Macro-evolution

[Osthuvud]

What are the known mechanisms of macro-evolution, and what evidence do we have?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

The mechanisms for "macro" evolution are the same as "micro" evolution. That is, mutation, selection, genetic drift, etc.

As far as evidence goes, try here and here to start.

 

[Arikay]

It really depends on your definition of Macro evolution (as some creationists have a different definition than science), however, here is an interesting exerpt from Wiki's evolution article (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution)

"Microevolution and Macroevolution

Microevolution refers to small-scale changes in gene-frequencies in a population over a few generations. These changes may be due to a number of processes: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, as well as natural selection. Macroevolution refers to large-scale changes in gene-frequencies in a population over a long period of time (and may culminate in the evolution of new species). The difference between the two is hard to distinguish because, over time, successive tiny mutations like those evidenced in microevolution build up in isolated populations and eventually create entirely new species, which is known as macroevolution. The two terms are not used much by scientists, who see no need to refer to the same process by different names solely because of the degree to which the process has taken place. The two terms are largely used by religious fundamentalists, who claim that microevolution can and does happen but that macroevolution cannot. This is based on the supposition that microevolution may occur with an existing gene pool, whereas macroevolution requires the introduction of newly-evolved genes. Notwithstanding, they are both essentially the same process, with the latter simply taking longer."

add on: Pete's info is very good too.

Today at 03:53 PM Osthuvud said this in Post #1

What are the known mechanisms of macro-evolution, and what evidence do we have?

 

[Osthuvud]

The mechanisms for "macro" evolution are the same as "micro" evolution. That is, mutation, selection, genetic drift, etc.

I am familiar with natural selection.  This is the elimination of a gene characteristic; sort of like extinction.

I know generally what the definition of mutation is, but what affect does it have on the genetics?

I have never heard of genetic drift before.

Any help here?

 

 

The two terms are largely used by religious fundamentalists, who claim that microevolution can and does happen but that macroevolution cannot.

 

Guilty as charged.  But I would never word it as "cannot".  I just am unaware of any concrete, unbiased evidence.

 

 

The two terms are not used much by scientists, who see no need to refer to the same process by different names solely because of the degree to which the process has taken place.

Well, if it is the same process, then maybe I really don't need to do any more investigation.  I have listened to the "Green Peacers" bemoan the extinction of species, and at the same time evolutionists are applauding the process as natural selection.

So which is it?

Thanks for the links.  I have downloaded the URLs and will check the sites out later.

 

[Freedom777]

Quote:
The mechanisms for "macro" evolution are the same as "micro" evolution. That is, mutation, selection, genetic drift, etc.

Sorry Micro does not = Macro

 

[Arikay]

"Guilty as charged.  But I would never word it as "cannot".  I just am unaware of any concrete, unbiased evidence."

Thats actually why I chose Wiki. As they are just an online information source and generally wouldnt be considered biased.

'Well, if it is the same process, then maybe I really don't need to do any more investigation.  I have listened to the "Green Peacers" bemoan the extinction of species, and at the same time evolutionists are applauding the process as natural selection."

Although I think green peace goes overboard sometimes, there is a difference between natural selection and human aided natural selection.

Natural selection on its own, will cause many species to become extinct, but there is a difference between extinction by natural selection and extinction because of deforestation, or by polution.

Today at 04:40 PM Osthuvud said this in Post #4



I am familiar with natural selection.  This is the elimination of a gene characteristic; sort of like extinction.

I know generally what the definition of mutation is, but what affect does it have on the genetics?

I have never heard of genetic drift before.

Any help here?

 

 

 

Guilty as charged.  But I would never word it as "cannot".  I just am unaware of any concrete, unbiased evidence.

 

 

Well, if it is the same process, then maybe I really don't need to do any more investigation.  I have listened to the "Green Peacers" bemoan the extinction of species, and at the same time evolutionists are applauding the process as natural selection.

So which is it?

Thanks for the links.  I have downloaded the URLs and will check the sites out later.

 

[Zadok001]

First of all, thanks for being a bit more open-minded than most.  You haven't dismissed us as heretics yet, and sadly, that's a rare thing in this forum.  So thank you.

Today at 12:40 AM Osthuvud said this in Post #4

I am familiar with natural selection.  This is the elimination of a gene characteristic; sort of like extinction.

Not quite.  Natural selection is simply the tendancy for those organisms who are best adapted to their environment to reproduce more than their less-well adapted brethren.  Hence, the better adapted organisms pass on their traits.

Natural selection is not the elimination of a characteristic - It can also be the introduction of a new one.  (Such as brighter feathers on a bird whose mates are attracted to bright colors.)  Certainly some characters get eliminated by natural selection (human tails, for example), but this is not the only way natural selection can work.

I know generally what the definition of mutation is, but what affect does it have on the genetics? 

A genetic mutation means your genetic code is slightly different from the 'norm' for your species.  Sometimes, these mutations result in reproductive or survival advantages, as in the case of the brightly colored birds above.

Not much more to it than that.

Guilty as charged.  But I would never word it as "cannot".  I just am unaware of any concrete, unbiased evidence.

You're never going to get proof for macroevolution.  Like all theories, evolution cannot be proven, only falsified.  As for evidence, I recommend Talk Origins or Infidels.org.  By nature, those two sites are not unbiased, but the good folks at either site will happily give you innumerable links, articles, and books to read on the subject.

Well, if it is the same process, then maybe I really don't need to do any more investigation.  I have listened to the "Green Peacers" bemoan the extinction of species, and at the same time evolutionists are applauding the process as natural selection.

Both, really.    It is natural selection (or, I suppose, unnatural selection if the extinction is caused by human interference), but it is also an extinction.  I personally value all life at some level, so it's impossible for me to say that an extinction event isn't sad, but it is also necessary for a healty biosphere.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Today at 07:48 PM Freedom777 said this in Post #5

Sorry Micro does not = Macro

The mechanisms for the two are exactly the same. If you think they are different, then I suggest you consult your local biology text book on the subject.

 

[Zadok001]

Oh, right. Micro vs. Macro. That's why I started that post. Slipped my mind.

Despite Freedom777's assertion, the mechanisms for micro and macro evolution are identical - Mutations occur, selection culls genetic material, and the best suited individuals survive.

There's simply a lot MORE of these events in macroevolution.

To get past the mental block Freedom777 wants to set up, think about it this way. The mechanisms are the same. That should be obvious - Macroevolution COULD occur if enough examples of microevolution occur. (And I mean a LOT.) Now, in order for it to be the case that microevolution occurs but not macro, there needs to be some mechanism in place to prevent micro changes from eventually piling up and becoming macro. (Note that it is VERY difficult to get a clear idea of what is meant by 'macro' from most creationists. Check out the threads on defining 'kinds.')

Now, there is no such mechanism known to science. It is possible that one exists, but what would it be?

Without a mechanism to prevent micro from becoming macro, it's very hard to rationalize how micro could occur, but not macro.

Note also that science doesn't distinguish between micro and macro. It's all just 'evolution' in the eye of modern biology. The terms micro and macro are inventions of creationist scientists.

 

[Arikay]

Why do that?

I mean, the biology text book is obviously written by a secrect organization of satanic atheist scientists who are bound on destroying the under pinnings of the good and just christians. I mean, Duh!.



P.S. Sorry Osthuvud for the Off topic comment in the thread.

Today at 04:58 PM Pete Harcoff said this in Post #8



The mechanisms for the two are exactly the same. If you think they are different, then I suggest you consult your local biology text book on the subject.

 

[Arikay]

A quick correction (as ive been corrected on it before too)

Micro and Macro evolution were terms created by scientists, however they are generally no longer used. As Zadok has mentioned, there is no barrier found between the two, as evidence was found for both, science now considers them both just Evolution.

However the terms are still used by creationists.

Another example of this is "Darwinism."
It was originally created by scientists but as more and more evidence and information became available, "darwinism" was dropped and just evolution was used.

Some creationists however, still use the term Darwinism to refere to evolutionists. Unfortunatly this ends up showing a lack of understand of the Evolution as its an outdated term.

Today at 05:03 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #9

Oh, right. Micro vs. Macro. That's why I started that post. Slipped my mind.

Despite Freedom777's assertion, the mechanisms for micro and macro evolution are identical - Mutations occur, selection culls genetic material, and the best suited individuals survive.

There's simply a lot MORE of these events in macroevolution.

To get past the mental block Freedom777 wants to set up, think about it this way. The mechanisms are the same. That should be obvious - Macroevolution COULD occur if enough examples of microevolution occur. (And I mean a LOT.) Now, in order for it to be the case that microevolution occurs but not macro, there needs to be some mechanism in place to prevent micro changes from eventually piling up and becoming macro. (Note that it is VERY difficult to get a clear idea of what is meant by 'macro' from most creationists. Check out the threads on defining 'kinds.')

Now, there is no such mechanism known to science. It is possible that one exists, but what would it be?

Without a mechanism to prevent micro from becoming macro, it's very hard to rationalize how micro could occur, but not macro.

Note also that science doesn't distinguish between micro and macro. It's all just 'evolution' in the eye of modern biology. The terms micro and macro are inventions of creationist scientists.

 

[Jeptha]

The terms macroevolution and microevolution were introduced in 1927 by a Russian entomologist named Iurii Filipchenko. Micro, means small--macro means large, and we are referring to the amount of change that a population undergoes.

Micro denotes a small change within a species such as a change in eye color. Macro denotes major change in a population that morphs them into a new species that can no longer interbreed with the old species.

Macro=Speciation.

These are not creationist terms, but terms of science still taught in universities today, although some evolutionists would just love to see them go away.

 

[Osthuvud]

Arikay said:

 

Thats actually why I chose Wiki. As they are just an online information source and generally wouldnt be considered biased.

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

Although I think green peace goes overboard sometimes, there is a difference between natural selection and human aided natural selection.

 

Natural selection on its own, will cause many species to become extinct, but there is a difference between extinction by natural selection and extinction because of deforestation, or by polution.

This I don't understand.  If a volcano belches out mega-tons of air pollution (which they all do) and kills some species, that's ok.  If a forest fire starts because of something an animal does that causes an extinction, that's ok.  But if air pollution caused by autos or power plants used to produce electricity, etc. causes this then its not ok.

Zadok said:

 

Natural selection is simply the tendancy for those organisms who are best adapted to their environment to reproduce more than their less-well adapted brethren. Hence, the better adapted organisms pass on their traits.

Not really.  Both traits exist at the beginning.  But since the less-well adapted organisms DON'T pass on their traits, those traits become extinct.  That isn't creating anything, it's extinction.  If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. it is probably a duck.

 

Natural selection is not the elimination of a characteristic - It can also be the introduction of a new one. (Such as brighter feathers on a bird whose mates are attracted to bright colors.) Certainly some characters get eliminated by natural selection (human tails, for example), but this is not the only way natural selection can work.

If something truly gets added, then this is significant.  If the postulate is that species are evolving to higher levels, then it seems logical that things must be added and not just eliminated.  Certainly if new species can evolve, then this is necessary.

 

You're never going to get proof for macroevolution. Like all theories, evolution cannot be proven, only falsified.

KUDOS ZADOK!  I realize this, but holders of this theory have a tendency to act like it is fact, and then belittle anyone who doesn't buy in.  You too are changing my opinion of this board.

 

Without a mechanism to prevent micro from becoming macro, it's very hard to rationalize how micro could occur, but not macro.

Note also that science doesn't distinguish between micro and macro. It's all just 'evolution' in the eye of modern biology. The terms micro and macro are inventions of creationist scientists.

Selection can take place, and the species will be the same.  Mutations can take place to result in a two-headed fly, or six-winged.  But the little bugger is still a fly.  That is why us narrow-minded, fundamentalist, Bible toting _______________s (fill in the blank) have a tendency to use the macro term.  Sorry.

I respect your opinion and your right to it.  Both sides require faith, so the question of faith should be left out. 

Thanks to all of you for your comments.  They obviously are genuine.

 

[SplitRock]

Today at 09:13 PM Osthuvud said this in Post #13

Not really.  Both traits exist at the beginning.  But since the less-well adapted organisms DON'T pass on their traits, those traits become extinct.  That isn't creating anything, it's extinction.  If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. it is probably a duck. 

Selection can take place, and the species will be the same.  Mutations can take place to result in a two-headed fly, or six-winged.  But the little bugger is still a fly.  That is why us narrow-minded, fundamentalist, Bible toting _______________s (fill in the blank) have a tendency to use the macro term.  Sorry.

I respect your opinion and your right to it.  Both sides require faith, so the question of faith should be left out. 

I am not quite sure what you mean by "both traits exist at the beginning".  As I brought up previously on this forum, mutation and evolution explains where all the traits come from and how new traits can appear and increase in a population.  Creationists seem to have trouble explaining where all these traits we see in populations comes from, at least utilizing a YEC model. 

While it is true that a duck is a duck, one has to realize that in a given population, what a "duck" is constantly changes.  With a significant selective pressure (natural selection) over time the population of ducks can change to the point where you would no longer call them "ducks" anymore.  By the way, one of the major differences between arachnids and insects is the number of legs they have.  They are very similar in most (though not all) other respects. 

 

[Cantuar]

I am familiar with natural selection. This is the elimination of a gene characteristic; sort of like extinction.

I know generally what the definition of mutation is, but what affect does it have on the genetics?

I have never heard of genetic drift before.

Any help here?

Here's some information about genetic drift. It also mentions some of the other forms of evolution apart from natural selection.

There's also a page aobut it at TalkOrigins, as long a you;re checking that site anyway:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genetic-drift.html

 

[Arikay]

This I don't understand.  If a volcano belches out mega-tons of air pollution (which they all do) and kills some species, that's ok.  If a forest fire starts because of something an animal does that causes an extinction, that's ok.  But if air pollution caused by autos or power plants used to produce electricity, etc. causes this then its not ok.

The difference though is that we as people have an ability to control the damage that we do to the environment. We also do the damage at a much quicker rate and constant rate than many natural sources. But as I mentioned, we have a choice as to wether we let our polution destroy us and the animals around us. The Volcano or naturally started forest fire, doesnt.

If something truly gets added, then this is significant.  If the postulate is that species are evolving to higher levels, then it seems logical that things must be added and not just eliminated.  Certainly if new species can evolve, then this is necessary.

Yep, its generally a creationist argument that evolution cant add information. It does. Exactly how it does, is a good question for those scientist people here. I understand it but I cant remember all the right words to explain it right.

Along the same lines, If "kinds" have stayed the same, I suggest taking a look at this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/41844.html

I made a hypothesis about what would happend based on the YEC creationist theory of "kinds" being taken on the ark and what would happen if kinds can not evolve into other kinds.

Today at 07:13 PM Osthuvud said this in Post #13

Arikay said:

 

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

 

This I don't understand.  If a volcano belches out mega-tons of air pollution (which they all do) and kills some species, that's ok.  If a forest fire starts because of something an animal does that causes an extinction, that's ok.  But if air pollution caused by autos or power plants used to produce electricity, etc. causes this then its not ok.

Zadok said:

 

Not really.  Both traits exist at the beginning.  But since the less-well adapted organisms DON'T pass on their traits, those traits become extinct.  That isn't creating anything, it's extinction.  If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. it is probably a duck.

 

If something truly gets added, then this is significant.  If the postulate is that species are evolving to higher levels, then it seems logical that things must be added and not just eliminated.  Certainly if new species can evolve, then this is necessary.

 

KUDOS ZADOK!  I realize this, but holders of this theory have a tendency to act like it is fact, and then belittle anyone who doesn't buy in.  You too are changing my opinion of this board.

 



Selection can take place, and the species will be the same.  Mutations can take place to result in a two-headed fly, or six-winged.  But the little bugger is still a fly.  That is why us narrow-minded, fundamentalist, Bible toting _______________s (fill in the blank) have a tendency to use the macro term.  Sorry.

I respect your opinion and your right to it.  Both sides require faith, so the question of faith should be left out. 

Thanks to all of you for your comments.  They obviously are genuine.

 

[wblastyn]

Macro evolution is just micro evolution but on a much larger scale (duh), if you give an organism millions of years (or possibly less) to adapt it will change so much that it will no longer be able to mate with it's ancestor to produce fertile offspring, which is when it's declared a new species. At least that's how I understand it, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Jeptha]

"Macro evolution is just micro evolution but on a much larger scale"

JEP: that's not quite true, wblastyn. In macro we have to see a complete change in species in the population or it is not macro by definition.

 

[Jeptha]

Whoops wblastyn....I just re-read your post and you say exactly that! I'm so sorry......It's late here in Missouri and I'm going to bed before I reveal to anymore people how blatantly stupid I am. Peace!