A Sincere Question Regarding Macroevolution

by jacobm 20 Replies latest jw friends

  • jacobm
    jacobm

    @coded logic:

    You said:

    If you're having a hard time with the question it's probably because things like "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are not scientific terms. They're not even defined at all.

    If they are not scientific terms, why is my link (Berkeley) showing them defined?

  • ILoveTTATT2
    ILoveTTATT2
    While such evolutionary biologists Theodosius Dobzhansky, Bernhard Rensch and Ernst Mayruse the term, many neo-Darwinian do not, preferring instead to talk of evolution as changes in allele frequencies without mention of the level of the changes (above species level or below). Use of the term is most common in the continental European traditions (as Dobzhansky, Mayr, Rensch, Goldschmidt and Schindewolf were) and less common in the Anglo-American tradition (such as John Maynard Smith and Richard Dawkins). Hence, use of the term "macroevolution" is sometimes wrongly used as a litmus test of whether the writer is "properly" neo-Darwinian or not.[6]
  • Vanderhoven7
    Vanderhoven7

    "When I was a witness I was surprised witnesses never conceded to microevolution"

    I don't think most Creationists accept micro-evolution; that new information is added to DNA, although they would accept chromosomal aberrations and loss of information; more of a biological devolution rather than an evolution.

    "Structural Aberrations

    These occur due to a loss or genetic material, or a rearrangement in the location of the genetic material. They include: deletions, duplications, inversions, ring formations, and translocations.

    • Deletions: A portion of the chromosome is missing or deleted. Known disorders include Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, which is caused by partial deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4; and Jacobsen syndrome, also called the terminal 11q deletion disorder.
    • Duplications: A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material. Known disorders include Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A which may be caused by duplication of the gene encoding peripheral myelin protein 22 (PMP22) on chromosome 17.
    • Translocations: When a portion of one chromosome is transferred to another chromosome. There are two main types of translocations. In a reciprocal translocation, segments from two different chromosomes have been exchanged. In a Robertsonian translocation, an entire chromosome has attached to another at the centromere; these only occur with chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 21 and 22.
    • Inversions: A portion of the chromosome has broken off, turned upside down and reattached, therefore the genetic material is inverted.
    • Rings: A portion of a chromosome has broken off and formed a circle or ring. This can happen with or without loss of genetic material.
    • Isochromosome: Formed by the mirror image copy of a chromosome segment including the centromere.

    Structural aberrations also include some disorders which are characterized by chromosomal instability and breakage. One example, is the creation of a fragile site on the X Chromosome - Fragile X syndrome. Boys are worse affected by this because they only have one X-Chromosome but even in girls, Fragile X syndrome can cause learning difficulties.

    Most chromosome anomalies occur as an accident in the egg or sperm, and are therefore not inherited. The anomaly is present in every cell of the body.Some anomalies, however, can happen after conception, resulting in mosaicism (where some cells have the anomaly and some do not). Chromosome anomalies can be inherited from a parent or be "de novo". This is why chromosome studies are often performed on parents when a child is found to have an anomaly.

  • Coded Logic
    Coded Logic

    Was just looking at that JM. Probably because the page is written by a librarian and not a proper academic. The only scientific paper I can find that uses the term "macro-evolution" is this one:

    https://bfg.oxfordjournals.org/content/12/5/430.full

    But as it was originally written in German the word is more likely an issue of translation than actual scientific usage.

    None the less, I don't care about the "properness" of a word. What I care about is what you mean when you use the word - which is why the very first thing I asked you was "what would you consider to be "macroevolution" and what would you consider as being a "jump" or "transcendent"?"

    If you have a definition you find useful please provide it and I will do my best to answer your question :)


  • kaik
    kaik
    Macroevolution can be observed over a long period of time, but much longer than humanity can record its knowledge. Microevolution was already observed in various diseases caused by bacteria and virus. Syphilis, HIV and other pathogens have been observed to change over the small period of time. Macroevolution from Ice Age, had changed many large species in time of 12000 years. You will not recognize majority of cultivated products from apples to prunes to hops from the original plants that existed just 7000 years ago.
  • jacobm
    jacobm

    Thanks for everyone's responses!

  • M*A*S*H
    M*A*S*H
    Have scientists ever been able to recreate or virtually witness a Macroevolution type jump that "transcends the boundaries of a single species"?

    @Jacob

    I think that many have answered your question in various ways, and I'd like to answer it myself also... but I am just curious as to what prompted you to ask? Do any of the answers ring true for you?

    As Cofty mentioned the real answer to your question is 'no'... but then again the question (IMHO!) is not framed correctly (please excuse the arrogance of that statement!).

    I think it would be fair to say evolution can only truly relate to populations not individuals; this is why the question does not seem to be framed correctly. Each individual in a population must be able to breed with the rest of the group, any massive genetic abnormalities would result in a dead end (quite literally).

    The way the question is phrased makes it sound like you are asking if science has ever witnessed a 'dog giving birth to a cat'... and that just cannot happen.

  • WhatshallIcallmyself
    WhatshallIcallmyself

    Hi,

    I hear this definition a lot from creationists and also use these terms myself, although generally only when talking to creationists...

    These terms can be good if understood in terms of evolutionary theory but confusing if coming at it from a creationist background. Often it is believed, by the creationist, that macroevolution applies to instances of species changing into another species in one step; they see 2 types of evolution where 1 describes how things change a little bit so we are not all the same and the other describes why there are a lot of different species. They then sincerely believe macro evolution cannot happen and that science cannot prove it. And they would be right of course!

    An analogy of what micro and macro evolution actually is is this: A step describes a small movement a person makes when moving in any particular direction. An large accumulation of steps is known as a journey. Micro evolution is the step and macro evolution is the journey. Now nobody thinks a journey happens in a single step (unless you are wearing the mythical 7 league boots...), they know a journey is the accumulation of many steps and so it is with macroevolution. In fact, when enough steps are taken a journey is not just likely, it is inevitable...

  • Vidiot
    Vidiot

    FayeDunaway - "When I was a witness I was surprised witnesses never conceded to microevolution..."

    Well, it's a "slippery slope", dontcha know... :smirk:

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    Google "Ring Species".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvYpBi7HG9k

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb6Z6NVmLt8

    "Have scientists ever been able to recreate or virtually witness a Macroevolution type jump that "transcends the boundaries of a single species"?"

    There are no jumps from one species to another. The transition from one species to another is extremely gradual spanning multiple generations. The best way I can think of illustrating it is to imagine the brightness of the sky at midday and at midnight as being two different species. Now imagine each second of time from midday to midnight as being one generation of the species in the process of evolution. There is no single second of time that jumps from midday to midnight. Rather, there are multiple seconds of time between the two. Also each second of daylight leads to another second of daylight. No single second spans the transition from night to day. It's an extremely gradual transition whose dynamics cannot be perceived by the human eye viewing it in real time. Evolution is like that. Each generation of the transition is able to reproduce with the generation immediately before it - they are always of the same species. But "final" generation would not be able to reproduce with the original generation. They are as different as midnight from midday.


    So when creationists say that they believe micro-evolution but not macro-evolution, it's as if they're saying: 'I believe one second of afternoon daylight leads to another second of very very very slightly less bright afternoon daylight. But I don't believe that the brightness of midday eventually turns to the darkness of midnight. The idea is utterly ridiculous!'

    LOL.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit