Macroevolution

[AV1611VET]

African wild dogs are placed in a different genus (Lycaon). What I'm saying is that you could expand genus Canis to also include adjacent branches on the tree: African dogs, or African dogs and jackals, or all of those and maned wolves and South American foxes, etc. - and the only argument one could raise against that would be "but they are too different". There is no objective definition for a genus.

Interesting.

Is "genus" an umbrella term, then?

Have animals ever been reclassified from one genus to another?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you honestly thinking that intergenus movement is going to be oberservable on a 200 year old time scale?

Didn't Wikipedia say it's been observed many times in a laboratory?

 

[AV1611VET]

We don't use the term. Ever.

Seriously, when was the last time you used "macro evolution" in a professional setting.

First you said 'ever,' now you say 'in a professional setting.'

Narrowing the field now, are we?

 

[Eldalar]

To be more exact the words macro and micro-evolution are in use by some scientists, but they are not really scientific words. It is like saying a bit of water and much water, much is more then a bit, but it neither defines how much "a bit" nor how much "much" is or where the border is. Macro is more then micro, but the only definition I could find was "Macro-evolution is the result of several Micro-evolution".
Just like much or a bit, it can be used by scientists but in the end they have to either give a definition in their text or they have to give more exact numbers in it.

And as far as I can tell the term is hardly used anymore because creationists have heard of it and are now using it to claim that there are 2 different versions of evolution, that they can separately agree/disagree with, without defining where the border between the two is or showing what is keeping them from crossing that border.
The closest I have ever come to hear an explanation was that there wasn't enough time for bigger evolutionary steps from YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be more exact the words macro and micro-evolution are in use by some scientists, but they are not really scientific words. It is like saying a bit of water and much water, much is more then a bit, but it neither defines how much "a bit" nor how much "much" is or where the border is.

So if a species, say bacteria, evolves and evolves and evolves and evolves over 60 million years, that's macroevolution?

If ... Homo sapiens are still ... Homo sapiens after another 2 billion years, have we 'macroevolved'?

 

[driewerf]

Seriously, when was the last time you used "macro evolution" in a professional setting.

Then again, you are still an apprentice. Haven't you made it to journeyman status yet?

Ernst Mayr uses it in his book "What Evolution is". But then I must admit it is a popular science book.

What evolution is - Ernst Mayr - Google Boeken

 

[Elendur]

So if a species, say bacteria, evolves and evolves and evolves and evolves over 60 million years, that's macroevolution?

If ... Homo sapiens are still ... Homo sapiens after another 2 billion years, have we 'macroevolved'?

Wait, 'we'?

I thought we were Homo Sapiens Sapiens. But if you're Homo Sapiens, that means...

 

[AV1611VET]

Wait, 'we'?

I thought we were Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

So scientists have stuck another 'sapiens' on to the nomenclature of man, just so they can say we have joined the ranks of the macroevolved?

But if you're Homo Sapiens, that means...

Believe me -- I'm foremost here in denying that I'm a Homo sapiens.

 

[Elendur]

So scientists have stuck another 'sapiens' on to the nomenclature of man, just so they can say we have joined the ranks of the macroevolved?

Nope.
Do you know what sapiens means?

Believe me -- I'm foremost here in denying that I'm a Homo sapiens.

And that deserves a:
*Sigh*

By the way, post #13 is quite confusing (as I stated in #14), could you explain it further?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you know what sapiens means?

You're kinda new here, aren't you?

Is that what I'm doing?

Which word in this sentence is wrong?

• Who are the ones who label themselves "wise man" (and even "wise wise man")?

 

[Elendur]

You're kinda new here, aren't you?

Well duh! If you look at my registration date, or even my activity, it's easy to see.

Could you address the second part of that post equally eloquent?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You're kinda new here, aren't you?

It takes a while to realise that you equate wisdom with satan and stupidity with God and think that's a good thing.

 

[Naraoia]

Seriously, when was the last time you used "macro evolution" in a professional setting.

It's a pretty common term in palaeontology and evo-devo. Sorry I don't have bazillions of my own publications to pick from, but here's someone else's that I read recently:

The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts

Right in the title, used perfectly seriously, and in PNAS, not some obscure niche journal.

Another one from PNAS. Sorry, the word waits till the abstract to show up this time:

Graptoloid diversity and disparity became decoupled during the Ordovician mass extinction

This one, less palaeontological and more molecular, has "macroevolution" as a keyword:

RESURRECTING THE ROLE OF TRANSCRIPTION FACTOR CHANGE IN DEVELOPMENTAL EVOLUTION - Lynch - 2008 - Evolution - Wiley Online Library

And this, one of the studies the above review draws on, again has it in the title:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v415/n6874/full/nature716.html

I could go on. This is the type of stuff I read on a regular basis, and I can assure you, the m-word is alive and well.

Then again, you are still an apprentice. Haven't you made it to journeyman status yet?

If/when I get my PhD

Interesting.

Is "genus" an umbrella term, then?

Have animals ever been reclassified from one genus to another?

Yes, it happens all the time. For example, in the group of worms I work on, an entire genus (this one, if you care) was recently merged into another because someone examined their supposed differences and didn't think they could be used to separate the two. The famous dinosaur genus Iguanodon was recently blown apart into like a dozen genera.

First you said 'ever,' now you say 'in a professional setting.'

Narrowing the field now, are we?

Oh, look, AV is taking my side! Sweet

Wait, 'we'?

I thought we were Homo Sapiens Sapiens. But if you're Homo Sapiens, that means...

Every Homo sapiens sapiens is also a Homo sapiens

 

[Elendur]

Every Homo sapiens sapiens is also a Homo sapiens

Schhh I was trying to be sneaky

 

[KhaosTheory]

I advise creationists to learn a little more about taxonomy...

When I tell them that the classification system is somewhat arbitrary they throw up their hands and say "ah ha! You can't even make up your mind!"

...and of course they are completely missing the point.

A good working definition of species is any group of organisms that can succesfully reproduce. But this is a very loose definition.

For example: no one denies that lions and tigers are different and therefore should be classified as different species, right? But lions and tigers can still mate, albeit rarely, to make a "liger"! So are lions and tigers technically different species? Maybe they are both subspecies of the same species? It's all in how we decide to classify them.

Same thing with "genus". A dolphin and a killer whale are in different genus but they can still mate to produce a 'wolphin'. So maybe we should classify killer whales and dolphins in the same genus? Well, we don't because it's very very very rare that a 'wolphin' will be fertile.

It's all somewhat arbitrary based on what we observe about their mating habits and their apparent differences.

If evolution wasn't true, then can you explain why any trans-genus mating should be possible?

At some point, all creationists have to accept some level of common ancestry; it's just a matter of how far back are they willing to go before they hit the mysterious line between macro and micro evolution that they claim exists.

 

[Naraoia]

Same thing with "genus". A dolphin and a killer whale are in different genus but they can still mate to produce a 'wolphin'.

False killer whale, I think.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, look, AV is taking my side! Sweet

Every Homo sapiens sapiens is also a Homo sapiens

One more word from you, and I just might issue a Friend's Request!

 

[AV1611VET]

At some point, all creationists have to accept some level of common ancestry; it's just a matter of how far back are they willing to go before they hit the mysterious line between macro and micro evolution that they claim exists.

I'm not quite ready to jettison my believe that macroevolution can take a hike just yet; but if -- if -- I ever do, I'll never retcon it.

All I see is macroevolution in a controlled setting; and if a Genus is just an arbitrary term in the first place, then I would assume it is not worth my time even discussing it.

I still believe that God has set boundaries that evolution cannot cross; but if it is indeed being crossed in laboratories, then the time is ripe for the Antichrist.

 

[KhaosTheory]

I still believe that God has set boundaries that evolution cannot cross; but if it is indeed being crossed in laboratories, then the time is ripe for the Antichrist.

Where is the line? If the line is species then lions and tigers are crossing it. If the line is genus then dolphins and false killer whales are crossing it...

This isn't in the lab either. This is in nature. This isn't genetic manipulating... It's just good old fashioned God-given sexual reproduction!

If we start creating genetically engineered animals that are completely independent of evolution then I guess taxonomy will kind of go out the windows and, as you say, it's time for the antichrist.

But until then, we see animals crossing your "apocalyptic line" all the time naturally.

Do you think lions and tigers share a close common ancestor? If not, why are they so morphological and genetically similar that they can mate?

If you DO accept that they had a common ancestor, I will then ask you "did the common ancestor of lions and tigers have a common ancestor with other felines? Did those ancestors have common ancestors with other vertebrates? and so on and so on...

How far back are you willing to accept common ancestry?

 

[Jro]

This isn't in the lab either. This is in nature. This isn't genetic manipulating... It's just good old fashioned God-given sexual reproduction!

That's probably a product of evolution as well.