How is macroevolution different from microevolution

[chickenman]

How is the chemical/physical process of microevolution different from macroevolution?

What prevents macroevolution from happening?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by chickenman
How is the chemical/physical process of microevolution different from macroevolution?

What prevents macroevolution from happening?

heh as i said in the other thread.

Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog. (www.icr.org).


NOthig pervents it from happening i believe it has 1000's of times.

 

[chickenman]

I realise the difference on the macroscopic level - I want to know what the difference is at the molecular level - if one can happen and the other can't then the processes required must be different

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by chickenman
I realise the difference on the macroscopic level - I want to know what the difference is at the molecular level - if one can happen and the other can't then the processes required must be different

I don't think i understand, Both Macroevolution and Microevolution can happen and has happened. Hmm i think i do understand, the processes are not differenet well i think there not different but i might be wrong if i am someone say so.

 

[chickenman]

i don't think they're different seesaw, I think both have happened. Creationists draw a line between them though, and I want to know what their justification is for that line

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by chickenman
i don't think they're different seesaw, I think both have happened. Creationists draw a line between them though, and I want to know what their justification is for that line

ok

 

[OneLargeToe]

Most creationists who wish to not believe in evolution tend to be of the Young Earth variety. I am guessing their reasoning on why macro evolution has not occured is due to the length of time required. They believe in a ~6000 year old Earth which is plenty of time to allow for some minute changes to occur. However, for macroevolution to be possible you would have to allow for billions of years -- which is something they believe it against what is taught in scripture.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Macroevolution tends to be a moving target when it comes to creationists. I've found some claim that speciation can't occur. Show them examples where speciation has occurred, and they'll redefine it to claim that changes between "kinds" can't occur (whatever a "kind" is).

It gets even more fun when you start to consider the problems of modern terrestrial life on this planet being descended from a limited number of animals Noah took on his ark during the flood (assuming you're dealing with someone who takes the Bible literally). Without some level of "macroevolution", how do you explain that?

 

[Freedom777]

 macro-evolution requires changes that increase genetic information,but all scientists observe is a sorting and loss of information.this leaves no leg to stand on for evolution.

 

[chickenman]

increases in information have been observed and are possible

you'll have to invent something else to differentiate "macro" from "micro"

 

[Freedom777]

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Macroevolution tends to be a moving target when it comes to creationists. I've found some claim that speciation can't occur. Show them examples where speciation has occurred, and they'll redefine it to claim that changes between "kinds" can't occur (whatever a "kind" is).

It gets even more fun when you start to consider the problems of modern terrestrial life on this planet being descended from a limited number of animals Noah took on his ark during the flood (assuming you're dealing with someone who takes the Bible literally). Without some level of "macroevolution", how do you explain that?

  God made the first animals perfect there gene-pool was astronomical,and still would have been pretty close to that after the flood.hers an example of humans today. first the matter in the known universe is 10 to the 80 power.the combination of variation among humans today is 10 to the 2017 power.and that is how we have the great variation among animals since the flood. 

 

[Freedom777]

Originally posted by chickenman
increases in information have been observed and are possible

you'll have to invent something else to differentiate "macro" from "micro"

alright now first lets see what you are talking about.there are micro-increases in information but it is only like a switch thats already present that switches on and off .this is true but there has not been an increase in any new information that just miraculusly appears

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by Freedom777
alright now first lets see what you are talking about.there are micro-increases in information but it is only like a switch thats already present that switches on and off .this is true but there has not been an increase in any new information that just miraculusly appears

How do you explain genetic changes?

The genetic code for a particular organism is a particular combination. If there is a mutation in the code that is non fatal prior to the organism breeding then this change can get passed on. However, it was not present in the original organism from birth.

This is new information.

It may be harmful, it may be beneficial, it may do nothing. But it is new in the code and may do something in combination with other changes, reshuffling and so on somewhere down the generational line.

Are you saying that this never happens?

 

[chickenman]

unequal crossing over can duplicate large stretches of DNA - this generates new information.

find something else to differentiate between macro and micro, because mutations can generate new information

 

[Freedom777]

Originally posted by chickenman
unequal crossing over can duplicate large stretches of DNA - this generates new information.

find something else to differentiate between macro and micro, because mutations can generate new information

i believe that is a scrambleing of information that already exists you can have say  todrakrov and scramble that and you will never get a  z or w or s ect...and this is where its at.

 

[David Gould]

Originally posted by Freedom777
i believe that is a scrambleing of information that already exists you can have say  todrakrov and scramble that and you will never get a  z or w or s ect...and this is where its at.

But mutation can change a t into a k.

In addition, if I have the word "plank" how is it sensible to say that the phrase "plan k" was already contained in there? Plank and plan k are two different things. They are vastly different in meaning. Thus, two indiviudals animals could have nearly identical genetic codes and be completely different. And this is what we find. The evidence is such that minor changes in some areas of DNA result in vastly different phenotypes.

It is logical to assume from this that all life is related, with many small changes in DNA leading to massive phenotype differences.

Just like "plank" is very different from "plan k" and yet the letters are the same - there is only one very small change.

 

[Freedom777]

ill do some more research im giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[chickenman]

okay lets do a little thought experiment

how duplications can increase information:


horse

(duplication event)

horse + horse

(mutation)

horse + house

tada! an increase in information via duplication and mutation

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
okay lets do a little thought experiment

Thank you for making it indisputable that macroevolution is socratic (speculation, based on thought experiments) and not scientific.

 

[chickenman]

oh sorry, you want a real example - a scientific one npeterly?

1: Eur J Hum Genet 2000 Mar;8(3):229-35
Related Articles, Links


Prenatal detection of a 17p11.2 duplication resulting from a rare recombination event and novel PCR-based strategy for molecular identification of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A.

Bernard R, Labelle V, Negre P, Tardieu S, Azulay JP, Malzac P, Mattei JF, Leguern E, Philip N, Levy N.

Departement de Genetique Medicale, Hopital d'enfants de la Timone, Marseille, France.

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, type 1A (CMT1A) is caused in most cases by a 1.5 Mb duplication on chromosome 17p11.2 arising after unequal crossing-over between repeated sequences called CMT1A-REPs, flanking the 1.5 Mb unit. A 3.2 kb recombination hot spot has been defined, resulting in a junction fragment between EcoRI (distal CMT1A-REP) and SacI (proximal CMT1A-REP). This was further reduced to a 1.7kb EcoRI-NsiI fragment, and recently to a 731 bp hot spot region within this fragment. We describe the CMT1A- REPs-based PCR method used to identify CMT1A duplications and report on a family case in which a 29-year-old pregnant woman requested prenatal diagnosis for two successive pregnancies because her husband was affected with CMT1A. Our method enabled us to characterise the duplication in both foetuses and demonstrate that it arose from a rare recombination event taking place outside the 1.7 kb region. Since our approach is simple and enables the entire set of duplications occurring after recombination in the enlarged 3.2kb region including the hot spot to be detected, we suggest it might be considered for use in primary screening for pre- and postnatal diagnosis of CMT1A.

PMID: 10780790 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]