Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

[ms2884]

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?

 

[dewaddict84]

Any questions?

Do you think you'll actually change the mind of anyone here? I understand your argument already, and the people that would try to refute your argument won't listen to reason.

 

[ms2884]

Nope, not for one second. Just curious what kind of mental gymnastics can be put on display.

 

[Washington]

Nope, not for one second. Just curious what kind of mental gymnastics can be put on display.

Same as you've doubtlessly seen elsewhere. Creationists are the same wherever you go.

 

[AdamTheAtheist]

With the blatant over-saturation of disinformation and lack of proper education in this country I'm actually pretty glad that we only have as few Ray Comfort's ect that we do. They say you can't reason someone out of a situation they didn't reason themselves into. While this is probably true in most cases we can all seek to first educate ourselves and then cast out the seeds of knowledge to the world at large in hopes that it might take up roots in others.

This all said, no matter what "intermediate and transitional species" we find it will not ever be enough. Because creationists use their own language made up of borrowed and then miss use scientific terminology. Because after all evolution is just a "theory" right?

 

[Naraoia]

Hello!

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.

On the level of the technical definitions (i.e. microevolution = within species, macroevolution = speciation and above), that may be true. In the sense the words are used by creationists (and, to be fair, sometimes by scientists), I wouldn't be so sure. Is one big change just the sum of many small changes, or are (some) big changes qualitatively or quantitatively different? I don't think that question is truly settled.

(FWIW, I'm beginning to side with those who use the terms in the small change/big change sense. Speciation is a good word for what happens when micro becomes macro (in the "official" sense), and it's usually micro on both sides of speciation, so why not get rid of all the confusion and use macroevolution the way everyone except population geneticists already use it? OK, maybe not "everyone", but you know what I mean.)

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.

<pedant> Cameroon is a country.</pedant>

Nope, not for one second. Just curious what kind of mental gymnastics can be put on display.

Then maybe you are here for the wrong reason.

 

[Doveaman]

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?

Yes, a question followed by a statement:

Has Micro-evolution ever been observed to lead to Macro-evolution resulting in the development of new species? Has anyone ever seen this actually take place? or is this just an assumption based on the interpretations of dried up, old bones and the like?

I ask because it is said that:

What science produces is neither universally true nor real, but is created by the observer and is relative to his predispositions and equipment. As a result, it is not complete but selected, not objective but subjective, and not unique but partial.

This produces an observer-created reality, says physicist Roger Jones, in which &#8220;the observer and observed &#8230; cannot be broken down into independent components&#8221; because &#8220;the observer has an uncontrollable and non-removable effect on what is observed.&#8221;

The result, according to physicist Arthur March, is that &#8220;what is perceived is&#8230;.the effects brought to light by this procedure,&#8221; effects which &#8220;are created by this process.&#8221; This means that the scientist each time he observes creates something new, for, as physicist John Wheeler says, &#8220;this is a participatory universe.&#8221;

The scientific observation is therefore less a picture of reality than a sort of mirror in which the observer sees himself, which makes the physical world a product of human consciousness ...When we look at the universe &#8220;We are looking at ourselves,&#8221;...&#8220;we cannot eliminate ourselves from the picture&#8230;physics is the study of the structure of consciousness.&#8221;

Source

 

[AirPo]

Lets put this puppy to sleep once and for all...

Any questions?

You're new here, aren't you?

 

[cerad]

Lets put this puppy to sleep once and for all...

So are you seriously arguing in favor of euthanasia for baby doggies? For shame. Why waste a perfectly good source of barbecue protein?

 

[ms2884]

Speciation is a good word for what happens when micro becomes macro (in the "official" sense)

The problem with that is that science is not even close to agreeing on exactly what constitutes a 'species'. There have been numerous species concepts used over the years but due to the sheer variety of life on earth, there are always some exceptions to the rule. And in many cases (such as the Galapagos finches) we see new species being produced within the time scale of microevolution.

Has Micro-evolution ever been observed to lead to Macro-evolution resulting in the development of new species? Has anyone ever seen this actually take place? or is this just an assumption based on the interpretations of dried up, old bones and the like?

Well in regards to large (complex organisms), the answer is no. Such large changes (i.e. from a wolly crocodile-looking thing to modern whales) just take too much time than the thousands of years of recorded human history. It is a logical inference based on mountains of evidence accumulated over many, many years by countless individuals. If one is presented with a line of organisms spanning a time period which differ slightly from one generation to the next, so that the beginning and end product look vastly different, when viewed in the light of succession it makes sense. In regards to microorganisms, yes, macroevolution has been observed. While it can be hard or impossible to notice the difference between one single-celled organism and the next, the genetic changes which have been observed in microbes over generations in the lab are enormous and far more drastic (big picture) than some dinosaur growing feathers and learning how to fly.

What science produces is neither universally true nor real, but is created by the observer and is relative to his predispositions and equipment.

Care to apply that to gravity as well? Or how about to the atomic theory or heliocentrism? This goes back to the old creationist whining about how "Evolution is only a theory, not a fact". Science does NOT hold ANYTHING to be absolute truth. Even the most studied, tested, and universally-agreed upon theories (i.e. gravity) are still "only theories". You are using this quote to mangle the difference between observations and theories. Observations (or facts, data) are, by themselves, meaningless because as it mentioned they only support a particular point in a particular condition. A theory is composed of many lines of reasoning supprted by massive amounts of facts gathered over time.

 

[Naraoia]

So are you seriously arguing in favor of euthanasia for baby doggies? For shame. Why waste a perfectly good source of barbecue protein?

Euthanasia, then barbecue. You don't have to grill them alive

The problem with that is that science is not even close to agreeing on exactly what constitutes a 'species'. There have been numerous species concepts used over the years but due to the sheer variety of life on earth, there are always some exceptions to the rule. And in many cases (such as the Galapagos finches) we see new species being produced within the time scale of microevolution.

Well, the only species concept IMHO that refers to a more or less natural entity is the biological species, which is of course useless for dealing with asexual or extinct organisms. (Maaaaybe some of the ecological species definitions also make non-arbitrary sense, but I'm not well-versed on that side of biology )

When I think of speciation, I automatically think of organisms that fall under the biological species concept. I would define speciation as the evolution of reproductive isolation, so it's pretty meaningless for asexual thingies (and let's not get into gene-trading prokaryotes...). I have a feeling that that's a general thing among biologists who routinely use the word, but maybe I just haven't read enough. (Ridley's Evolution agrees, though.)

Incidentally, that species/speciation issue is yet another reason why the micro/macro terminology should be disentangled from species. Do asexual organisms not undergo macroevolution, or do we invent different definitions depending on the species concept applicable?

But I guess the main reason I don't like drawing a micro/macro divide at speciation is that lumping everything from speciation upwards under macroevolution kind of implies that the same rules apply at every scale from the formation of sister species to the origin of phyla, and if we've understood the small-scale processes, we've understood everything. That's about the last thing I want to assume about evolution.

While it can be hard or impossible to notice the difference between one single-celled organism and the next, the genetic changes which have been observed in microbes over generations in the lab are enormous and far more drastic (big picture) than some dinosaur growing feathers and learning how to fly.

I'd love to see the metric you use to compare the two.

(I'm honestly not having a go at you. I just tend to think too much :o FWIW, I argue with myself in the same way)

 

[ms2884]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head with speciation. One of my biggest grips is when creationists say "Well, microevolution happened but macroevolution is impossible because that would require the addition of genetic information, blah, blah, blah". That entire line of reasoning shows complete ignorance of the difference between micro/macroevolution and genetics in general.

As far as comparing microbes to other instances of evolution, my field of interest lies more in the complex organisms so I'm afraid I can't fill you in on the nitty-gritty (The phrase, by the way, was a paraphrase of my old microbiology teacher). You can take your pick of developed resistance for various micro nasties to new drugs. Such changes in the function of the organism require such an enormous re-tooling of the cell's genetic structure and function, it makes other larger and more visible changes (i.e. developing feathers, skeletal changes, etc) look small when taken in proportion. The main problem here is that since microorganisms are so tiny, it is hard to observe them. But take your average single-cell organism and blow it up to the size of a house cat. If it still reproduces at the same rate and still undergoes the same amount of changes as it did when microscopic than one would have a perfect case of macroevolution in the flesh.

 

[Doveaman]

Well in regards to large (complex organisms), the answer is no. Such large changes (i.e. from a wolly crocodile-looking thing to modern whales) just take too much time than the thousands of years of recorded human history.

You've never seen it but you conclude it takes to much time. Is this faith in the unseen god of evolution?

It is a logical inference based on mountains of evidence accumulated over many, many years by countless individuals. If one is presented with a line of organisms spanning a time period which differ slightly from one generation to the next, so that the beginning and end product look vastly different, when viewed in the light of succession it makes sense.

One man's sense is another man's nonsense. Especially when you are speculating about old bones.

In regards to microorganisms, yes, macroevolution has been observed.
While it can be hard or impossible to notice the difference between one single-celled organism and the next, the genetic changes which have been observed in microbes over generations in the lab are enormous

Please spare me the nonsense. What do you mean "enormous", did the single-celled organism grow wings and flew away? Am I to expect they will someday grow wings and fly away?

and far more drastic (big picture) than some dinosaur growing feathers and learning how to fly.

Like I said, one man's sense is another man's nonsense. Give me an update when your single-celled organisms grow wings and fly. Perhaps then macroevolution will make sense to me. In the mean time macroevolution is NONSENSE.

 

[biggles53]

You've never seen it but you conclude it takes to much time. Is this faith in the unseen god of evolution?
One man's sense is another man's nonsense. Especially when you are speculating about old bones.
Please spare me the nonsense. What do you mean "enormous", did the single-celled organism grow wings and flew away? Am I to expect they will someday grow wings and fly away?
Like I said, one man's sense is another man's nonsense. Give me an update when your single-celled organisms grow wings and fly. Perhaps then macroevolution will make sense to me. In the mean time macroevolution is NONSENSE.

What's with all this "If you didn't SEE it, how do you know it happened" crap..??

There are many things we don't have eye-witness accounts for (one of the most UNreliable forms of evidence, by the way), but still accept. When you wake up to find the gound wet outside, do you refuse to believe it has rained overnight, if you weren't up to see it....!??

 

[Naraoia]

As far as comparing microbes to other instances of evolution, my field of interest lies more in the complex organisms so I'm afraid I can't fill you in on the nitty-gritty (The phrase, by the way, was a paraphrase of my old microbiology teacher). You can take your pick of developed resistance for various micro nasties to new drugs. Such changes in the function of the organism require such an enormous re-tooling of the cell's genetic structure and function, it makes other larger and more visible changes (i.e. developing feathers, skeletal changes, etc) look small when taken in proportion.

But that's exactly my point. Do they? What proportion of a bacterium's genome is actually involved in resistance? How complicated are the changes? Is it just tweaking a pathway here and there, or is does it involve entirely new pathways? How does our measure of "enormous re-tooling" scale with genomic and organismal complexity?

(Animals also routinely evolve resistance to pesticides. Is that also more "macro" than evolving feathers?)

Multicellular morphology adds a whole new level of complexity to an organism. If morphology and physiology indeed evolve by different mechanisms, then it's really apples an oranges.

As for feathers, modern feathers are pretty complex structures that are quite different from any other form of tetrapod integument. IIRC, feather placodes are also a novelty (could be wrong on that one, I have no idea where I put that feather/scale development paper...). So I'd say some serious re-tooling was involved in their evolution, but I'm still not sure how you can meaningfully compare that to what goes on in microbes.

The main problem here is that since microorganisms are so tiny, it is hard to observe them. But take your average single-cell organism and blow it up to the size of a house cat. If it still reproduces at the same rate and still undergoes the same amount of changes as it did when microscopic than one would have a perfect case of macroevolution in the flesh.

Well, if such an organism were possible in the first place...

(Then we might be in for some trouble )

 

[BananaSlug]

Yes, a question followed by a statement:

Has Micro-evolution ever been observed to lead to Macro-evolution resulting in the development of new species? Has anyone ever seen this actually take place? or is this just an assumption based on the interpretations of dried up, old bones and the like?

Before I answer this, what is your definition of "species"?

 

[Doveaman]

Before I answer this, what is your definition of "species"?

Not even scientists can agree on a definition of "species". Maybe my definition isn't correct, by my point is simply that pigs cannot grow wings and become birds under any condition.

 

[Doveaman]

What's with all this "If you didn't SEE it, how do you know it happened" crap..??

There are many things we don't have eye-witness accounts for (one of the most UNreliable forms of evidence, by the way), but still accept.

I may not have seen the burglar, but I know burglars exist.

When you wake up to find the gound wet outside, do you refuse to believe it has rained overnight, if you weren't up to see it....!??

I may not have seen the rain, but I know rain exists.

I have not seen macro-evolution, nor do I know macro-evolution exists. If you know it exists then show me, I don't need another faith based religion.

 

[shinbits]

I may not have seen the burglar, but I know burglars exist.
I may not have seen the rain, but I know rain exists.

I have not seen macro-evolution, nor do I know macro-evolution exists. If you know it exists then show me, I don't need another faith based religion.

what would make you believe in macro-evolution?

 

[Doveaman]

what would make you believe in macro-evolution?

A flying pig, or something like it.