Macro and Micro Evolution

Sonic,Genetic drift is PART of the TOE. Most evo's here do NOT differentiate between micro and macro. What we see as small micro changes, adding up to large macro differences, you see as something totally different.What you are arguing against is not what scientists believe.Could you do me a big favor and read this site? The Talk.Origins Archive: Must-Read FAQsTalk Origins has some great pages on just what evolution is and the evidences for it.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Sonic,It can't be easy to even accept the possibility of something that was originally such an anathema to you. So well done on your honesty thus far. Why 1%? It seems an artificial barrier to me. However, given that most taxa slip comfortably into a cladogram which sorts organisms based upon relationships (& therefore sorts into intermediate stages), I would say your claim has been more than met. The taxa that "jump" clades are relatively few when different data sets are used to derive cladograms. Certainly not the 99% you require for your challenge to be unmet.Creationists make such a fuss about taxa appearing "fully formed", or that intermediate XYZ is missing. The truth is that taxa appear, when they do appear abruptly, appear basally, with very basic characters, & specialise & become more diverse & complex as time goes by. A corollary of this is that the fossils within that clade are themselves all intermediates. Pretty much any member of any clade falls into this pattern. Even the more basal members of clades show eerily similar characters to organisms that came before, early equines relative to condylarths, for example. Ungulates to cetaceans, therapods to avians & so on.I think you are looking at the question backwards, the question you should be asking is why there are transitional & intermediate fossils at all, & not be placing artificial barriers (which I put to you has long been surpassed, anyway) on what you will & won't accept, it smacks of dodging the issue.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

You might want to re-read my post then edit yours if needed. I edited it a few times to help it make more since.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]

quote:

---

The formation and development of a organ. Pick one, the eye, the brain, the heart,etc

---

Here is an example of the evolution of a complex organ:D. Reznick et al. : Independent Origins and Rapid Evolution of the Placenta in the Fish Genus Poeciliopsis. Science 298 (5595):1018-1020, 1 Nov 2002. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mmateos/reznicketal.pdf"The evolution of complex organs is a source of controversy because they require the contributions of many adaptations to function properly. We argue that placentas are complex, that they have evolved multiple times in Poeciliopsis, and that there are closely related sister taxa that have either no placentas or intermediate stages in the evolution of a placenta."See also: YahooReality contradicts creationism as always.

Ok, Thank you, try re-reading my post I edited it. I want to say that I thought we were trying to get out the differences in micro and macro with this thread. I have showed how they are different but the problem is not how they are different but instead the limitation to those small changes which is talked about by creationist as micro-e. Those limitations talked about in Micro-e are threatend by the TOE because Micro-e has only small changes which when talked about in the "TOE" those small changes become large over time. Those limitations are broken when moving forward from my version of micro-e to my version of Macro-e.I think there should be a mechinism or classifcation which represents the difference between macro and micro but I CANNOT figure it out.Thank You
Sonic

No, I am trying to point out the difference between micro and macro not that the toe is wrong. People got off thet topic probably do to my comments which is fine but I am attempting to answer all questions without running and also attempting to stay on the topic. Thus we are talking about Micro and Macro and there differences.Thank You
Sonic

Post 217/227/229 - working on responses. All though can we try to stick to Micro and Macro differences please.Thank You
Sonic

There are, of course, more mechanisms than just hidden mutation and genetic drift. Be careful in thinking that you know all that much about the mechanisms involved. I sure know that I don't and I suspect I know a lot more than you do.You don't think that small changes can result in a large total outcome. What if you are shown a sequence of smallish changes producing a large outcome? What would you have to see?If you want an historic record then you can't ask for the eye, as noted, it doesn't fossilize well does it?

Alright,What about this? Micro-e can lead to Small Genetic Drift and Hidden Mutation and Genetic Drift and Hidden Mutation can lead to Macro-e?.I think that order would represent the TOE and also allow the definitions I have represented to be true. I think we should move out of this debate because micro and macro have been defined and it seems it is not that we disagree about there definition it is we disagree about how macro is inserted into the picture. Small gene drift and mutation are facts? or are they not? Read above-othersPost 217 and 227 we should move the fossil to another debate. 229 thank you for the information and please read above. do you agree with that order or should something be added? I have created a thread for "Is The Fossil Record a indication of Evolution?" Please go their http://EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? -->EvC Forum: Is The Fossil Record an indication of Evolution? .Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003][This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]

It's a bit difficult to convert your wording of it into standard evolutionary terminalogy. But let me try, then we can have another go around to clarify it. I hope some others will jump in as well.There are a number of details in how the genome changes from one creature to it's offspring. It doesn't matter, for now, what they are. The small, wandering changes in the genome of a population has been, by some biologists, been called micro-e.When enough changes pile up so that the somewhat arbitrary line between species is crossed it is called, by some biologists, macro-e.One issue is that in biology there isn't all that big a deal made about the difference between micro and macro. It is understood that the real issue is a mass of changing populations that can be grouped in a hierachical fashion for convenience. The genome of populations is changhing, more or less quickly, all the time. At certain points changes are great enough to cause the appearance of a new species. The point at which a species arises may be pretty sharpe but it may be rather hard to discern at other times.We group species into high taxa but that is a convenience and doesn't represent anything concrete like the breeding barrier that maybe between species.I think that is a (much) longer winded way of saying what you did but I'm not sure.I'm also not sure what you have agreed with and what you haven't?

Hi Sonic, your posthas a rather fundamental error.

quote:

---

The question would be at what point in time did the eye become a organ or What form of life had the first pair of eyes or eye. We would need to see a species with no eye then see a species with a eye and conclude that the new species with the eye/s came from the species with no eye/s. This difference would be macro-evolution, that is if it can be shown that the new species or family member, can be shown to have come from the first(that species without the eye). Now concerning you information on the eye, those changes would be considered microevolution because it is a small genetic change, which changes frequently from generation to generation but regardless it would still be microevolution because each change is done in small steps. In otherwords the formation of an eye would be considered macro and the changes to that eye would be micro. Understand?

---

I quoted your entire post as it speaks volumes to the extent of error in your base assumption. Namely that the first Eye would be a massive leap, so massive that there would be an organ in one generation (or a VERY small n of generations) where there was no organ before. This is simply not true. While I am sure that you have heard of PAX, the original mutant in drosophila was called eyeless as it was lacking in eyes, where PAX is a major control genes in the developmental biology of the eye. Here is a little paper on eyeless eyeless. The following is a paper oneyeless, primitive eyes and later eye development which outlines some of the salient developmental biology involved with eyeless and eye formation. The likely origin of eyes, as you have read earlier in this thread and in the pervious link was the development of photo sensor spots which relied on eyeless and pigment sensors. These could be as primitive as two different cell types which when coupled acted as a photo sensor.Now, I have heard people (i.e. creationists) say that this is not an eye, they are wrong. It is not a camera eye and the argument is a shifted goal post However, I can see someone saying what was the reason for PAX prior to eye spots. PAX however is not ONLY an eye gene family, its main claim to fame is its responsibility for signaling and development. Some of these activities, as described in the paper are linked to the activities of MAP cascades. This is a very interesting fact as MAP cascades are well known to act as the translators of outside environmental conditions to activation of the required genes as shown in yeast MAP use in regard to the environment. In fact the MAP kinase family is a very good example of the co-option of duplicated genes and gene families for new functions, as hes been describe by myself and others in different threads on this board.So you see Sonic, your macro/micro differentiation is essentially meaningless.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

LOL, well, you wanted evidence, Sonic. You have kept digging at the issues in a way that eventually requires some details. Well, Dr Taz's post is the kind of details that exist. I'm afraid it may be a bit hard to understand. He has used a lot of jargon.But, you see, there is really a great deal known about some of the detials (there is, of course, a huge amount more not known but don' hang your hat on that until you understand what is known). You will not find any of the creationist sources that have a tiny clue about this stuff. They just desparately try to ignore it.I hope that Doc Taz will be able to find the time to explain in more detail since I think you are genuinely interested in finding out more.

I am still at the validation phase of your post but I have a question. Would the process mentioned in post 234 be relevent and possible in this development of an eye(i.e. Begining of evolution starts with micro-e then leads to genetic drift and hidden mutation, and genetic drift and hidden mutation leads to macro-e).Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]

I'll try to answer but don't take me as the best authority. I'm just here more 1) You need to drop the genetic drift and mutation bit. As I noted they are part of the whole picture that allows the genome to change. Let's just take it that it changes, ok?2)Yes, there is good reason to think that the eye has evolved in a lot of small steps (micro-e?) and this has produced what you think is a macro-e.

But we do agree that their is a difference between Macro and Micro, right?Do these match and are they correct understandings?TOE: small genetic changes which lead to large genetic changes over centuries.Sonics-Ramification: Micro-e leads to (hidden/medium-e)genetic drift and hidden mutations and (hidden/medium-e)genetic drift and hidden mutation lead to Macro-e.They both seem to state that small changes lead to large changes do they not? If they do then I agree with the TOE, that is if genetic drift and hidden mutation is factual.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-28-2003]