|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9190 total) |
| |
critterridder | |
Total: 919,041 Year: 6,298/9,624 Month: 146/240 Week: 89/72 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1602 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it? | |||||||||||||||||||
mobioevo Member (Idle past 6142 days) Posts: 34 From: Texas Joined: |
When Dobzhansky first introduced the words micro- and macro-evolution to the biologist lexicon, biologists had no idea what made up genetic information. The gene was a very abstract concept that existed in the minds of geneticists, population geneticists, and breeders. They had no idea that genetic information was made up of DNA. They had no idea that the genome was such a complex structure. Today we have a very clear concept of what a gene is, and can detail very minute and major changes in the genome.
So definitions like this,
Taz writes: The way I understand it, the term microevolution refers to small changes in allele frequency due to mutation and natural selection within a population. Macroevolution refers to a kazillion small changes over long periods of time giving rise to changes significant enough to be noticed. has no use in modern evolutionary studies. There is no reason to have separate definitions for the same process. The only difference between the two is the length of time. When there is change in genetic information over time, use the term evolution. When a new species is created, use the term speciation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mobioevo Member (Idle past 6142 days) Posts: 34 From: Texas Joined: |
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: 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: 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: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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mobioevo Member (Idle past 6142 days) Posts: 34 From: Texas Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
mobioevo Member (Idle past 6142 days) Posts: 34 From: Texas Joined: |
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: Please provide a source.
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024