an adult animal or population of animals. Once I understood a little about Hox genes, I had a better basis for understanding other genes and how they function. And that made it possible for me to grasp broader concepts, like what it means that we share or don't share specific genes with chimps or Neanderthals. Obviously, YMMV.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/hox_genesis.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/a_brief_overview_of_hox_genes.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/09/hox_complexity.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/01/vertebral_variation_hox_genes.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/05/bilateral_symmetry_in_a_sea_an.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/regulatory_evolution_of_the_ho.php