Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 271 of 908 (816960)
08-14-2017 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Faith
08-11-2017 2:44 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Taq writes:
You are getting genetic diversity without evolution. This thread is about evolution. The silly linear model of microevolution to macroevolution is wrong because microevolution reduces genetic diversity, without which evolution has to come to a halt.
Mutations are a part of macroevolution and they add genetic diversity.
If you keep throwing in mutations you bring it to a halt in another way, because it takes selection to produce a new species.
Adding genetic diversity through mutations does not halt evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 2:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:46 AM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 272 of 908 (816963)
08-14-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by Taq
08-14-2017 10:42 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Adding genetic diversity through mutations does not halt evolution.
There has to be selection from the genetic diversity in order to get a new variety or breed or race or species, and if it isn't selected it's just scattered new phenotypes in a large population, which is not evolution, which means change in the population. If you call everything evolution you are just playing a semantic game and confusing things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 10:42 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 10:48 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 273 of 908 (816964)
08-14-2017 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Faith
08-11-2017 7:17 PM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:
The point is that when the new phenotypes are selected for and form a new population, over time they replace the unselected phenotypes throughout the population and that makes for a loss of genetic diversity in this new population.
Mutations add genetic diversity, and they occur in every individual in every generation. It never stops.
Another way to talk about genetic diversity is in terms of heterozygosity. You get increasing homozygosity for the selected traits in a new population that becomes a new variety or species. This is a general trend. At the extreme, as in old fashioned domestic breeding to get a pure breed, your purebred animal will have a great number of fixed loci for the salient traits of the breed.
You get increasing heterozygosity as that initial mutation is selected for. You also get increasing heterozygosity in other genes as they accumulate mutations.
What happens with a Founder population, one that develops from very very few individuals, is an extreme of what I'm talking about. That's how the cheetah formed, and the elephant seals. It's really just a more drastic way to form a new species though in this fallen world it compromises the health of the animal. In the ideal world God originally made all such new species would be healthy, but I digress.
Over time, genetic diversity will increase in both elephant seals and cheetahs as mutations accumulate.
Surely there can be no argument that in these cases there had to have been greately reduced genetic diversity in each new population in relation to the parent population, because that's the inevitable situation with the founding of a new population from a small number of individuals.
There is also no doubt that they will become more genetically diverse after the genetic bottleneck, as every single study has shown. They are also different from other species that they share a common ancestor with because of the accumulation of mutations in each lineage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Faith, posted 08-11-2017 7:17 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:53 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 274 of 908 (816965)
08-14-2017 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Faith
08-14-2017 10:46 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:
There has to be selection from the genetic diversity in order to get a new variety or breed or race or species, and if it isn't selected it's just scattered new phenotypes in a large population, which is not evolution, which means change in the population. If you call everything evolution you are just playing a semantic game and confusing things.
Selection for an allele does not stop mutations from happening. It never stops. If you select for one allele of one gene then there are still tens of thousands of other genes that are mutating, and new phenotypes will be selected for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:46 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 275 of 908 (816966)
08-14-2017 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
08-13-2017 4:06 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:
"Without a change in allele frequencies?" You are really not getting this. The founding population has the different allele frequencies from their parent population. It is those new allele frequencies that bring out the larger head and jaws over a number of generations of sexual recombination among those new allele frequencies. It is you who aren't thinking.
New mutations in those same genes will change the head and jaw, and they can be selected for. Once those new phenotypes are selected for and become dominant in the population, new mutations occur in those same genes for the head and jaw and can be selected for. This repeats over and over and over and over. Mutations continue to change genes, even after they have been selected for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 08-13-2017 4:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 11:05 AM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 276 of 908 (816967)
08-14-2017 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Taq
08-14-2017 10:46 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Adding genetic diversity is not evolution, there has to be selection to get evolution, meaning changes in a whole population. And when that is happening, when you have a new set of gene frequencies in an isolated population THEN you are getting a new characteristic or set of characteristics for that new population which can eventually become a new species over a number of generations, and that requires the loss of genetic diversity.
You can theoretically have lots of new mutations scattered through a population that is not forming a new variety or species.
As a matter of fact, however, you are exaggerating the occurrence of beneficial mutations since the vast majority are not beneficial and don't occur in the sex cells anyway where they could be passed on.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 10:46 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 11:05 AM Faith has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 277 of 908 (816969)
08-14-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Faith
08-14-2017 10:53 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:
Adding genetic diversity is not evolution, there has to be selection to get evolution, meaning changes in a whole population.
Evolution is the repeated process of adding genetic diversity and then selecting for that added genetic diversity. it never stops unless the lineage goes extinct. It never hits a dead end because new phenotypes and new genetic diversity is continually produced so that there are new things to select for.
You can theoretically have lots of new mutations scattered through a population that is not forming a new variety or species.
You can also have new mutations that are forming new species, such as the differences between the chimp and human genomes that is responsible for the physical differences between those two species.
As a matter of fact, however, you are exaggerating the occurrence of beneficial mutations since the vast majority are not beneficial and don't occur in the sex cells anyway where they could be passed on.
Mutations do occur in sex cells, and I can site multiple papers demonstrating that each human is born with 50-100 new mutations that occurred in the sex cells of their parents. Those mutations will be passed on.
If you think I am exaggerating beneficial mutations, then you need to a scientific reference demonstrating that fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:53 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 11:07 AM Taq has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 278 of 908 (816970)
08-14-2017 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by Taq
08-14-2017 10:51 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
New mutations in those same genes will change the head and jaw, and they can be selected for. Once those new phenotypes are selected for and become dominant in the population, new mutations occur in those same genes for the head and jaw and can be selected for. This repeats over and over and over and over. Mutations continue to change genes, even after they have been selected for.
In general discussions of mutations it is usually made clear that beneficial mutations that occur in the sex cells where they could be passed on are extremely rare, and to expect them to occur with the rapidity you are now describing contradicts that general knowledge. I conclude that the thirty-some-odd years the lizards had to evolve their new form would not have been enough time for the explanation to be mutation, let alone the series of mutations you are claiming.
So I argue that all it takes is the mixing of the gene frequencies in the original founders by sexual recombination over whatever number of generations it takes to homogenize the gene pool in the whole population. This assumes some kind of principle of increasing effect from generation to generation in some traits, and since Darwin's pigeons developed exaggerated breast size over some generations of selection without there being time for just the right mutations to occur in each generation, I think size is one of those traits that can be increased by repetition from generation to generation, especially if a number of genes are involved in the trait. Something that could be studied in a genetics lab but seems reasonable from simple observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 10:51 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 11:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 279 of 908 (816971)
08-14-2017 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Taq
08-14-2017 11:05 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Evolution is the repeated process of adding genetic diversity and then selecting for that added genetic diversity. it never stops unless the lineage goes extinct. It never hits a dead end because new phenotypes and new genetic diversity is continually produced so that there are new things to select for.
The reality is that distinct varieties and species exist, and for them to exist requires the loss of genetic material for other varieties and species, so wherever such varieties and species are being evolved you are going to have that loss and you can't avoid it. You would never ever see a distinct variety or species if your scienario were true.l

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 11:05 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 11:22 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 280 of 908 (816975)
08-14-2017 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Faith
08-14-2017 11:05 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:
In general discussions of mutations it is usually made clear that beneficial mutations that occur in the sex cells where they could be passed on are extremely rare, and to expect them to occur with the rapidity you are now describing contradicts that general knowledge.
Then reference "general knowledge" and show that this is true. Assertions don't cut it.
Also, simple math shows that you are wrong. If there is a possible beneficial mutation in a gene then it doesn't take that many humans to get that beneficial mutations. The diploid human genome is 6 billion bases, and the human mutation rate is about 100 mutations per person per generation. If there are 3 possible base changes at every locus, that is 18 billion possible mutations. 18 billion divided by 100 is 180 million. You only need 180 million births to get that one beneficial mutation.
So I argue that all it takes is the mixing of the gene frequencies in the original founders by sexual recombination over whatever number of generations it takes to homogenize the gene pool in the whole population.
But that isn't what we observe happening. We observe that new mutations produce new phenotypes which are then selected for. Your claim is contradicted by observations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 11:05 AM Faith has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 281 of 908 (816976)
08-14-2017 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
08-14-2017 11:07 AM


Re: the usual silly wrong linear analogy
Faith writes:
The reality is that distinct varieties and species exist, and for them to exist requires the loss of genetic material for other varieties and species, so wherever such varieties and species are being evolved you are going to have that loss and you can't avoid it. You would never ever see a distinct variety or species if your scienario were true.l
The reality is that those distinct varieties and species will continue to accumulate new mutations, and that genetic diversity within those varieties and species will increase over time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 11:07 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 282 of 908 (816980)
08-14-2017 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
08-14-2017 10:24 AM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Of course the claim that evolution has a built-in stopping point has already been disproven.
quote:
Evolution is not a straight linear one-foot-after-the-other process because in order to get new varieties or races or breeds or species the genetic material for other varieties must be reduced, and completely lost in some cases.
The point you are supposedly refuting is the idea that smaller within-species changes can add up to eventually produce a new species. Your assertion here hardly seems to work.
The Pod Mcaru lizards don't really help for this either. Not unless you want to argue that their changes are the product of a macroevolutionary process distinct from microevolution (as the terms are used in science) - and I certainly don't think you'd want to do that.
quote:
I brought this up because the necessary genetic loss is never acknowledged in discussions of evolution
Which is sort of a funny claim when we are talking about a program described in Dawkin's The Blind Watchmaker - a book that makes it quite clear that the culling of variety by natural selection is an essential part of evolution - and even more so when we consider that the program is often attacked by creationists for being too effective in culling the less desirable variations.
quote:
...and the computer simulation models perpetuate the same wrong idea of an unimpeded series of changes from microevolution to macroevolution.
Except that there is no such distinction in the program (which is a demonstration of cumulative selection not a simulation of evolution anyway - quite explicitly stated in the book.
quote:
Apparently even when they take "selection" into account they fail to represent this fact.
By which you mean that the program makes the "mistake" of illustrating a major hole in your argument. So long as there is a source of new variations evolution will not come to an end by running out of variety. Which, of course, is no mistake at all. Nobody is required to pretend that you are right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 2:14 AM PaulK has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 283 of 908 (817003)
08-14-2017 3:41 PM


This is macroevolution, the product of non-stop microevolution
I copied this from a previous post I made in another thread, and it applies here:
Let's go back to our simple gene and see how mutation, selection, and speciation work. We will start with Species OG (for original gangster).
Species OG allele A
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Speciation begins by the creation of two isolated populations of the OG population so that we have Species A and Species B
Species A allele A           Species B allele A
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT     TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Mutation and selection occurs in each population, but since different mutations and selection pressures occur in each species they end up with different alleles:
Species A allele B            Species B allele C
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTATTT        TTTTTTGTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Those separate species have now diverged, all through microevolution. This same process occurs again.
Species A allele D          Species B allele E
TTCTTTTTTTTTTTTTATTT          TTTTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTT
And it occurs again:
Species A allele F          Species B allele G
TTCTTTTTGTTTTTTTATTT           TATTTTGTTTTTTTGTTTTT
And it occurs again:
Species A allele H          Species B allele I
TTCTTATTGTTTTTTTATTT          TATTTTGTTTTCTTGTTCTT
Let's freeze time and compare these new species with the OG species
Species A allele H         Species B allele I
TTCTTATTGTTTTTTTATTT         TATTTTGTTTTCTTGTTCTT
Species OG allele A           Species OG allele A
TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT         TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
That is macroevolution. We have reached the genetic divergence seen between what you would call separate kinds, and it all occurs through microevolution. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolutionary events, and when they occur in populations that are not interbreeding it produces divergence over time.

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by CRR, posted 08-14-2017 9:35 PM Taq has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 284 of 908 (817015)
08-14-2017 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Faith
08-14-2017 10:24 AM


Re: Evolution has a built-in stopping point
Let's use a different example to state your position:
quote:
Automobiles get their propulsion from their engines, but they are always subject to friction. Friction inevitably slows them down to a halt. Therefore, it is impossible for automobiles to move.
The only way for that model to be true is if you only take friction into account and not the car engine. That is what we keep seeing you do with this argument.
I brought this up because the necessary genetic loss is never acknowledged in discussions of evolution, and the computer simulation models perpetuate the same wrong idea of an unimpeded series of changes from microevolution to macroevolution.
None of which is true. Could you please name some of these computer simulation models that you are referring to?
Apparently even when they take "selection" into account they fail to represent this fact.
Any model describing or simulation evolution which does not take selection into account could not work.
Again, what computer simulation models are you talking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 08-14-2017 10:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Faith, posted 08-15-2017 2:28 AM dwise1 has replied

  
CRR
Member (Idle past 2242 days)
Posts: 579
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 285 of 908 (817016)
08-14-2017 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Taq
08-14-2017 3:41 PM


Re: This is NOT macroevolution, the product of non-stop microevolution
Speciation begins by the creation of two isolated populations of the OG population so that we have Species A and Species B
No, what we have is two isolated sub-populations of the OG species. Isolation does not immediately confer speciation.
Now we have several hypothetical mutations. Probably neutral mutations that are fixed by genetic drift. So at the end you might have two alleles that have no effect on the phenotype and and still have one species. Perhaps you will have two varieties of the one species. Perhaps speciation will occur. Perhaps all that has occurred is that one variety has straight hair and the other has wavy hair. Perhaps H & I have accumulated so many defects they are now both non-functional.
What we do know is that sometimes populations can develop significant changes in morphology in times too short to be attributed to the mutation selection mechanism; whether due to epigenetic changes or selection from the original gene pools. This sort of thing has been observed in Italian Wall Lizards, Trinidad Guppies, Galapagos Finches, and others.
That is macroevolution. We have reached the genetic divergence seen between what you would call separate kinds, and it all occurs through microevolution.
Probably not even separate species, let alone separate kinds; and hence not even macroevolution.
One of the few observed examples of speciation I know of is the London Underground Mosquito, and that's still incipient speciation since complete reproductive isolation has not been achieved at last report I saw. Speciation is macroevolution IFF that is the definition accepted by all parties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Taq, posted 08-14-2017 3:41 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Taq, posted 08-15-2017 10:48 AM CRR 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