Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

Fossil snake with legs

Doveaman said:

Okay, I’ll keep it simple:

I will believe in macro-evolution if I see a lizard become a snake.

Since macro-evolution has never been observed or experienced, then it is nothing more than speculation about the unknown.

Click to expand...

Lizards only became snakes once (phylogenetic systematics 101 ), but there are lizards at all stages of limblessness living today. I'm not aware of selection experiments trying to replicate the evolution of snake-like morphology, but I suspect limb loss would actually be pretty easy to evolve. Some other things such as the extremely kinetic skulls might be tougher. Actually, that would be a cool long-term experiment to do. Take a bunch of lizards and selectively breed them (or heck, expose them to an environment where smaller limbs are an advantage – tunnels?) for a few dozen generations, and see what you get. A pity I'm committed to worm genetics for a while

Except that we have seen growth and erosion of land mass. So we can make inferences based on what is already known. Macro-evolution is not inferred based on any pass or present observation or experience of macro-evolution, it is just an assumption about the unknown.

Click to expand...

Oh really? By what definition of macroevolution? We have observed speciation, and we have observed some pretty major changes (basic multicellularity, for one). We have observed the kind of variation that is good raw material for macroevolution in nature.

Some examples of the last include wild flowers thriving with a homeotic mutation, varying wrist and ankle structure in a natural population of newts, what have you. A good post on developmental variation that contains the newt example and some more interesting stuff by the infamous PZ Myers is here.

We have never seen or experienced macro-evolution, therefore we can only speculate about what we do not know. Which is what you are doing.
If we walked into a room and saw two people dead from gun-shot wounds, and one of the victims held a gun in his hand from which the bullets were fired, we may infer “murder-suicide”, but the fact is that the crime could have been orchestrated and committed by an ‘intelligent designer’ who we are not aware of.

Click to expand...

And Russell's Teapot could be orbiting the Sun as I type.

In other words, there is more than one explanation for what is observed in that room. “Murder-suicide” isn’t necessarily the correct explanation, unless you can prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. Macro-Evolution has not been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. We have never ever seen or experienced macro-evolution at anytime anywhere, and that alone presents reasonable doubt, and that is why I consider my doubt reasonable.

Click to expand...

In other words, in your hypothetical scenario with the two dead people and the gun, there could be no evidence that would convince you that murder-suicide probably is the correct explanation. Is that correct?

If your best counter to the abundant indirect evidence (nested hierarchies, transitional fossils etc.) for macroevolution is "oh, but God could have done it", then maybe it's time to rethink your stance.

Also, you consider your doubt reasonable because it's reasonable? Wow, that's some argument there.

I’m sure if the kind of treatment those poor fruit flies were subjected to was scaled up to the human level and applied to you, you would probable mutate into a six legged man, and some silly evolutionist would come along and consider you to be the missing link between humans and spiders.

Click to expand...

Mutating into a six-legged man ain't that easy. At least I don't know that it happens very often with real humans.

By the way, HE personally wouldn't mutate into a six-legged anything. His gametes may, and then his children would look a bit funny. Or his somatic cells may, and then he might get cancer. </pedantic biologist raging against Marvel genetics>

Your sickly fruit flies don’t help your “natural selection” argument, and many scientists don't buy into your fruit flies experiments.

Click to expand...

What scientists, and what fruit fly experiments? A huge amount of research in all areas of biology is being done on fruit flies

Your fruit flies are still fruit flies, they did not become flying pigs or anything else.

Click to expand...

At what point would you consider a fruit fly to become "something else"?

Really, it's so easy for you. Whatever evidence anyone lists, you can easily pick something that hasn't been replicated in the lab because of time scale or other constraints (or lack of interest, heh). You always have this "hasn't been observed" fall-back, which is, frankly, just rubbish. (BTW, you don't experience electricity. You only experience the effects of electricity. Or have you seen any electrons zooming about in wires lately?)

Doveaman said:

The problem with your so called evidence is that evidence relies on fallible human interpretations.

Click to expand...

Because the Holy Scriptures aren't interpreted by fallible humans.

This explains why the guilty persons who committed the crimes are often set free, while the innocent persons are sent to the gallows. The tons of evidence that existed did nothing to illuminate the ignorance of the court. In fact, the evidence seems to have contributed to the court's ignorance resulting in innocent people being hanged.

Click to expand...

Do you have any reliable statistics on how "often" that happens?

For_Crying_Out_Loud said:

I believe in creation - how it happened doesn't bother me in the least.

Others believe in evolution - but it had to happen on its' own. Why? That's the question that gets me

Click to expand...

I suspect that people who are convinced evolution HAD to happen on its own are a minority. I don't think it HAD to happen on its own - I just don't see any reason to assume it didn't, just as I don't see any reason to believe that Tlaloc sends rain.

ms2884 said:

Lets put this puppy to sleep once and for all... Microevolution is small scale changes in a population. Macroevolution is multiple instances of microevolution back-to-back. There is ASOLUTELY NO difference genetically between the two. The ONLY difference is the time period over which said changes take place. No scientist has EVER said a dinosaur laid an egg which hatched into a bird so Kirk Cameroon can put away his crocoduck poster. He looks like an idiot, already.

Of all the idiotic creationist pseudo-logic arguments this is one of the most annoying because it is so far from what science actually teaches and thus easily refuted. Any questions?

Click to expand...

For_Crying_Out_Loud said:

Who here saw the evolution that it can be proven?
Or who here saw the creation, that it cannot be denied?
Both sides are arguing to be heard without enough sense to listen to one another.
I believe in creation - how it happened doesn't bother me in the least.
Others believe in evolution - but it had to happen on its' own. Why? That's the question that gets me

Click to expand...

It may bother others tho

...

Thread necro? Again? Seriously, where do you guys dig up these corpses?

Pwnzerfaust said:

Thread necro? Again? Seriously, where do you guys dig up these corpses?

Click to expand...

All open threads on CF are game for necromancy.
The reason I bumped it was, is because it was brought up on another thread, and since there are a lot more new members that have joined since this thread started, perhaps those might be interested in this topic.
Any other complaints?

Originally Posted by RaiseTheDead

Sure, but finches are still finches, and bacterium are still bacterium. (Thus the coining of the term macro vs micro)

Click to expand...

Darwin bred pigeons for years. There came about all sorts of amazing different pigeons. Some with large wings, some with small wings, some with large beaks, some with small beaks, some with spots, some with odd coloring and some with flowery tails. However with all the kinds of pigeons he was able to breed, he never got anything more than a pigeon. Variations within kinds like many different species of dogs doesn't prove that time and "natural selection" can cause a dog to eventually develop into something other than a dog.

Please provide the evidence to show that one kind of living organism ever eventually changed into another kind of living organism. if no such evidence exists we must conclude that each family of organism has never been anything else other than that family of organism.

Voluntary Joe said:

Darwin bred pigeons for years. There came about all sorts of amazing different pigeons. Some with large wings, some with small wings, some with large beaks, some with small beaks, some with spots, some with odd coloring and some with flowery tails. However with all the kinds of pigeons he was able to breed, he never got anything more than a pigeon.

Click to expand...

Humans and Rhesus monkeys are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. From the evolution of that common ancestor forward all of those species were primates. Evolution never produced anything more than a primate.

Humans and bears are mammals. Our common ancestor was a mammal. From the evolution of that common ancestor forward all of those species were mammals. Evolution never produced anything more than a mammal.

Humans and fish are vertebrates. Our common ancestor was a vertebrate. From the evolution of that common ancestor forward all of those species were vertebrates. Evolution never produced anything more than a vertebrate.

Variations within kinds like many different species of dogs doesn't prove that time and "natural selection" can cause a dog to eventually develop into something other than a dog.

Click to expand...

Time and natural selection would not produce something other than a dog from a dog, as shown above. You are what your ancestors were, plus modifications. I find it strange that people would point to descent with modification as a refutation of evolution when that is exactly what evolution produces.

Please provide the evidence to show that one kind of living organism ever eventually changed into another kind of living organism.

Click to expand...

We shouldn't see species evolving out of their ancestry if evolution is true. Don't you find it strange that you require the falsification of evolution before you will accept it?

I find your flow rather good. If what you say is true you go from the broad term vertebrate to the narrow term human. How can a single broad classification called vertebrate develop different kinds of organism using other completely different kind of organisms?

If apes, bears and fish are all vertebrates how do you get each individual kind? If they all have a common ancestor then that common ancestor should exist rather than the individual kinds. That common ancestor was once an individual kind and since you already accepted that each individual kind never changes into anything more than that individual kind we can conclude that the common ancestor would never change or breed into anything more than that common ancestor. This removes the possibility for the development into other kinds.

If it is the case that the common ancestor would never change into anything more than the common ancestor why do we have many kinds rather than just the common ancestor?

Voluntary Joe said:

How can a single broad classification called vertebrate develop different kinds of organism using other completely different kind of organisms?

Click to expand...

They don't. They are still vertebrates. They never stop being vertebrates.

If apes, bears and fish are all vertebrates how do you get each individual kind?

Click to expand...

If they are all vertebrates then they are the same kind, the vertebrate kind.

That common ancestor was once an individual kind and since you already accepted that each individual kind never changes into anything more than that individual kind we can conclude that the common ancestor would never change or breed into anything more than that common ancestor. This removes the possibility for the development into other kinds.

Click to expand...

We don't need evolution to produce new kinds in order to produce the biodiversity we see today. Ultimately, all life is the same kind. All life shares characteristics that puts them in the same kind. Since the first life evolution has only produce variations of that first kind.

If it is the case that the common ancestor would never change into anything more than the common ancestor why do we have many kinds rather than just the common ancestor?

Click to expand...

No. We would have one kind with many variations, and we do.

Ah, well I think that's where Creationists and Evolutionists disagree on a fundamental level. I regard the classification of organism to be legitimate. There are different classifications because the kinds are too different to be called the same. Whether that be the same species, genus or family etc.

Creationists see the variations as individual and unique kinds rather than variations of a single celled organism. Going back farther than just vertebrates you need to go back to an all encompassing original common ancestor, which of course would be a single cell.

Unless and until I see some empirical evidence that the common ancestor developed into the various variations that we see today I don't have enough faith to believe that it is possible for the common ancestor to develop into the many variations we see today.

If you have that evidence I would genuinely love to see it. I love science and truth and the very last thing I want is to be in error.

Voluntary Joe said:

Ah, well I think that's where Creationists and Evolutionists disagree on a fundamental level. I regard the classification of organism to be legitimate. There are different classifications because the kinds are too different to be called the same. Whether that be the same species, genus or family etc.

Click to expand...

Do you think that humans and trout are classified differently? They aren't. They are both part of the phylum Chordata.

Chordata

They are in the same classification. I could go on and on with different species. In each case, they can be found in the same classification. So if you agree with the classification of organisms why do you insist that they are not in the same group when they most obviously are?

Creationists see the variations as individual and unique kinds rather than variations of a single celled organism. Going back farther than just vertebrates you need to go back to an all encompassing original common ancestor, which of course would be a single cell.

Click to expand...

Evolutionists can DEMONSTRATE that we are variations of single celled organisms. It is in our DNA. We share genetic and metabolic systems that group us with single celled organisms.

Unless and until I see some empirical evidence that the common ancestor developed into the various variations that we see today I don't have enough faith to believe that it is possible for the common ancestor to develop into the many variations we see today.

Click to expand...

So says the person who believes that a supernatural deity magically poofed them into being. How much faith does that require? Have we ever observed a deity poofing a species into being? We have seen evolution producing new species, but never a deity.

If you have that evidence I would genuinely love to see it.

Click to expand...

This is a good start:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

I personally like this particular section:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 4

The data demonstrates that the expected nested hierarchy is observed in redundant genes, an observation that can only be explained by evolution and common ancestry. It can be shown that human genes work just fine in yeast, so why do those genes have different DNA sequences? Even more, why do the differences match the expected evolutionary distance between the species? How does this make sense in a creationist paradigm?

I love science and truth and the very last thing I want is to be in error.

Click to expand...

So what shared genetic markers would you expect to see if humans shared a common ancestor with other apes?

Thank you very much, this very good, im about to go to lunch so ill read the article later. My last question and i wont be able to see ur response till later so im sorry if i dont respond but when have we ever seen a new species come into existence naturally? Thanks this has been fun, u certainly have done a better job explaining and defending evolution than anyone iv ever talked to.

Voluntary Joe said:

Darwin bred pigeons for years.

Click to expand...

That is interesting. So Darwin knew that nothing ever changes into something different. You start with a pigeon and you end up with a pigeon. What you start with is what you end up with.

Jamin4422 said:

That is interesting. So Darwin knew that nothing ever changes into something different. You start with a pigeon and you end up with a pigeon. What you start with is what you end up with.

Click to expand...

Actually, Darwin found that you end up with a modified version of the pigeon that you started with. Hence his description of evolution as "descent with modification".

Voluntary Joe said:

Thank you very much, this very good, im about to go to lunch so ill read the article later. My last question and i wont be able to see ur response till later so im sorry if i dont respond but when have we ever seen a new species come into existence naturally? Thanks this has been fun, u certainly have done a better job explaining and defending evolution than anyone iv ever talked to.

Click to expand...

I would suggest this list as a starting point:

Observed Instances of Speciation

There are also ring species which is speciation in progress. One example is this species of salamander.

What is important in understanding speciation is how evolutionary mechanisms produce separate species. Languages make for a good analogy. Certain languages will share a common root language. As two populations moved away from one another the languages changed in each area. More importantly, there were DIFFERENT changes in each population. Each generation is able to talk to the next generation within each population, but there are small "micro" changes over time. Later, when these two populations met up again, they were no longer able to understand one another because the languages had diverged from one another due to the accumulation of different changes in each population.

Speciation is the same. When two populations are separated from one another (in the case of the salamander, they were separated by the Sierra Nevada Mountains) they will accumulate DIFFERENT mutations. This causes the populations to diverge from one another. So it really is the case where speciation, or macroevolution, is the accumulation of different microevolutionary changes in each population. Macroevolution is microevolution+separate populations.

Thank you for providing recourses. It certainly shows some very interesting things.

I would merely point out that genetic similarities doesn't prove common ancestry. The only thing genetic similarities proves is that specific characteristics are preferable if not necessary for certain functions. Just because we share an attribute with a fish doesn't mean we have a common ancestor. Similarities in the genetic code point only to the fact that life as we know it contains certain similarities based on what is needed by the organisms to sustain their life in the circumstances on this planet.

One other question is why have we not found more variations whether in nature or in the fossil record which show in-between development stages? If all life developed from common ancestors why are some variations not more closely identical to the common ancestor? Also what are the common ancestors, do we have them in nature or in the fossil record?

Voluntary Joe said:

I would merely point out that genetic similarities doesn't prove common ancestry.

Click to expand...

Quite right. It is the PATTERN of similarity that points to common ancestry and evolution.

"As seen from the phylogeny in Figure 1, the predicted pattern of organisms at any given point in time can be described as "groups within groups", otherwise known as a nested hierarchy. The only known processes that specifically generate unique, nested, hierarchical patterns are branching evolutionary processes."
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

I would strongly recommend reading more of that section to better understand why a nested hierarchy is evidence of common ancestry and evolutionary mechanisms. It is the most fundamental aspect of evolution as it relates to what we expect to see in the genetic and fossil evidence.

The only thing genetic similarities proves is that specific characteristics are preferable if not necessary for certain functions.

Click to expand...

That doesn't jibe at all. This doesn't explain why birds have feathers, a single middle ear bone, and regurgitate food for their young while bats have fur, three middle ear bones, and lactate. Why is it that a bat has all of these mammalian features but none of the avian derived characteristics? Why is it that these strange suite of characteristics stubbornly stick together no matter the niche, function, or environment?

It also does not explain the sequence variation for functionally redundant proteins. This goes back to the homologous proteins found in yeast and humans. We can replace cytochrome c in yeast with the human version and the yeast kick along without even noticing anything has change. The yeast and human version of the gene differ by 40% where DNA sequence is concerned. FORTY PERCENT!! Why would you change a sequence by 40% when the same sequence would work just fine? Even more, why would you change these DNA sequences to reflect an evolutionary history THAT NEVER HAPPENED? There is no functional reason for yeast and humans to have a cytochrome C gene that differs by 40% while chimps and humans only differ by 1%. It makes zero sense, unless evolution is true.

Just because we share an attribute with a fish doesn't mean we have a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

If we share a common ancestor, you would expect to find shared characteristics, would you not? The reason that dogs share characteristics is because they share a common ancestor, is it not? We observe the common ancestry produces separate lineages with shared characteristics. We have never observed a supernatural deity creating species with shared characteristics. Which do you think science should go with? The observed, natural mechanism that is consistent with the evidence or a supernatural mechanism that no one has observed and fails to explain the evidence?

One other question is why have we not found more variations whether in nature or in the fossil record which show in-between development stages?

Click to expand...

Because we have searched such a tiny portion of the fossil record. New transitional fossils are found on almost a monthly basis now.

If all life developed from common ancestors why are some variations not more closely identical to the common ancestor?

Click to expand...

Because selection has favored change in those lineages instead of the original adaptations.

Also what are the common ancestors, do we have them in nature or in the fossil record?

Click to expand...

The common ancestors are the ancestral populations that two species have in common. This is evidenced in DNA, the same type of evidence that is used to determine paternity or DNA matches at crime scenes. Species share common genetic markers that can only be explained by common ancestry.

As to the fossil record, fossils don't have DNA (at least the ones older than 50,000 years or so). There is no way of absolutely determining if a fossil is an ancestor or distant cousin to other fossil species or to living species. What we can do is determine if the mixture of characteristics is consistent or inconsistent with the predictions made by the theory of evolution. This goes back to the section on nested hierarchies that I posted above.

Voluntary Joe said:

Thank you for providing recourses. It certainly shows some very interesting things.

I would merely point out that genetic similarities doesn't prove common ancestry. The only thing genetic similarities proves is that specific characteristics are preferable if not necessary for certain functions. Just because we share an attribute with a fish doesn't mean we have a common ancestor. Similarities in the genetic code point only to the fact that life as we know it contains certain similarities based on what is needed by the organisms to sustain their life in the circumstances on this planet.

Click to expand...

No, the differences are mainly in non-coding or variable regions of coding DNA. They are not necessary. In fact, you can take a human gene and put it into a mouse and it will work. If genetic similarities work for determining common ancestry in humans, then they should work just as well across species. If not, please explain why.

Voluntary Joe said:

One other question is why have we not found more variations whether in nature or in the fossil record which show in-between development stages? If all life developed from common ancestors why are some variations not more closely identical to the common ancestor? Also what are the common ancestors, do we have them in nature or in the fossil record?

Click to expand...

We don't find all stages today because of extinctions. In fact, it is estimated that 99% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. That leaves a lot of holes in what we see today, which is why the classification system we have puts birds in a separate class from reptiles. There seemed to be a large difference between them. Now we know that dinosaurs had feathers of we have multiple fossils of Archaeopteryx. We also have at least 14 named Genera of "fishapods" like Tiktaalik, Devonian Times - Front Page and a very rich record of mammal-like reptiles from the fossil record as well. The closest to mammals being the Cynodonts. http://palaeos.com/vertebrates/cynodontia/index.html

Loudmouth said:

Actually, Darwin found that you end up with a modified version of the pigeon that you started with. Hence his description of evolution as "descent with modification".

Click to expand...

I do not know that you end up with anything. The variation was there from the beginning. That is the way God created pigeons, with lots of variation. So they can adjust and adapt to changing conditions in their biodiverse ecology.