Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 76 of 908 (441676)
12-18-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by mobioevo
12-16-2007 11:39 PM


Re: What is it? Nothing.
Hi mobioevo--
There is a great big difference between statistical fluctuations of specific traits within the overall store inherited trait variations, and evolution itself. Darwinists insist that the one is the other, but that is just their ideologically inspired lie.
Evolution requires a change in the overall number of inherited trait variations, per se. That is, a real and actual increase or decrease in the total number of distinct traits accepted as describing and defining a particular taxon. Moreover, these traits must be organismic, not molecular, since molecular 'traits', [call them alleles, genes, or whatever], can be added or subtracted from a genome/genotype without affecting the taxon of the organisms specified.
Evolution, besides not being ordinary hereditary variation, is not a srraight forward continuum whereby novel, original, trivial and inconsequential morpological and behavioural changes cumulatively increase until, eventually, their sheer quantity make them big enough to matter. This is the standard darwinist stand on micro andmacro evolution--that they are simply a single continuum seen from opposite ends. Apparently different, but not really so. Don't you believe it.
Evolution is one kind of change. Evolution is directional, in that some changes are interconnected, so that 'what is' is to a large degree dependent upon 'what was', and 'what will be' is to a large degree dependent upon 'what is'. In some cases evolution is terminated by 'what is', where 'what is' is too complex and too vital to survival to change without mortal consequences which would lead to individual death and taxon extinction. This should be contrasted with change that is non-directional, being entirely discontinuous and entirely disconnected with any past or future changes. [Such as cutting the tails off of innocent little mice in a vicious and notorious neo-darwinian "experiment".]
Having discovered what kind of change makes for an evolutionary change where biology is concerned, let us note that additions to and subtractions from the total store of organismic traits that taxonomically define a certain group of organism, that is,evolutionary effects, can be either trivial and inconsequential in terms of vital functions, or they can be vital in terms of biosystem function. The former sort of evolutionary effect is 'microevolutionary', while the second is 'macroevolutionary'. Micro and macro evolutionary outcomes are clearly distinguishable on the basis of their vital, functional necessity to the organism. Most sexually identifying traits, for instance, are not necessary to to the life-sustaining functions of a taxon, but only to its identification in the eyes of its fellows. Thus, sexual selection is a matter of micro-evolution where such traits are entirely cosmetic.
See, "ring species" and "sexual dimorphism", etc.
Macroevolution is that which adds to or subtracts from, (or increases/decreases to an unprecedented degree), the productivity of a vital biosystem function by a change to the morphological and/or instinctive traits of a specified taxon.
The issue, then, is the question of whether or not macro evolution is simply micro evolution 'writ large', meaning that evolution is a matter of material 'extension' [size], rather than function [form, design]. Darwinists insist on the former, since for them biological change, evolution, is simply a matter of physical parts growing larger or smaller, randomly, [thanks to genetic mutations], so that the resulting organism is forced to accept these accidental morphological/behavioural changes and adapt their vital functions, (both internal and external behaviours), to suit these unasked for changes, or to perish at the point where they cannot.
Other evolutionary theorists see evolution in terms of optimal biosystem functioning; that is, with productivity, not random chance, as the deciding factor. In that POV, increase or decrease in physical size is not the be-all and end-all of evolution. Rather vital function- dependent shape/form/design is the determinant criterion discrinating micro-from macro evolution. IOW, in the darwinian materialist POV, function follows physical form, but in the autopoietic, systems design POV, form follows function.
Well, I could go on but this post is already too long, so I'll simply stop right here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by mobioevo, posted 12-16-2007 11:39 PM mobioevo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by mobioevo, posted 12-18-2007 5:38 PM Elmer has replied

  
mobioevo
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 34
From: Texas
Joined: 12-13-2007


Message 77 of 908 (441755)
12-18-2007 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by RAZD
12-17-2007 10:13 PM


Re: What is it?
What I am trying to say is that separating evolution into microevolution and macroevolution is not only unnecessary, but also that it is confusing to creationists and other people not trained in evolutionary studies because the terms use the same evolutionary forces. I know that the terms microevolution and macroevolution are throw around to try to help educate people, but that does more harm than good. It makes it seem like there are two evolutionary forces acting on the organisms at different levels. The only difference between the terms is the time scale, and when a new species arises it is because of evolution and some isolation effect.
quote:
Within a population of breeding organisms the dynamics within the population will be to breed and mix genetic\hereditary traits. In a steady-state ecology this will give selective advantage to the more average phenotypes within the population, the ones that "stayed" in the middle...
I don't know what you mean by average phenotypes, but I think you mean overdominance (heterozygous advantage/superiority). Under certain environmental conditions a heterozygote will have higher fitness than homozygotes and will cause balancing selection. But to assume the entire genome has overdominance within this environment is too much of a simplification. Each allele (assuming alleles have no affect on each other) and will have an independent reaction to the environment. Other ways alleles react within an environment is dominance, complete dominance, incomplete dominance, and underdominance.
quote:
...we have a sudden change from a single population with a common purpose, to two very similar but slightly different populations in competition for food, habitat, protection from predators, etc.
Be careful in your language. I have never met a population or species with a common purpose (even in human populations). Competition between subpopulations will be dependent on the speciation event. If it was sympatric or parapatric speciation under which prezygotic and postzygotic isolation are causing reproductive isolation, then yes they will compete for resources. If the speciation event was due to allopatric or peripatric speciation then they will not compete for resources because the populations have been spatial isolated.
I think you have a valid hypothesis
quote:
As I see it, this means that the biggest impact on natural selection in both those new populations will be for divergence from each other to lessen the competition, lower negative selection back towards the level that existed before speciation.
But for your argument to hold you need to show that competition between individuals in the single population before the speciation event was lower than competition between individuals in the two populations after sympatric or parapatric speciation.
quote:
As I see it, this means that the biggest impact on natural selection in both those new populations will be for divergence from each other to lessen the competition, lower negative selection back towards the level that existed before speciation. I see this as a period of marked, high selection pressure that can result (and has resulted) in extinction for one or more populations. This added selection pressure to diverge did not exist before speciation and is caused directly by speciation.
If I understand your argument correctly since these two species that divided from a single species are now competing for the same resources there will be strong selection pressure to maximize the efficiency of resource use. I do not see how this is any different from positive selection on an advantageous allele that allows for more efficient resource use.
quote:
The issue is that macroevolution - the divergence of related species - occurs after speciation has already occurred.
In my opinion your argument does not clearly seperate microevolution from macroevolution. The way beneficial mutations arise within a species and the positive selection that acts on the beneficial allele to rise in frequency is the same way beneficial alleles increase in frequency when two species are competing for the same resources. The divergence of two related species can evolutionarily occur the same way as two individuals within the same species. In fact that is how speciation events occur the divergence of individuals within a species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2007 10:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2007 8:55 PM mobioevo has not replied

  
mobioevo
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 34
From: Texas
Joined: 12-13-2007


Message 78 of 908 (441762)
12-18-2007 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Elmer
12-18-2007 2:09 PM


Re: What is it? Nothing.
Elmer writes:
The issue, then, is the question of whether or not macro evolution is simply micro evolution 'writ large', meaning that evolution is a matter of material 'extension' {size}, rather than function [form, design]. Darwinists insist on the former, since for them biological change, evolution, is simply a matter of physical parts growing larger or smaller, randomly, [thanks to genetic mutations], so that the resulting organism is forced to accept these accidental morphological/behavioural changes and adapt their vital functions, (both internal and external behaviours), to suit these unasked for changes, or to perish at the point where they cannot.
I do not understand what you mean when you say "material extention [size]" and when you say "physical part growing larger or smaller." I think you mean this in terms of morphology but I'm not sure. I am sure you are just anthropomorphizing your description to make it clearer, but to be clear organisms are not "forced" to do anything including accepting morphological/behavioral changes due to mutations. Also, after the "changes" (mutations) the organism does not adapt, it is the changes that causes the organism to adapt.
Edited by mobioevo, : No reason given.
Edited by mobioevo, : No reason given.
Edited by mobioevo, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Elmer, posted 12-18-2007 2:09 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Elmer, posted 12-18-2007 6:58 PM mobioevo has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 79 of 908 (441793)
12-18-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by mobioevo
12-18-2007 5:38 PM


Re: What is it? Nothing.
Hi again;
You say--
[qs] I do not understand what you mean when you say "material extention [size]" and when you say "physical part growing larger or smaller."[/qs]
Sorry for the carelessness--I meant "extension", one of only two primary attribute/qualites/properties of all material entitities. The other two being "impenetrability" and "solidity", [ all meaning, roughly, that two material 'substances' cannot occupy the same place at the same time].
'Extension' is the quality of 'occupied space', so to speak. Wiki puts it this way,--
"In metaphysics, extension is, roughly speaking, the property of "taking up space". René Descartes defines extension as the property of existing in more than one dimension. For Descartes, the primary characteristic of matter is extension, just as the primary characteristic of mind is consciousness. This can be contrasted with current conceptions in quantum physics, where the Planck length, an almost unimaginably tiny quantity, represents reaching that distance scale where, it has been theorized, al measure seemingly breaks down to that which can be subsumed at this scale, as distance only, or extension.
For John Locke, extension is "only the space that lies between the extremities of the solid coherent parts" of a body. It is the space possessed by a body. Locke refers to the extension in conjunction with 'solidity' and 'impenetrability,' the other primary characteristics of matter."
By extension I mean that corporeally-speaking [and that is the only language that materialists and darwinists speak], the only thing that happens in evolution is that morphological traits, which are physical entities, grow or shrink, get longer or shorter, thicker or thinner, heavier or lighter, wider or narrower, and so on. All thanks to random genetic mutation. And the organism changes then changes what it does [its behaviour, i.e., its functioning]in necessary accord with what it has randomly become. When it fails, it becomes 'naturally selected'; i.e., dead.
For example, the poor old giraffe. Darwinists say that random genetic mutation caused the long neck, long legs, and generally large size of the giraffe. So the function of the proto-giraffe was forced to switch from grazing to browsing to high-top browsing. In any short-grass ecosystem such full-size giraffes would have been unable to function, and so 'natural selection' would have made them dead, poor mutants. Luckily, there were some tall and tasty trees out there. Duh!
... to be clear organisms are not "forced" to do anything including accepting morphological/behavioral changes due to mutations.
I agree, but darwinism depends entirely upon the false notion of genetic determinism. Once it is accepted, [as it has been accepted by real scientists since the genome projects wound up], that the gene does not rule the organism, but is merely the organism's tool, and putting paid to all that 'selfish gene' malarkey, we now know that organismic traits are not at all the linearly determined results of inflexible chains of immutable chemical reactions generated by accidental molecular reconfigurations at the 'gene'level. R.I.P., RMNS. Unfortunately, many darwinists haven't yet heard the news.
Also, after the "changes" (mutations) the organism does not adapt, it is the changes that causes the organism to adapt.
I don't know what you are trying to say here. Darwinism says that random genetic changes [genetic mutations]cause determined organismic mutations [mutants], and that these mutants are forced to accomodate their bodies and its behaviours to the circumstances in which they find themselves. That is, the mutant must adapt its functioning to what a random genetic mutation has made of it. If it finds itself hairless in the arctic, for example, it either finds a way to adapt to that, or surrenders to 'natural selection'. That is, turns tits up.
Of course, the same darwinist opinion applies to non-mutants in cases where the environment 'mutates', but they do not. For instance, polar bears that are not lucky enough to catch a random mutation that enables them to catch seals in the absence of ice, [see global warming], are also likely to be visited by 'the grim reaper', aka, 'natural selection'.
Hope that helps.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by mobioevo, posted 12-18-2007 5:38 PM mobioevo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by mobioevo, posted 12-18-2007 7:20 PM Elmer has replied

  
mobioevo
Member (Idle past 5944 days)
Posts: 34
From: Texas
Joined: 12-13-2007


Message 80 of 908 (441798)
12-18-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Elmer
12-18-2007 6:58 PM


Re: What is it? Nothing.
This may be off topic and I urge you to start a new thread for better clarification on the topic of genetic determinism.
How does your example on giraffes come into conflict with genetic determinism? A genetic mutation causes a giraffe's neck to grow longer allowing it to eat more leaves from the tall trees and thus get more resources. A genetic changed influenced the long neck.
quote:
we now know that organismic traits are not at all the linearly determined results of inflexible chains of immutable chemical reactions generated by accidental molecular reconfigurations at the 'gene'level.
Please provide a source.
quote:
darwinism depends entirely upon the false notion of genetic determinism. Once it is accepted, [as it has been accepted by real scientists since the genome projects wound up], that the gene does not rule the organism, but is merely the organism's tool, and putting paid to all that 'selfish gene' malarkey, we now know that organismic traits are not at all the linearly determined results of inflexible chains of immutable chemical reactions generated by accidental molecular reconfigurations at the 'gene'level
While there can be epigenetic changes that affect the phenotype but not the gennotype of the organism, the epigenetic effects induce the same mechanism as would be if there was genetic change. Gene regulation is an important part of phenotype expression, but without the gene present that phenotype would not exist. This is why the idea of genetic determinism is still alive.
I currently have a proposed new topic dealing with a paper that talks about epigenetics and genetic determinism, but it has yet to be directed to the Biological Evolution area.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Elmer, posted 12-18-2007 6:58 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Elmer, posted 12-18-2007 10:30 PM mobioevo has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 81 of 908 (441817)
12-18-2007 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by mobioevo
12-18-2007 5:12 PM


Re: What is it?
What I am trying to say is that separating evolution into microevolution and macroevolution is not only unnecessary, but also that it is confusing to creationists and other people not trained in evolutionary studies because the terms use the same evolutionary forces. I know that the terms microevolution and macroevolution are throw around to try to help educate people, but that does more harm than good. It makes it seem like there are two evolutionary forces acting on the organisms at different levels. The only difference between the terms is the time scale, and when a new species arises it is because of evolution and some isolation effect.
Creationists are absolutely convinced there are two mechanisms, and arguing with them about it will mean that your opinion will simply be disregarded. This will be counterproductive.
I don't know what you mean by average phenotypes, but I think you mean overdominance (heterozygous advantage/superiority). Under certain environmental conditions a heterozygote will have higher fitness than homozygotes and will cause balancing selection. But to assume the entire genome has overdominance within this environment is too much of a simplification. Each allele (assuming alleles have no affect on each other) and will have an independent reaction to the environment. Other ways alleles react within an environment is dominance, complete dominance, incomplete dominance, and underdominance.
No, I actually mean average. You need to look at the whole package of an organism, the complete phenotype, and step back from individual gene variations. Any feature will have a distribution of variation around an average, and a more average phenotype will have more features near the average of the distribution for that feature and fewer at the extremes of variation. In stable population ecological conditions the average will be best adapted to that condition, and selection returns to the center in a negative feedback loop where variation from the average is less adapted. A shift in the ecology will select for a shift in the population with the degree of shift in response being related to the degree of shift in the ecology. It's an opportunistic response system.
Be careful in your language. I have never met a population or species with a common purpose (even in human populations). Competition between subpopulations will be dependent on the speciation event. If it was sympatric or parapatric speciation under which prezygotic and postzygotic isolation are causing reproductive isolation, then yes they will compete for resources. If the speciation event was due to allopatric or peripatric speciation then they will not compete for resources because the populations have been spatial isolated.
I agree, language is a problem. Let's say it is a change from a population that was mostly cooperative into two populations where whatever benefit of cooperation that existed between them has vanished. With the pelycodus example there was competition as the fossils occurred in the same area. I agree this doesn't always apply.
I think you have a valid hypothesis
But for your argument to hold you need to show that competition between individuals in the single population before the speciation event was lower than competition between individuals in the two populations after sympatric or parapatric speciation.
Thanks. Not every confrontation needs to show a competition differece, there just needs to be an overall difference. Make one individual male and one individual female and you can visualize different behavior. You also would not have a comparable situation between two diverged population individuals to that between parent and child.
If I understand your argument correctly since these two species that divided from a single species are now competing for the same resources there will be strong selection pressure to maximize the efficiency of resource use. I do not see how this is any different from positive selection on an advantageous allele that allows for more efficient resource use.
That's one way to put it, however there has to be opportunity for the two new populations to find sufficiently diverse resources to lower competition.
{edit3} Pelycodus was first identified as Prototomus jarrovii, and then renamed pelycodus by Cope (Cope's rule), so Pelycodus jarrovii is the "type species" of the genus Pelycodus. {/edit3} From another gradualistic view of pelycodus evolution:
quote:
Gradualisitc interpretation of Pelycodus evolution
Successive fossils in the Pelycodus fossil record show the gradual evolution of increased size, which can be recognized as a series of species. The coexistence of two simultaneous size trends indicates a speciation event. (Text material © 2005 by Steven M. Carr)
This shows two earlier unsuccessful "attempts" at speciation, ones the resulted in extinction (when the ecology couldn't quite support two populations) ... and then on the third attempt there was sufficient opportunity? (He also shows a punk-eek version).
{edit3} From this diagram we can see that, Copelemur consortutus, Pelycodus frugivorus and Pelycodus jarrovii all lived at the same time in the same basic habitat, before Copelemur consortutus went extinct and Pelycodus jarrovii evolved into Notharctus venticolus continuing the ancestral trend, while Pelycodus frugivorus evolved into Notharctus nunienus, taking over the habitat from Copelemur consortutus in the process.
Without the impetus of speciation, what causes Copelemur praetutus then Copelemur feretutusCopelemur consortutus, and finally Pelycodus frugivorusNotharctus nunienus to diverge "rapidly" from the fairly steady trend of evolution from Pelycodus ralstoni to Notharctus venticolus? Extra selection? Due to added competition? {/edit3}
In my opinion your argument does not clearly seperate microevolution from macroevolution. The way beneficial mutations arise within a species and the positive selection that acts on the beneficial allele to rise in frequency is the same way beneficial alleles increase in frequency when two species are competing for the same resources. The divergence of two related species can evolutionarily occur the same way as two individuals within the same species. In fact that is how speciation events occur the divergence of individuals within a species.
{edit2} Yes, you can even think of species and speciation as being analogous to single-cell organism life and reproduction. It's similar but at a different scale. One small (microscopic) and one big (___________). {edit2}
{added2} We could also talk about mini effects\events\processes, and maxi effects\events\processes, but we already have the terms microevolution and macroevolution. We don't think of life being "notlife" when it is microscopic (microbiology).
We can use the analogy of species to single cell life to help define these different scales of interest, with
  • microevolution being the changes in hereditary traits in populations from one generation to the next (one cycle) up to speciation, and
  • macroevolution being the changes in hereditary traits in populations from one speciation to the next, speciation and above.
- where speciation is the dividing line and the mechanisms of speciation are the mechanisms of most concern in macroevolution.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity at end
Edited by RAZD, : added Copelemur consortutus discussion

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by mobioevo, posted 12-18-2007 5:12 PM mobioevo has not replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 82 of 908 (441843)
12-18-2007 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by mobioevo
12-18-2007 7:20 PM


Re: What is it? Nothing.
Hi mobioevo;
You say--
How does your example on giraffes come into conflict with genetic determinism?
Please remember that this is the genetic determinist, i.e., darwinian, explanation for 'how the giraffe got its long neck'. So of course there is no 'conflict' between the example and genetic determinism.
A genetic mutation causes a giraffe's neck to grow longer allowing it to eat more leaves from the tall trees and thus get more resources. A genetic changed influenced the long neck.
You are sugar-coating genetic determinism, semantically.
Genetic determinism means, first, that a genetic mutation causes a long neck; but a long neck forces, not enables, a giraffe to eat off the tree tops. Just watch a film of a giraffe drinking at a waterhole if this is not obvious to you. Secondly, genetic determinism says that a random genetic mutation does not simply 'influence' a long neck, but rather, as you yourself just finished saying, it _causes_ it. Unavoidably and directly/linearly.
quote:
we now know that organismic traits are not at all the linearly determined results of inflexible chains of immutable chemical reactions generated by accidental molecular reconfigurations at the 'gene'level.
Please provide a source.
For what? The death of genetic determinism? Any genome project that contradicts the 'one gene, one trait' dictum of genetic determinism?
The fact that some 'genes' [molecular DNA configurations] can be correlated to different traits in different taxons, and that several different 'genes' can be correlated to the same trait in different taxons, or that most traits require not one but several different 'genes' to be expressed simultaneously within the same taxon, or that the number of 'genes' in a genotype does not, as was previously expected, even approximately correlate to the phenotypic trait complexity of a taxon, or that the 'gene' for controlling the exptession of gene complexes [see, 'infinite regress', on the subject of 'genes' controlling and directing 'genes'] that correlate with particular traits cannot be found, or the fact that 'correlation is not causation'? All of the facts can be derived by web research, but the conclusions are derived by examing the logical inferences to be reasonably derived from those facts, and for that nobody needs a "source". Asking me to provide one is simply a demand that I use the fallacious, 'argument from authority'.
While there can be epigenetic changes that affect the phenotype but not the gennotype of the organism, the epigenetic effects induce the same mechanism as would be if there was genetic change.
Which fact takes genetic determinism, along with the RMNS darwinism that depends upon it, and shoots it down in flames.
Gene regulation is an important part of phenotype expression, but without the gene present that phenotype would not exist. This is why the idea of genetic determinism is still alive.
Actually, the only reason that genetic determinism is still holding on by its fingernails is that it is the fundamental notional underpinning for RMNS darwinism. Nobody is denying that 'genes' contribute to the reiteration [inheritance] of traits. But 'contributing' is miles away from 'determining', and reiterating [inheriting]is leagues away from generating novelty.
I currently have a proposed new topic dealing with a paper that talks about epigenetics and genetic determinism, but it has yet to be directed to the Biological Evolution area.
I look forward to it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mobioevo, posted 12-18-2007 7:20 PM mobioevo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 12-19-2007 5:53 AM Elmer has replied
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 10:14 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 83 of 908 (441873)
12-19-2007 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Elmer
12-18-2007 10:30 PM


Genetic balderdash
Just watch a film of a giraffe drinking at a waterhole if this is not obvious to you.
What is your point supposed to be? That giraffe's splay their legs when they drink. I didn't notice any giraffe's failing to drink and dying of thirst. So in what way do longer necks 'force' a giraffe to eat off tree tops, are you saying that Giraffe's have no range of vertical motion in their necks? Giraffe's can eat grass so how can you possibly contend they are forced to eat from the tops of trees. Your knowledge of giraffe's seems as made up as your knowledge of genetics.
Secondly, genetic determinism says that a random genetic mutation does not simply 'influence' a long neck, but rather, as you yourself just finished saying, it _causes_ it. Unavoidably and directly/linearly.
And what is your evidence to the contrary? There is plenty of clear evidence of genetic mutations leading 'unavoidably and directly' to specific morphological changes, including changes in things like vertebra number and character, so why do you think it is unlikely to be directly determining a characteristic like vertebra size?
It may not be the only thing determining the exact adult size of the bone, other factors like diet will obviously influence those things, but genetic changes certainly can directly influence morphological characteristics, to think otherwise is to ignore everything we know of gentics sin Mendel.
'one gene, one trait'
This is by no means a tenet of modern genetics so perhaps your 'genetic determinism' is just one more in a string of strawmen. If you think modern genetics insists on 'one gene, one trait' you obviously haven't read any genetic research for the last 20 years or more. Genetics has moved on since Mendel just as evolution has moved on since Darwin.
All of the facts can be derived by web research, but the conclusions are derived by examining the logical inferences to be reasonably derived from those facts, and for that nobody needs a "source". Asking me to provide one is simply a demand that I use the fallacious, 'argument from authority'.
I think he was just asking you to make an argument rather than a random catalogue of things none of which support, and most of which contradict, your position. You seem to think that a simplistic strawman of how you think 'Genetic determinists' think genetics should operate is the same as a coherent argument against the massive importance of genetics in deteermining form., and it isn't.
To say that genes are merely 'correlated' to the same traits in different taxons is to severely abuse both the word correlated and the genetic literature. When you can show that knocking out or overexpressing the same gene in different species leads to the loss or ectopic development of the same structures then to not infer a causative role is to firmly plant ones head in the clouds.
That little gish Gallop contains much that is erroneous and some that is simply pure nonsense. Are you seriously claiming that there have been no master control genes identified? What about Pax-6 in eye development?
Which fact takes genetic determinism, along with the RMNS darwinism that depends upon it, and shoots it down in flames.
Except it doesn't at all. The epigentic effects feed into exactly the same molecular pathways as the genes, and frequently only act by modifying the expression of genes. It doesn't matter if other factors modify an organisms morphology, the only ones which will contribute to evolution will be the heritable factors. There is some evidence for the inheritance of certain epigenetic trait
s but the extent to which this calls for a revision of the evolutionary view of the genome is not yet clear. So far epigenomics is more concerned with the determination of specific cell lineages in development rather than evolution.
But 'contributing' is miles away from 'determining', and reiterating [inheriting]is leagues away from generating novelty.
Just saying this rubbish doesn't make it true, and putting words in inverted commas doesn't make a substantial argument. There are hundreds of instances from the literature of specific genetic changes producing specific morphological effects, clear determination. Not being the sole contributing factor to a particular morphology does not stop genes determining that morphology to an unavoidable degree, and certainly not in the context of heritable morphologies.
As to novelty you haven't even begun to make any coherent point.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Elmer, posted 12-18-2007 10:30 PM Elmer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 6:51 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Elmer
Member (Idle past 5903 days)
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-15-2007


Message 84 of 908 (441880)
12-19-2007 6:51 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Wounded King
12-19-2007 5:53 AM


Re: Genetic balderdash
What is your point supposed to be? That giraffe's splay their legs when they drink. I didn't notice any giraffe's failing to drink and dying of thirst. So in what way do longer necks 'force' a giraffe to eat off tree tops, are you saying that Giraffe's have no range of vertical motion in their necks? Giraffe's can eat grass so how can you possibly contend they are forced to eat from the tops of trees.
The point of my example is obvious [to everyone but you, apparently].
It is that to get its head down to ground [grass or water] level, the giraffe's long legs have to splay, creating a very awkward position that restricts motion and taxes musculature, etc. Highly disadvantageous and disfunctional. It is a posture that is tolerable for a few minutes, once or twice a day, at a watering hole, but would entirely intolerable and disfunctional over the course of a full day of grass grazing. And that is why, even though you object that giraffes can eat grass, they do not. They simply cannot 'make a living' at it.
Your knowledge of giraffe's seems as made up as your knowledge of genetics.
I'll leave it to others to decide as to which of us has a better understanding of giraffes. More importantly, I see that you still haven't learned how to behave properly. In your first paragraph you once again abandon reasoned argumentation for your customary 'personal insult and abuse' approach to debate. Bye.
Edited by Elmer, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Wounded King, posted 12-19-2007 5:53 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Wounded King, posted 12-19-2007 7:24 AM Elmer has not replied
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2007 8:20 AM Elmer has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 85 of 908 (441882)
12-19-2007 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Elmer
12-19-2007 6:51 AM


Re: Genetic balderdash
And that is why, even though you object that giraffes can eat grass, they do not.
Except that they do eat grass and they do drink water. It clearly isn't dysfunctional as the giraffes are drinking water every day. It certainly may not be the ideal posture for drinking but since long necked giraffes have not yet died out surely you would admit that whatever disadvantages you contend their long necks may represent to drinking and eating grass over long periods they haven't been so severe as to kill it off. your point doesn't seem to have a point.
More importantly, I see that you still haven't learned how to behave properly.
Please don't stand so high up on your injured pride. You continue to make sweeping assertions and unsupported claims and then when I question your possession of appropriate knowledge you wail and moan about the personal insult done to you. Why not try and demonstrate some actual knowledge rather than mere assertion and braggadocio?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 6:51 AM Elmer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 10:15 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 86 of 908 (441889)
12-19-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Elmer
12-19-2007 6:51 AM


Re: Genetic balderdash
Elmer writes:
The point of my example is obvious [to everyone but you, apparently].
And me. When our ancestors started to walk upright and develop forelimbs and hands that were good for tool use, they sacrificed the ability to move efficiently on all fours, and became very clumsy tree swingers. But the advantages outweighed the disadvantages in their environmental circumstances.
Same with giraffes. The advantages of the longer necks and legs outweighed the disadvantages.
The mutations confer considerable variety between individuals in a population group, and over time, natural selection means that the average phenotype will change to suit changes in the environment, or remain very similar once well suited to an unchanging environment.
If your descendants develop forelimbs that are wings millions of years hence, they'll have to sacrifice the ability to type things on a keyboard and many other useful things, so flying will have to be of overriding importance for that to happen.
Isn't all this obvious?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Elmer, posted 12-19-2007 6:51 AM Elmer has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2007 10:16 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 908 (441921)
12-19-2007 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Elmer
12-18-2007 10:30 PM


topic please.
Please remember that this is the genetic determinist, i.e., darwinian, explanation for 'how the giraffe got its long neck'. So of course there is no 'conflict' between the example and genetic determinism.
And nothing in your post has anything to do with what macroevolution is or what is different from microevolution. The topic is MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?, so please see if you can focus on that issue.
I look forward to your posting on this issue.
I look forward to it.
Good. That thread is now open and you have replied, therefore you do not need to keep making off-topic posts here.
Everyone else please stop responding to off-topic posts, and stick to the issue here: what is MACROevolution and how does it differ from MICROevolution?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : linked, clarified

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Elmer, posted 12-18-2007 10:30 PM Elmer has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 88 of 908 (441922)
12-19-2007 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Wounded King
12-19-2007 7:24 AM


topic
MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Edited by RAZD, : linked

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Wounded King, posted 12-19-2007 7:24 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 89 of 908 (441923)
12-19-2007 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by bluegenes
12-19-2007 8:20 AM


topic
MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Edited by RAZD, : linked

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2007 8:20 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 90 of 908 (455890)
02-14-2008 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
02-13-2007 9:07 PM


hrm.
it would appear that "macro evolution" has been understood as a complete species change from one species to another, and not cross breed-able.
micro evolution seems to be defined as evolutionary adaptions by a species to adjust to environments.
my thoughts (since you want a creationist opinion:
either stage either is a stage of evolution , or is not.
i believe its possible for one species to be born of another and not crossbreed-able with the original species, for the simple reason of the "apparent" evolution of the dog.
if the evolution of the dogs breeds means its possible over time for the dogs form to no longer be compatible with its original form of wolf. (teacup poodle, and wolf, crossbreed-able? related?
who coined the term macro evolution? i cant define a word that doesn't have an apparent definition, i had believed macro evolution meant broad scale evolution of all species on the planet at once, and micro meaning small scale evolutionary changes of species in different environments, but not global scale evolutions all at once.
this then is a "creationist standpoint" on these terms.
to conclude: God has set the evolutions and adaptions by his laws, since all that is was established by him, and science just observes the establishment. micro or macro evolution does not take away nor add to the truth that God is, but rather is an exploration of the laws of nature as he set them. the bibles reference says he created it all, but does not explain his methods in full.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 02-13-2007 9:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 02-17-2008 8:20 PM tesla has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024