microevolution lead to macroevolution?
david ford
is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
Goldschmidt didn't think so.
Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
david ford wrote:
> Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
> is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
>
> Goldschmidt didn't think so.
When did Goldschmidt become divinely infallible?
<shrug>
Is there a scientific theory of creation? If there is, is Ford just too
stupid and uninformed to know what it is? Or is he just being
deliberately dishonest and evasive by refusing to answer that simple
question?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
JTEM
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote
> Is there a scientific theory of creation?
No.
> If there is, is Ford just too stupid and uninformed to know
> what it is?
Creationists are too stupid to realize "I don't want evolution
to be true" isn't a theory. I mean, if that's what you're asking.
mel turner
duplicate.
In article <b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>,
dfo...@gl.umbc.edu [david ford] wrote...
>
>Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
The initial changes leading to speciation [= macroevolution] will
have taken place at the microevolutionary [= evolution within one
species] level.
>is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
No, there is also speciation and extinction, which arguably are
macroevolutionary processes.
>is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
That, plus the accumulated effects of speciations and extinctions.
>Goldschmidt didn't think so.
And so? Goldschmidt's ideas regarding macroevolution and
"hopeful monsters" have been mostly rejected for a long time.
But there are other scientists besides Goldschmidt who think
that not all of "macroevolution" reduces to microevolutionary
processes.
>Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
Why is this interesting here? Regardless of the macro/micro
distinction, both do happen. Both are observed to occur.
cheers
Richard Smol
> Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
Yes, they are the same mechanism.
> is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
Basically.
RS
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
al1...@hotmail.com
Perhaps we're jumping to conclusions by saying that someone who
questions whether microevolution leads to macroevolution. It is
possible that this person really does accept evolution but is simply
not particularly knowledgeable, and has read a book/s saying that
accumulated microevolution might not explain macroevolution.
On the other hand I do agree it does sound like a creationist
question. As far as I can tell from my reading, the general consensus
is that most evolutionary biologists are relatively confident that
macroevolution is simply the accumulation of smaller change. Those
scientists who disagree are a minority (one that is getting smaller
all the time) but not necessarily anti-evolutionists.
Tim Judge www.thetheisticevolutionpage.org
stew dean
> Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
I hold macroevolution is just lots of microevolution - so leads is not
the right term. It would be like saying lots of cents leads to a
dollar - which is partly true.
> is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
Yes.
> is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
Now macroevolution has various definitions - some include speciation,
for example. This is just microevolution working on a population has
been split probably by a geographic devide.
> Goldschmidt didn't think so.
Who?
> Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
> http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.com
I really can't see how speciation and seperation of a population
leading to two distinct populations that cannot interbreed is at all
different.
Some creationist has supposed there is a barrier between 'kinds' -
that is one cannot become a different kind. The definition of kind is
so vauge as to be useless, are dogs and wolves different kinds? How
about chimps and humans or cats and lions? How about different types
of dogs? How about different 'races' of humans? (race being
increasingly agreed as a cultrual thing, not a genetic thing).
I've no idea who this guy is and why something from 1953 is relevant
to day. Perhaps you are better off summing up his argument.
I suggest to you and all those who feel evolution is not quite right
to come up with you own clear argument rather than quoting lots of
stuff and expecting others to read into it the same thing as you have.
Stew Dean
Ken Shaw
You fundamentally misunderstood the point I was making in the posts
leading to the one you reference here. I wasn't arguing that evolution
above the species level doesn't occur but that since the processes
involved are the same as those that occur within a species that the
micro/macro terms were of no utility.
While Goldschmidt may have thought there was something more to evolution
than drift and selection, he was writing in 1940 and much more has been
learned since then ( including for instance functionally everything
about DNA ).
Ken
Larry Moran
al1...@hotmail.com <al1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Perhaps we're jumping to conclusions by saying that someone who
> questions whether microevolution leads to macroevolution. It is
> possible that this person really does accept evolution but is simply
> not particularly knowledgeable, and has read a book/s saying that
> accumulated microevolution might not explain macroevolution.
>
> On the other hand I do agree it does sound like a creationist
> question. As far as I can tell from my reading, the general consensus
> is that most evolutionary biologists are relatively confident that
> macroevolution is simply the accumulation of smaller change. Those
> scientists who disagree are a minority (one that is getting smaller
> all the time) but not necessarily anti-evolutionists.
Actually, there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
microevolution. The number who continue to believe that macroevolution
is just a whole bunch of microevolution is shrinking rapidly.
We're at a strange point in time where the vast majority of
non-scientists are just catching up with modern (1960's) ideas of
evolution. They are being taught in school that microevolution
is a fact and they are being taught that macroevolution is nothing
more than cumulative microevolution. This isn't a bad thing since
it represent the triumph of the Modern Sythesis and the defeat of
several silly ideas like hopeful monsters.
However, real modern evolutionary theory has moved on since the 60's
and it's now widely recognized that there are lots of things going
on at the macroevolutionary level that can't be completely
explained by changes in the frequrencies of alleles in a population.
None of these things are magical. They include various speciation
mechanisms and mass extinctions, for example. They also include the
possibility of more controversial mechanisms such as species selection
- also called species sorting.
Gould was a major proponent of a hierarchical theory of evolution
that allowed for distinct mechanisms of macroevolution.
It's clear that the Creationists don't know what they are talking
about when they criticize evolution in general and macroevolution
in particular. However, let's not compound their ignorance by
pretending that macroevolution can be completely explained by lots
of microevolution. That's not a true representation of modern
evolutionary theory.
Larry Moran
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
al1...@hotmail.com wrote:
> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<haydnY3Ixc0...@comcast.com>...
>
>>""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote
>>
>>
>>>Is there a scientific theory of creation?
>>
>>No.
>>
>>
>>>If there is, is Ford just too stupid and uninformed to know
>>>what it is?
>>
>>Creationists are too stupid to realize "I don't want evolution
>>to be true" isn't a theory. I mean, if that's what you're asking.
>
>
> Perhaps we're jumping to conclusions by saying that someone who
> questions whether microevolution leads to macroevolution. It is
> possible that this person really does accept evolution but is simply
> not particularly knowledgeable, and has read a book/s saying that
> accumulated microevolution might not explain macroevolution.
>
This is not the first time we have heard from this person.
> On the other hand I do agree it does sound like a creationist
> question. As far as I can tell from my reading, the general consensus
> is that most evolutionary biologists are relatively confident that
> macroevolution is simply the accumulation of smaller change. Those
> scientists who disagree are a minority (one that is getting smaller
> all the time) but not necessarily anti-evolutionists.
>
And they are heavily regurgiquoted by the creationists.
John Baker
<al1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:96ce2ff8.04020...@posting.google.com...
Ford is a well known creationist troll.
>
> Tim Judge www.thetheisticevolutionpage.org
>
Frank J
Goldschmidt died in 1958, so it's possible that he would think
differently now, given the advances in molecular biology.
But more importantly, even then he thought that another speciation
mechanism was occurring, and one worthy of investigating. Unlike
today's pseudoscientific anti-evolutionists, who are content to spin
arguments from incredulity, and allow the audience to incorrectly
infer that independent abiogenesis is somehow supported by that
incredulity.
AC
Let me get this straight. Speciation doesn't occur? Is this what you are
saying David? Please don't answer with a URL. Just answer yes or no.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
Glenn
"AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2cva3.1fs....@namibia.tandem...
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 05:57:26 +0000 (UTC),
> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
> >
> > Goldschmidt didn't think so.
> > Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
> >
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.
com
>
> Let me get this straight. Speciation doesn't occur? Is this what you are
> saying David? Please don't answer with a URL. Just answer yes or no.
>
question.
Ian Braidwood
> is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
There are no seperate processes of micro and macro-evolution, and no
scientist ever said there was.
The only difference between the two topics is the timescale over which
evolution is examined, so macro-evolution is exactly the same process
as micro-evolution.
You would expect to find greater variation at macro-evolutionary
timescales, because there has been more time for genetic changes to
occure and more importantly, accumulate within any genome.
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
AC
Fair enough. How about we go with a simple one, like a parent population
splitting into reproductively isolated populations, and where changes
accumulate sufficiently so that reproduction is no longer possible.
Now, does this occur or not, Glenn? Yes or no will do.
Floyd
> david ford wrote:
>
> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
>
> Yes, they are the same mechanism.
That's arguable (although the argument gives no comfort to
creationists). Technically, "microevolution" simply refers to the
inevitable cumulative change in a single species. That is, since all
individuals differ, every time an individual is born or dies, the
entire gene pool of the species has changed, if ever so slightly.
Every mutation that does not lead to barriers to fertility is
technically "microevolution" as well.
"Macroevolution" technically refers to speciation and to changes that
occur beyond the level of a single species. There is no connotation
of the magnitude of change involved in the term (although creationists
often use it as though this was the case). A single base pair
substitution could, conceivably, lead to reproductive isolation, so
some "macroevolution" can result from very, very small changes.
Conversely, some quite dramatic changes can be accomodated within an
interfertile community.
However, "macroevolution" also includes such phenomena as extinction,
which can not always be easily described in terms of genetic changes.
So to that extent, "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are distinct
processes, although the boundary between them is "fuzzy."
>
> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
>
> Basically.
Not really. Creationists have redefined the terms for their own
purposes, to mean "lots of change" and "very little change," but
scientists are under no obligation to accept the creationists'
definitions of these otherwise quite useful terms.
As a rule of thumb, creationists define the term "microevolution" to
mean "that amount of evolution that is so blatantly, painfully,
overwhelmingly obvious that the evidence even penetrates through the
sand in which my head is buried," whereas to the creationist,
"macroevolution" refers to "all that evolution that has not been
directly observed." This later definition is used by the creationists
in order to allow them to say "macroevolution has never been
observed." By their definition, that statement is true. The only
wonder is that they don't get dizzy arguing in such a small circle.
HTH
-Floyd
Glenn
"Ian Braidwood" <diri...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:53ad390d.0402...@posting.google.com...
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
>
> There are no seperate processes of micro and macro-evolution, and no
> scientist ever said there was.
>
snarl. Macroevolution is counterpoised with microevolution-
generation by generation selection-mediated change in gene
frequencies within populations. The debate is over the question, Are
conventional Darwinian microevolutionary processes sufficient to
explain the entire history of life? To ultra-Darwinians, the very term
macroevolution suggests that the answer automatically no. To them,
macroevolution implies the action of processes-even genetic
processes-that are as yet unknown must be imagined to yield a
satisfactory explanation of the history of life." (Eldredge N.,
"Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate", 1996, pp126-
127)
> The only difference between the two topics is the timescale over which
> evolution is examined, so macro-evolution is exactly the same process
> as micro-evolution.
>
See above.
> You would expect to find greater variation at macro-evolutionary
> timescales, because there has been more time for genetic changes to
> occure and more importantly, accumulate within any genome.
>
That is not useful, and is not consistent with your statements above.
Glenn
result in the parent population splitting into isolated populations?
And is inability to reproduce a requirement for speciation?
Larry Moran
Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote:
[snip]
> You fundamentally misunderstood the point I was making in the
> posts leading to the one you reference here. I wasn't arguing
> that evolution above the species level doesn't occur but that
> since the processes involved are the same as those that occur
> within a species that the micro/macro terms were of no utility.
>
> While Goldschmidt may have thought there was something more to
> evolution than drift and selection, he was writing in 1940 and
> much more has been learned since then ( including for instance
> functionally everything about DNA ).
I don't agree with Ken. In my opinion there's a good case to be
made that macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution. We
may not be able to say with confidence that species sorting and
other mechanisms occur frequently but we've surely progressed
beyond the stage where we can dogmatically state that macroevolution
is no different than microevolution. That's just not correct. The
best one can say at the present time is that the question is
still being debated.
Larry Moran
AC
I knew better than to get involved in this thread. At this level, I don't
think it matters what the changes are, but that they are hereditary changes.
Now Glenn, does speciation occur or doesn't it?
Glenn
"Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:slrnc2d40t....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
of "evolution", "microevolution", "speciation", "macroevolution",
"common descent" to --- "shit happens". That would prevent
anything slipping through the "cracks".
Glenn
> Now Glenn, does speciation occur or doesn't it?
>
You haven't answered the question yet.
You likely think this is a game, but it is you who
are asking for a yes/no answer.
Frank J
But the point that is lost on most nonscientists (and even some
scientists - myself pre-1997 included) is that these mechanisms
operate on genetic change, which is of course, not just "random" point
mutations. But as you note, even for the genome changes that lead to
speciation, there is no evidence whatever that they produce "hopeful
monsters." And certainly no evidence to support the independent
abiogenesis alternative implied by the deniers of common descent.
>
> Gould was a major proponent of a hierarchical theory of evolution
> that allowed for distinct mechanisms of macroevolution.
>
> It's clear that the Creationists don't know what they are talking
> about when they criticize evolution in general and macroevolution
> in particular. However, let's not compound their ignorance by
> pretending that macroevolution can be completely explained by lots
> of microevolution. That's not a true representation of modern
> evolutionary theory.
Professional creationists know exactly what they are talking about. To
borrow an argument from the design promoters: The fact that they
choose such exact bait-and-switch wording, select quotes that mislead
when taken out of context, and know exactly which facts to
conveniently leave out, cannot be due to "chance." Note that this
design argument is reasonable because we have independent evidence of
such designers and their practices.
>
>
>
> Larry Moran
Frank J
Offhand I can think of 2 reasons why this is "interesting:"
1. It gets some readers to see that scientists disagree (never mind
that the citation is from ~50 years ago), and with some hope, will get
them to think that the disagreements are hopeless that evolution must
be a theory in crisis.
2. By pretending that there are barriers to species change that are
only crossable by "hopeful monsters," it gets some readers to infer
that independent abiogenesis (the implied model of most creationisms)
is a more reasonable alternative.
A bit of homework, however, will reveal that this is just an old
trick.
David
I'm sorry if the answer to these questions have already been posted.
Feel free to post a link.
With regard to macro and micrevolution, are you just talking about
changes that occur either side of a fuzzy boundary (speciation) and
where that boundary should be set, or are you arguing about the actual
mechanisms themselves?
If it's from a mechanistic perspective would the following statement be
accurate? Inversions or other chromosomal rearrangements, that could
cause speciation are macroevolution whereas point mutations that give
more gradual changes are microevolution?
Along the same theme, if some speciation events did/do occur by a
gradual build up of point mutations can these then be regarded as
macroevolution?
If it's from a boundary perspective it seems that the micro and macro
are less meaningful? Or am I missing something here?
If this question is confusing it's because I am confused.
David
AC
I did. I'm not debating mechanism. I'm asking you whether speciation
happens or not. In classic Glenn Sheldon fashion you seem awfully shy to
answer.
>
> You likely think this is a game, but it is you who
> are asking for a yes/no answer.
Glenn, it's you who treats this like a game, playing word games,
quote-mining and the like.
The question stands, Glenn. Does speciation occur or not? Yes or no will
do.
--
AC
Does speciation occur or not, Glenn? Why won't you answer?
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Glenn wrote:
> Evolutionists should just sum up all their evolutionary mechanisms
> of "evolution", "microevolution", "speciation", "macroevolution",
> "common descent" to --- "shit happens". That would prevent
> anything slipping through the "cracks".
And you alternative to "shit happens" would eb what, again . . . .?
Oh, that's right --- you've already stated that there is no scientific
alternative to evolution, and that those who say there IS a scientific
alternative to evolution are just lying to us.
Right?
Glenn
The one generalization you made about a complex subject was wrong.
> >
> > You likely think this is a game, but it is you who
> > are asking for a yes/no answer.
>
> Glenn, it's you who treats this like a game, playing word games,
> quote-mining and the like.
>
Don't bother with the whine about "quote-mining" for my benefit,
AC, it is to your readers that you try to persuade.
> The question stands, Glenn. Does speciation occur or not? Yes or no will
> do.
>
I'm afraid it will not do.
Glenn
Glenn
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank...@ij.net> wrote in message
news:4026a86a$1...@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
>
> Glenn wrote:
> > Evolutionists should just sum up all their evolutionary mechanisms
> > of "evolution", "microevolution", "speciation", "macroevolution",
> > "common descent" to --- "shit happens". That would prevent
> > anything slipping through the "cracks".
>
>
> And you alternative to "shit happens" would eb what, again . . . .?
>
> Oh, that's right --- you've already stated that there is no scientific
> alternative to evolution, and that those who say there IS a scientific
> alternative to evolution are just lying to us.
>
> Right?
>
It may be that, being the troll that you are, you are attempting
to cause me to accuse you of lying, by lying, so that you can claim
that I call everyone a liar who does not agree with me.
Have it anyway you want.
R.Schenck
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
>"AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>news:slrnc2d9vc.1n0....@namibia.tandem...
>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:28:26 +0000 (UTC),
>> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > "AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> > news:slrnc2d6bs.1b8....@namibia.tandem...
>> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:17:50 +0000 (UTC),
>> >> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > "AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> >> > news:slrnc2d1a5.17k....@namibia.tandem...
>> >> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:25:46 +0000 (UTC),
>> >> >> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:slrnc2cva3.1fs....@namibia.tandem...
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 05:57:26 +0000 (UTC),
>> >> >> >> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> >> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
>> >> >> >> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
>> >> >> >> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Goldschmidt didn't think so.
>> >> >> >> > Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google.
>> >> >> > com
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Let me get this straight. Speciation doesn't occur? Is this what
>you
>> > are
>> >> >> >> saying David? Please don't answer with a URL. Just answer yes or
>no.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> > What is speciation, AC? It may be helpful to David in answer to your
>> > sincere
>> >> >> > question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fair enough. How about we go with a simple one, like a parent
>population
>> >> >> splitting into reproductively isolated populations, and where changes
>> >> >> accumulate sufficiently so that reproduction is no longer possible.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now, does this occur or not, Glenn? Yes or no will do.
>> >> >>
>> >> > What do you mean by changes? Do you mean that these changes
>> >> > result in the parent population splitting into isolated populations?
>> >> > And is inability to reproduce a requirement for speciation?
>> >>
>> >> I knew better than to get involved in this thread. At this level, I don't
>> >> think it matters what the changes are, but that they are hereditary
>changes.
>> >>
>> > Not necessarily hereditary changes, AC.
>> >
>> >> Now Glenn, does speciation occur or doesn't it?
>> >>
>> > You haven't answered the question yet.
>>
>> I did. I'm not debating mechanism. I'm asking you whether speciation
>> happens or not. In classic Glenn Sheldon fashion you seem awfully shy to
>> answer.
>>
>I asked you what speciation is, and you have so far avoided answering.
>The one generalization you made about a complex subject was wrong.
>> >
how was the answer wrong, it was a perfectly workable and acceptable
answer and suffiecient for the purposes of almost any discussion. you
asked him to give a definition. he gave -a- definiton. you seem to
have a problem with that definiton. so it would appear that you are
saying that this, in fact, does -not- happen. In which case you are
demonstrating that you're completely and (proabably willfully)
ignorant when it comes to biology.
>> > You likely think this is a game, but it is you who
>> > are asking for a yes/no answer.
>>
>> Glenn, it's you who treats this like a game, playing word games,
>> quote-mining and the like.
>>
>Yes, you would regard asking for a specific answer as a game.
>Don't bother with the whine about "quote-mining" for my benefit,
>AC, it is to your readers that you try to persuade.
what readers? who needs persuading? persuading that you are being
foolish? anyone who can read can see that.
>
>> The question stands, Glenn. Does speciation occur or not? Yes or no will
>> do.
>>
>I'm afraid it will not do.
you have already said that it does not occur according to that
definition.
R.Schenck
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
>"Ian Braidwood" <diri...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:53ad390d.0402...@posting.google.com...
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
>news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
>> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
>> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
>>
>> There are no seperate processes of micro and macro-evolution, and no
>> scientist ever said there was.
>>
>"The very term macroevolution is enough to make an ultra-Darwinian
>snarl. Macroevolution is counterpoised with microevolution-
>generation by generation selection-mediated change in gene
>frequencies within populations. The debate is over the question, Are
>conventional Darwinian microevolutionary processes sufficient to
>explain the entire history of life? To ultra-Darwinians, the very term
>macroevolution suggests that the answer automatically no. To them,
>macroevolution implies the action of processes-even genetic
>processes-that are as yet unknown must be imagined to yield a
>satisfactory explanation of the history of life." (Eldredge N.,
>"Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate", 1996, pp126-
>127)
>> The only difference between the two topics is the timescale over which
>> evolution is examined, so macro-evolution is exactly the same process
>> as micro-evolution.
>>
>
>See above.
>
the above does not provide a response to that. its not as if eldridge
was saying that you could stop micro-evolution and yet still get
anything like what we have on a macroevolutionary scale.
macro-evolution is of course a still not concretely defined word and
seems to be used in different ways by different people.
> > You would expect to find greater variation at macro-evolutionary
>> timescales, because there has been more time for genetic changes to
>> occure and more importantly, accumulate within any genome.
>>
>That is not useful, and is not consistent with your statements above.
what is not consistent with it? he is saying the only difference is
time and scale in both portions of the post.
david ford
> david ford wrote:
>
> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
> >
>
Never.
When did Darwin become divinely infallible?
> <shrug>
>
> Is there a scientific theory of creation?
What do you mean by [LF]"scientific"?
> If there is, is Ford just too
> stupid and uninformed to know what it is? Or is he just being
> deliberately dishonest and evasive by refusing to answer that simple
> question?
Jon Fleming
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
Geez, you're not even any good at imitating Goodrich.
--
Replace nospam with group to email
Glenn
"Jon Fleming" <jo...@fleming-nospam.com> wrote in message
news:kmkd20hktc17eeroq...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 21:36:00 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >news:slrnc2d9vc.1n0....@namibia.tandem...
> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:28:26 +0000 (UTC),
> >> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >> > news:slrnc2d6bs.1b8....@namibia.tandem...
> >> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:17:50 +0000 (UTC),
> >> >> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:slrnc2d1a5.17k....@namibia.tandem...
> >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 18:25:46 +0000 (UTC),
> >> >> >> Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > "AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> >> >> >> > news:slrnc2cva3.1fs....@namibia.tandem...
> >> >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 05:57:26 +0000 (UTC),
> >> >> >> >> david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
> >> >> >> >> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> >> >> >> >> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Goldschmidt didn't think so.
> >> >> >> >> > Goldschmidt and macro- vs. microevolution
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
>
>http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311639.3dc8e050%40posting.google
John Wilkins
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 13:11:24 +0000 (UTC),
> al1...@hotmail.com <al1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Perhaps we're jumping to conclusions by saying that someone who
> > questions whether microevolution leads to macroevolution. It is
> > possible that this person really does accept evolution but is simply
> > not particularly knowledgeable, and has read a book/s saying that
> > accumulated microevolution might not explain macroevolution.
> >
> > On the other hand I do agree it does sound like a creationist
> > question. As far as I can tell from my reading, the general consensus
> > is that most evolutionary biologists are relatively confident that
> > macroevolution is simply the accumulation of smaller change. Those
> > scientists who disagree are a minority (one that is getting smaller
> > all the time) but not necessarily anti-evolutionists.
>
> Actually, there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
> scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
> microevolution. The number who continue to believe that macroevolution
> is just a whole bunch of microevolution is shrinking rapidly.
How have you done that census, Larry? Is it impressionistic, or can you
give evidence?
Myself, I think that the decoupling movement is probably either stalled
or open to disputes about theory reduction. Certainly there are a number
of recent articles on that front arguing that higher level processes are
necessary (e.g., the Hurst one cited by Glenn) but I don't see much
movement on the overall acceptance of this. 'Course, I don't speak to
such folk much, being a hated philosopher :-)
>
> We're at a strange point in time where the vast majority of
> non-scientists are just catching up with modern (1960's) ideas of
> evolution. They are being taught in school that microevolution
> is a fact and they are being taught that macroevolution is nothing
> more than cumulative microevolution. This isn't a bad thing since
> it represent the triumph of the Modern Sythesis and the defeat of
> several silly ideas like hopeful monsters.
>
> However, real modern evolutionary theory has moved on since the 60's
> and it's now widely recognized that there are lots of things going
> on at the macroevolutionary level that can't be completely
> explained by changes in the frequrencies of alleles in a population.
>
> None of these things are magical. They include various speciation
> mechanisms and mass extinctions, for example. They also include the
> possibility of more controversial mechanisms such as species selection
> - also called species sorting.
>
> Gould was a major proponent of a hierarchical theory of evolution
> that allowed for distinct mechanisms of macroevolution.
>
> It's clear that the Creationists don't know what they are talking
> about when they criticize evolution in general and macroevolution
> in particular. However, let's not compound their ignorance by
> pretending that macroevolution can be completely explained by lots
> of microevolution. That's not a true representation of modern
> evolutionary theory.
>
>
>
> Larry Moran
--
John Wilkins
wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
"Rev Dr" Lenny Flank
Glenn wrote:
Nice answer, Glenn. Do you have a point to make (other than
demonstrating once again that you are an intellectual eunuch)?
Fredric L. Rice
>Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
There's no such thing as "micro evolution" or "macro evolution." Those
are notion dreamed up by religious cultists. There is, however evolition,
a directly observed phenomena not subject to belief or disbelief but
certainly subject to acceptance or denial, just like gravitation.
---
CAUTION: Reading these Scientology "secrets" will give you pneumonia:
http://sf.irk.ru/www/ot3/otiii-gif.html http://w4u.eexi.gr/~antbos/XENU.HTM
AC
And here we have Glenn Sheldon running for the hills. This is what Mike
Goodrich and "Dr." Jason Gastrich do as well. When they're cornered on
something they cannot deny, they will refuse to answer. Your refusal to
answer is all the answer I need Glenn. You know damn well that speciation
occurs and has been observed. I will never cease to be amazed at how
fundemental is the intellectual cowardice of the Creationist.
AC
Yes, you ran away from it. Have you been taking lessons from Pope Goodrich?
r norman
<glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
>"Ian Braidwood" <diri...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:53ad390d.0402...@posting.google.com...
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
>news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
>> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
>> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
>>
>> There are no seperate processes of micro and macro-evolution, and no
>> scientist ever said there was.
>>
>"The very term macroevolution is enough to make an ultra-Darwinian
>snarl. Macroevolution is counterpoised with microevolution-
>generation by generation selection-mediated change in gene
>frequencies within populations. The debate is over the question, Are
>conventional Darwinian microevolutionary processes sufficient to
>explain the entire history of life? To ultra-Darwinians, the very term
>macroevolution suggests that the answer automatically no. To them,
>macroevolution implies the action of processes-even genetic
>processes-that are as yet unknown must be imagined to yield a
>satisfactory explanation of the history of life." (Eldredge N.,
>"Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate", 1996, pp126-
>127)
I do not have Eldredge with me so I can't comment on your citation.
However, the real question is what do you really mean by conventional
Darwinian"? Or perhaps, what do you mean by "ultra-Darwinian"?
Can you not imagine that modern evolutionary biologists have gone past
purely Darwinian ideas about biology by our knowledge of the role of
genes in development. Can you not imagine that evolution in general
has changed over the last 150 years?
The question is not even "can the same processes that account for
allele changes within a population account for speciation and the
origin of higher taxa". It is really "can the same processes that we
know of based on the laws of chemistry and physics and of the
relationship between genotype and phenotype and of the survival and
reproduction of organisms in various environments account for both
changes in allele frequencies within a population and also for the
origin of species and of higher taxa? The answer is yes.
Ken Shaw
The common usage among biologist seems to be that macroevolution is
evolution above the species level.
Ken
Ken Shaw
Larry Moran wrote:
Is there some evolutionary process that doesn't boil down to mutation,
drift and selection?
Ken
Chris Ho-Stuart
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>
>>Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
>
> There's no such thing as "micro evolution" or "macro evolution." Those
> are notion dreamed up by religious cultists. There is, however evolition,
> a directly observed phenomena not subject to belief or disbelief but
> certainly subject to acceptance or denial, just like gravitation.
That is not correct.
Microevolution and macroevolution are terms in good standing which
were coined by scientists and remain used in real evolutionary
biology.
For example:
"Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan"
by Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine Mcginnis & William Mcginnis
in Nature 415, 914 - 917 (21 February 2002).
and
"Mammalian microevolution: Rapid change in mouse mitochondrial DNA"
by Oliver R.W. Pergams, Wayne M. Barnes, Dennis Nyberg
in Nature 423, 397 (22 May 2003)
There are thousands of similar instances of legitimate use of
these terms in normal scientific discourse. The notion was
not dreamed up by creationists.
For more information, try reading
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html>
Cheers -- Chris
David
> David wrote:
> > Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> >>>You fundamentally misunderstood the point I was making in the
> >>>posts leading to the one you reference here. I wasn't arguing
> >>>that evolution above the species level doesn't occur but that
> >>>since the processes involved are the same as those that occur
> >>>within a species that the micro/macro terms were of no utility.
> >>I don't agree with Ken. In my opinion there's a good case to be
> >>made that macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution. We
> >>may not be able to say with confidence that species sorting and
> >>other mechanisms occur frequently but we've surely progressed
> >>beyond the stage where we can dogmatically state that macroevolution
> >>is no different than microevolution. That's just not correct. The
> >>best one can say at the present time is that the question is
> >>still being debated.
> The common usage among biologist seems to be that macroevolution is
> evolution above the species level.
>
> Ken
So any mutation that occurs after a speciation event is regarded as
macroevolution?
Microevolution is mutations that contribute to the gene pool within a
species?
I suppose my real confusion is from a mechanistic point of view I do not
see a distinction between micro and macroevolution and yet Larry Moran
seems to be implying (I may have got this wrong) that we should regard
these as distinct? But maybe he is not referring to it in a mechanistic
way.
Even if he not referring to mechanisms, what if speciation does not
occur overnight but may be due to a gradual decline in interbreeding,
then the distinction between micro and macro seems a bit arbitrary.
Where do we draw the line, it seems there is some overlap between macro
and microevolution (i.e. fuzzy boundary).
Why is it important to distinguish these evolutionary stages anyway?
david
Larry Moran
John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>> Actually, there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
>> scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
>> microevolution. The number who continue to believe that
>> macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution is shrinking
>> rapidly.
>
> How have you done that census, Larry? Is it impressionistic, or can
> you give evidence?
It's just my impression. I notice that most papers that discuss
macroevolution pay some lip service to the fact that there may
be higher level processes. This is a big change from 20 years
ago when everyone believed that microevolution explained everything.
It seems to me that most scientists now recognize that speciation
is important and they know that speciation isn't covered by
microevolution.
> Myself, I think that the decoupling movement is probably either
> stalled or open to disputes about theory reduction. Certainly there
> are a number of recent articles on that front arguing that higher
> level processes are necessary (e.g., the Hurst one cited by Glenn)
> but I don't see much movement on the overall acceptance of this.
> 'Course, I don't speak to such folk much, being a hated philosopher
> :-)
Can you think of any prominent evolutionary biologist who strongly
believes that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution?
I don't think you'll find too many who want to defend that idea
in its strictest sense. This means that there has been a lot of
movement toward Gould and his ideas.
Larry Moran
Eros
> "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrnc2d40t....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca...
> > > posts leading to the one you reference here. I wasn't arguing
> > > that evolution above the species level doesn't occur but that
> > > since the processes involved are the same as those that occur
> > > within a species that the micro/macro terms were of no utility.
> > >
> > > evolution than drift and selection, he was writing in 1940 and
> > > much more has been learned since then ( including for instance
> > > functionally everything about DNA ).
> >
> > made that macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution. We
> > may not be able to say with confidence that species sorting and
> > other mechanisms occur frequently but we've surely progressed
> > beyond the stage where we can dogmatically state that macroevolution
> > is no different than microevolution. That's just not correct. The
> > best one can say at the present time is that the question is
> > still being debated.
> >
> >
> of "evolution", "microevolution", "speciation", "macroevolution",
> "common descent" to --- "shit happens". That would prevent
> anything slipping through the "cracks".
I think any rational scientist I would prefer "shit happens" to
"Goddidit!", Sheldon.
EROS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Academy sees no objection to the teaching of creationism in
schools as part of a course in dogmatic or comparative religion, or in
some other non-scientific context. There are no grounds, however, for
requiring that creationism be taught as part of a science course." --
Australian Academy of Science, extract from å…¨tatement on
Creationism'.
George Patton
> is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
>
Patton does think so.
Do pennies lead to dollars?
Do minutes lead to days?
Patton think 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 do not = 1.
Larry Moran
Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote:
> Larry Moran wrote:
[snip]
>> I don't agree with Ken. In my opinion there's a good case to be
>> made that macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution. We
>> may not be able to say with confidence that species sorting and
>> other mechanisms occur frequently but we've surely progressed
>> beyond the stage where we can dogmatically state that macroevolution
>> is no different than microevolution. That's just not correct. The
>> best one can say at the present time is that the question is
>> still being debated.
>
> Is there some evolutionary process that doesn't boil down to
> mutation, drift and selection?
In order to explain macroevolutionary trends you have to invoke
the birth and death of species over time. It's hard to argue that
changes in the frequency of alleles within a population are all
that is needed to explain speciation and extinction. The trends
require more explanation than that.
Speciation and extinction are perhaps the most obvious example of
things that happen at a higher level. Species sorting is more
controversial. The idea behind species sorting is that groups of
*species* can form a clade that behaves like a population where
the *species* are the individuals. Individual species can expand
in size or become extinct within the clade just as alleles can
expand or disappear within a population of individuals. In this
way the clade (= group of species) evolves over long periods of
time.
Lots of evolutionary biologists are paying attention to the
possibility of species sorting.
All of the higher level processes take place on top of the
standard microevolutionary mechanisms. Thus, microevolution
is necessary, but not sufficient, for macroevolution.
Larry Moran
John Wilkins
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 00:50:08 +0000 (UTC),
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Actually, there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
> >> scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
> >> microevolution. The number who continue to believe that
> >> macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution is shrinking
> >> rapidly.
> >
> > How have you done that census, Larry? Is it impressionistic, or can
> > you give evidence?
>
> It's just my impression. I notice that most papers that discuss
> macroevolution pay some lip service to the fact that there may
> be higher level processes. This is a big change from 20 years
> ago when everyone believed that microevolution explained everything.
>
> It seems to me that most scientists now recognize that speciation
> is important and they know that speciation isn't covered by
> microevolution.
Well, by definition :-) But more substantively, I think that everyone
accepts that there are extra-specific factors involved, such as
coevolution, biogeography, climatology, etc. The issue is whether there
are any *endogenous biological* factors to speciation - that is, factors
affecting only the biology of the species involved - that are not
reducible to population genetic causal factors.
I think I should list the proposed pluralist mechanisms in the new FAQ
(which, when I just finish the other 18 postdoctoral things on my list,
I shall get back to). Would you like to suggest some (e.g.,
developmental canalisation, phylotypy, species sorting/selection)?
>
> > Myself, I think that the decoupling movement is probably either
> > stalled or open to disputes about theory reduction. Certainly there
> > are a number of recent articles on that front arguing that higher
> > level processes are necessary (e.g., the Hurst one cited by Glenn)
> > but I don't see much movement on the overall acceptance of this.
> > 'Course, I don't speak to such folk much, being a hated philosopher
> > :-)
>
> Can you think of any prominent evolutionary biologist who strongly
> believes that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution?
> I don't think you'll find too many who want to defend that idea
> in its strictest sense. This means that there has been a lot of
> movement toward Gould and his ideas.
>
Well I've met one at least, although how prominent you think John
Maynard Smith is, is up to you. It seems to me that the British
tradition is usually monist, while the European/American tradition is
pluralist on this question. Exception: George Williams is probably a
monist.
John Wilkins
> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
> >
> > Goldschmidt didn't think so.
Goldschmidt thought a lot of things. many of them were false, as it
turned out.
>
>
> Patton does think so.
>
> Do pennies lead to dollars?
>
> Do minutes lead to days?
>
> Patton think 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1 do not = 1.
Consider an analogous problem - are the courses of rivers due to erosion
due to water flow?
Yes - there is no mechanism involved in the cutting of a river channel
but the flow of the river itself through gravity. No, because there are
geological formations of varying hardness, climatological shifts that
vary the rainfall carried, and tectonic shifts that take the river bed
itself through various climate zones.
If a river dries up because of one or more causes other than those
involved in river flow (i.e., excluding accidental damming of the flow),
then one cannot say that the state and path of the river is just the
accrual (sum) of hydrodynamics.
Some of the debate in macroevolution is like asking - are there
mechanisms of river erosion that are not caused by the hydrodynamics and
physics of flowing water, but of some other property of water? How that
gets answered is a matter, in part, of how one categorises properties of
things.
Then you get the philosophers, who ask silly questions like - can we
reduce the properties of water to the properties of water molecules? Are
the laws of hydrodynamics emergent or pre-existent? Can you step in the
same river twice, and is it right to tread on the rights of poor
watercourses like that?
Eventually, the philosophers get drowned by hydrologists...
catshark
wrote:
>On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:11:56 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
><glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ian Braidwood" <diri...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>>news:53ad390d.0402...@posting.google.com...
>>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
>>news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>>> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
>>> > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
>>> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
>>>
>>> There are no seperate processes of micro and macro-evolution, and no
>>> scientist ever said there was.
>>>
>>"The very term macroevolution is enough to make an ultra-Darwinian
>>snarl. Macroevolution is counterpoised with microevolution-
>>generation by generation selection-mediated change in gene
>>frequencies within populations. The debate is over the question, Are
>>conventional Darwinian microevolutionary processes sufficient to
>>explain the entire history of life? To ultra-Darwinians, the very term
>>macroevolution suggests that the answer automatically no. To them,
>>macroevolution implies the action of processes-even genetic
>>processes-that are as yet unknown must be imagined to yield a
>>satisfactory explanation of the history of life." (Eldredge N.,
>>"Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate", 1996, pp126-
>>127)
>
>I do not have Eldredge with me so I can't comment on your citation.
I have it. The following is from the paragraphs before and after Glenn's
snippet:
With the publication of our 1972 paper on punctuated
equilibria, paleontologists once again began to pick up the Simp-
sonian theme that large-scale patterns in evolutionary history
cannot be explained as a simple, in-principle, fallout of business-
as-usual natural selection within local populations. Ultra-Dar-
winians were wrong when they asserted that we were throwing
out the body of Darwinian insight on adaptive change through
natural selection with the bathwater of reductionism. But we
definitely were saying that the large-scale patterns of the history
of life, such as evolutionary trends and the relation between
extinction and evolution, demanded additional explanation.
This additional theoretical treatment must go beyond the simple
handwaving extrapolationism that to this day forms the very
heart of ultra-Darwinian treatments of "macroevolutionary''
large-scale evolutionary events and patterns.
[Part quoted by Glenn]
But macroevolution need not carry such heavy conceptual
baggage. In its most basic usage, it simply means evolution on a
large-scale. In particular, to some biologists, it suggests the ori-
gin of major groups -- such as the origin and radiation of mam-
mals, or the derivation of whales and bats from terrestrial mam-
malian ancestors. Such sorts of events may or may not demand
additional theory for their explanation. Traditional Darwinian
explanation, of course, insists not.
And on page 128:
That is really all we naturalists have been trying to achieve:
to formulate the circumstances and context in which microevo-
lutionary change works in evolutionary real time. We have elab-
orated only one significant piece of additional theory: species
sorting.
>However, the real question is what do you really mean by conventional
>Darwinian"? Or perhaps, what do you mean by "ultra-Darwinian"?
I don't know what Glenn means, but Eldredge says:
The real differences lie in the contrasting treatments of a
core set of basic issues--the themes and issues of this book. I
mention them here simply to set the Table and to identify the
protagonists among the dinner guests. At the very heart of the
matter lies natural selection. Ultra-Darwinians have adopted the
stance that natural selection is the central evolutionary process.
But, in so doing, they have significantly altered the very basic
conceptualization of natural selection. In a nutshell, ultra-Dar-
winians see natural selection as competition (among members of
the same species) for reproductive success. But that is not all.
Ultra-Danvinians see all competition, including competition for
food and other economic resources, as fundamentally an epiphe-
nomenon of the real competition: competition for reproductive
success.
(p. 4-5)
And this:
Now, I disagree with the ultra-Darwinians on many things,
but we all agree on the core fact of adaptation. That is, the basic
way that natural selection acts to shape, hone, and conserve
adaptations -- though conservation of adaptation is a point
wholly ignored until recently by ultra-Darwinians.
(p. 34-35)
>
>Can you not imagine that modern evolutionary biologists have gone past
>purely Darwinian ideas about biology by our knowledge of the role of
>genes in development. Can you not imagine that evolution in general
>has changed over the last 150 years?
>
>The question is not even "can the same processes that account for
>allele changes within a population account for speciation and the
>origin of higher taxa". It is really "can the same processes that we
>know of based on the laws of chemistry and physics and of the
>relationship between genotype and phenotype and of the survival and
>reproduction of organisms in various environments account for both
>changes in allele frequencies within a population and also for the
>origin of species and of higher taxa? The answer is yes.
>
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
pz
john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote:
> George Patton <gpa...@bayou.com> wrote:
>
> > dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
> > > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
> > > is macroevolution simply microevolution writ large--
> > > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
> > >
> > > Goldschmidt didn't think so.
>
> Goldschmidt thought a lot of things. many of them were false, as it
> turned out.
But also a lot of things that were interesting and provocative, and
really aren't answered well (if at all) by simple extrapolation from
microevolutionary events: for instance, morphological differences
between sexes and life stages, and phenocopies. I don't know that
his ideas about those things are entirely false. I've read some of
his work, and found it wasn't quite the ignorant abomination that
people like Mayr would have us believe.
--
pz http://pharyngula.org/
David
This is a good explanaition.
I have one more question. Has macroevolution changed as a definition
over the last twenty years? I am wondering since we have seen a change
in the way that epigenetic is defined due to misuse, or change of usage,
depending on how you look at it. The reason I ask is that a change in
definition of macroevolution may account for why more biologists accept
the distinction between macro and micro now compared to twenty years
ago.
If the definition has not changed then what has tipped the balance for
this distiction between the two terms? You mentioned the species
sorting, for example, is this a new concept?
David
Ken Shaw
All I see from this is that biologists are using higher level
abstractions for the way that well understood evolutionary processes
function across multiple populations. Extinction is well explained by
selection while speciation is certainly a combination of mutation, drift
and selection. Species sorting appears to be an attempt to model the
success and failure of related species which comes down to well
understood evolutionary mechanisms.
While abstractions are a useful tool, the use of abstractions should not
be thought of as independent of or as replacements for the underlying
concepts.
Ken
Michael Siemon
john.w...@bigpond.com (John Wilkins) wrote:
> Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
....
> > Can you think of any prominent evolutionary biologist who strongly
> > believes that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution?
> > I don't think you'll find too many who want to defend that idea
> > in its strictest sense. This means that there has been a lot of
> > movement toward Gould and his ideas.
> >
>
> Well I've met one at least, although how prominent you think John
> Maynard Smith is, is up to you. It seems to me that the British
> tradition is usually monist, while the European/American tradition is
> pluralist on this question. Exception: George Williams is probably a
> monist.
Gould's brick has a number of fairly recent quotes from Williams
that suggest he is not (these days) particularly monistic about
this. I'm not going to dig them out at the moment, and I haven't
read the originals anyway, to check Gould's take on them, but I
assume you could get at them from the index.
John Wilkins
Of course. I did not mean to buy into the standard Hate Goldschmidt for
five minutes every day...
david ford
> al1...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<haydnY3Ixc0...@comcast.com>...
What is meant by [LF]"scientific"?
> >>No.
> >>
> >>>If there is, is Ford just too stupid and uninformed to know
> >>>what it is?
> >>
> >>Creationists are too stupid to realize "I don't want evolution
> >>to be true" isn't a theory. I mean, if that's what you're asking.
> >
> > Perhaps we're jumping to conclusions by saying that someone who
> > questions whether microevolution leads to macroevolution. It is
> > possible that this person really does accept evolution but is simply
> > not particularly knowledgeable, and has read a book/s saying that
> > accumulated microevolution might not explain macroevolution.
>
> This is not the first time we have heard from this person.
To illustrate, see
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.95.970709233254.17288E-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
> > On the other hand I do agree it does sound like a creationist
> > question. As far as I can tell from my reading,
What are 2 of those reading sources?
> > the general consensus
> > is that most evolutionary biologists are relatively confident that
> > macroevolution is simply the accumulation of smaller change. Those
> > scientists who disagree are a minority (one that is getting smaller
> > all the time) but not necessarily anti-evolutionists.
>
> And they are heavily regurgiquoted by the creationists.
John Wilkins
allan m
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 00:50:08 +0000 (UTC),
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> believes that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution?
> I don't think you'll find too many who want to defend that idea
> in its strictest sense. This means that there has been a lot of
> movement toward Gould and his ideas.
>
>
> Larry Moran
>
Richard Dawkins?
mel turner
Ho-Stuart] wrote...
>In talk.origins Fredric L. Rice <Fr...@skeptictank.remove.org> wrote:
>> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote:
>>
>>>Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
>>
>> There's no such thing as "micro evolution" or "macro evolution." Those
>> are notion dreamed up by religious cultists. There is, however evolition,
>> a directly observed phenomena not subject to belief or disbelief but
>> certainly subject to acceptance or denial, just like gravitation.
>
>That is not correct.
But it's an impression easily gotten from creationists' misuse of the
terms.
>Microevolution and macroevolution are terms in good standing which
>were coined by scientists and remain used in real evolutionary
>biology.
>For example:
> "Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan"
> by Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine Mcginnis & William Mcginnis
> in Nature 415, 914 - 917 (21 February 2002).
>and
> "Mammalian microevolution: Rapid change in mouse mitochondrial DNA"
> by Oliver R.W. Pergams, Wayne M. Barnes, Dennis Nyberg
> in Nature 423, 397 (22 May 2003)
>
>There are thousands of similar instances of legitimate use of
>these terms in normal scientific discourse. The notion was
>not dreamed up by creationists.
But of course creationists rarely if ever use these legitimate terms
correctly. Much of what they often consider "just microevolution"
would fit the biologists' definition of "macroevolution".
>For more information, try reading
> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html>
cheers
Larry Moran
[snip]
>> It's just my impression. I notice that most papers that discuss
>> macroevolution pay some lip service to the fact that there may
>> be higher level processes. This is a big change from 20 years
>> ago when everyone believed that microevolution explained everything.
>>
>> It seems to me that most scientists now recognize that speciation
>> is important and they know that speciation isn't covered by
>> microevolution.
>
> Well, by definition :-) But more substantively, I think that everyone
> accepts that there are extra-specific factors involved, such as
> coevolution, biogeography, climatology, etc. The issue is whether there
> are any *endogenous biological* factors to speciation - that is, factors
> affecting only the biology of the species involved - that are not
> reducible to population genetic causal factors.
I think I understand the problem. When scientists refer to microevolution
they have in mind a "process", namely the change in the frequency of
alleles within an evolving population.
Macroevolution, on the other hand, does not refer to a process. The
term is used as the description of a discipline or a field of study.
Scientists who study macroevolution are interested in long-term
changes in the history of life. I'd like to quote from Jeffrey S.
Levinton's book "Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution" (2nd ed.)
to illustrate this point. Levinton is not a fan of Gould so he can't
be accused of bias in that direction. Beginning on page 6, he says ...
"Macroevolution must be a field that embraces the ecological
theatre, including the range of time scales of the ecologist,
to the sweeping historical changes available only to
paleontological study. It must include the peculiarities of
history, which must have had singular effects on the directions
that the composition of the world's biota took (e.g. the
splitting of continents, the establishment of land and oceanic
isthumses). It must take the entire network of phylogenetic
relationships and impose a framework of genetic relationships
and appearances of character changes. Then the nature of
evolutionary directions and the qualitiative transformation
of ancestor to descendant over major taxonomic distances
must be explained."
Levington then goes on to draw a parallel between microevolution and
macroevolution on the one hand, and physics and astronomy on the other.
He points out that the structure and history of the known universe
has to be consistent with modern physics but that's not sufficient.
He gives the big bang as an example of a cosmological hypothesis
that doesn't derive directly from fundamental physics. I think the
analogy is insightful. Astronomers study the life and death of
stars and the interactions of galaxies. Explanations of these "macro"
studies depend on the correctness of the underlying "micro" physics
phenomena (e.g. gravity, relativity) but there's more to the field of
astronomy than that.
Levington continues ....
"Does the evolutionary biologist differ very much from this
scheme of inference? A set of organisms exists today in a
partially measurable state of spatial, morphological, and
chemical relationships. We have a set of physical and
biological laws that might be used to construct predictions
about the outcome of the evolutioary process. But, as we
all know, we are not very successful, except at solving
problems at small scales. We have plausible explanations for
the reason why moths living in industrialized areas are rich
in dark pigment, but we don't know whether or why life
arose more than once or why some groups became extinct
(e.g., the dinosaurs) whereas others managed to survive
(e.g., horseshoe crabs). Either our laws are inadequate and
we have not described the available evidence properly or
no such laws can be devised to predict uniquely what should
have happened in the history of life. For better or worse,
macroevolutionary biology is as much historical as is
astronomy, perhaps with looser laws and more diverse objectives.
If history is bunk, then macroevolutionary studies are ...
well, draw your own conclusions!
Indeed, the most profound problem in the study of evolution
is to understand how poorly repeatable historical events
(e.g., the trapping of an endemic radiation in a lake that
dries up) can be distinguished from lawlike repeatable
processes. A law that states 'an endemic radiation will
become extinct if its structural habitat disappears' has
no force because it maps to the singularity of a historical
event."
I think it's important to appreciate what evolutonary biologists
are saying. There's an important difference between evolutionary
theory and the real history of life. The actual history has to
be consistent with modern theory (it is) but the actual unique
sequence of historical events doesn't follow directly from application
of the theoretical mechanisms. These biological mechanisms are part
of a much larger picture that includes moving continents, asteroid
impacts, ice ages, contingency etc. The field of macroevolution
addresses these big picture issues.
Macroevolutionary theory tries to identify patterns and trends that
help us understand the big picture. In some cases, the macroevolution
biologists have recognized generalities (theories & hypotheses) that
only apply to higher level processes. Punctuated equilibria and
species sorting are examples of such higher level phenomena. The
possible repeatedness of mass extinctions might be another.
Because it deals with history, macroevolution should not be
contrasted with microevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution
are not competing explanations of the history of life any more than
astronomy and physics compete for the correct explanation of the
history of the known universe. Both types of explanation are
required.
> I think I should list the proposed pluralist mechanisms in the new
> FAQ (which, when I just finish the other 18 postdoctoral things on
> my list, I shall get back to). Would you like to suggest some (e.g.,
> developmental canalisation, phylotypy, species sorting/selection)?
I think species sorting is the easiest higher level phenomena to
describe. It illustrates a mechanism that is clearly distinct from
changes in the frequencies of alleles within a population. In this
sense, it will help explain why microevolution isn't a sufficient
explanation for the evolution of life. Of course, you need to emphasize
that macroevolution must be consistent with microevolution.
If we could track a single lineage throught time, say from a single-
cell protist to Homo sapiens, then we would see a long series of
mutations and fixations as each ancestral population evolved. It
might look as though the entire history could be accounted for by
microevolutionary processes. This is an illusion. That track would
not explain why Neanderthals became extinct but Cro-Magnon survived.
It would not explain why modern humans arose in Africa. It would not
tell us why placental mammals became more successful than the
dinosaurs. It would not explain why humans don't have wings and
can't breathe underwater. It doesn't tell us whether replaying the
tape of life will automatically lead to humans. All of those things
are part of the domain of macroevolution.
>> > Myself, I think that the decoupling movement is probably either
>> > stalled or open to disputes about theory reduction. Certainly there
>> > are a number of recent articles on that front arguing that higher
>> > level processes are necessary (e.g., the Hurst one cited by Glenn)
>> > but I don't see much movement on the overall acceptance of this.
>> > 'Course, I don't speak to such folk much, being a hated philosopher
>> > :-)
>>
>> Can you think of any prominent evolutionary biologist who strongly
>> believes that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution?
>> I don't think you'll find too many who want to defend that idea
>> in its strictest sense. This means that there has been a lot of
>> movement toward Gould and his ideas.
>
> Well I've met one at least, although how prominent you think John
> Maynard Smith is, is up to you. It seems to me that the British
> tradition is usually monist, while the European/American tradition is
> pluralist on this question. Exception: George Williams is probably a
> monist.
You may be right about Maynard Smith.
Larry Moran
Ian Braidwood
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:11:56 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Ian Braidwood" <diri...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> >news:53ad390d.0402...@posting.google.com...
> >> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
> news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> >> > is all macroevolution simply accumulated microevolution?
> >>
> >> scientist ever said there was.
> >>
> >"The very term macroevolution is enough to make an ultra-Darwinian
> >snarl. Macroevolution is counterpoised with microevolution-
> >generation by generation selection-mediated change in gene
> >frequencies within populations. The debate is over the question, Are
> >conventional Darwinian microevolutionary processes sufficient to
> >explain the entire history of life? To ultra-Darwinians, the very term
> >macroevolution suggests that the answer automatically no. To them,
> >macroevolution implies the action of processes-even genetic
> >processes-that are as yet unknown must be imagined to yield a
> >satisfactory explanation of the history of life." (Eldredge N.,
> >"Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate", 1996, pp126-
> >127)
> >> evolution is examined, so macro-evolution is exactly the same process
> >> as micro-evolution.
> >>
> >
> >See above.
> >
>
> the above does not provide a response to that. its not as if eldridge
> was saying that you could stop micro-evolution and yet still get
> anything like what we have on a macroevolutionary scale.
> macro-evolution is of course a still not concretely defined word and
> seems to be used in different ways by different people.
Oh thank you. I was beginning to think I'd walked into a Monty Python
sketch. :-)
I have no problem with the terms micro and macro-evolution, so long as
there is no implication that they are seperate processes. That makes
me want to SPIT!
As far as I understand it, if you want to establish a causal
explanation for evolutionary trends, then you have to look at the
micro-evolutionary picture and extrapolate, because that is the scale
at which the process occures.
In this I feel that Eldredge is just plain wrong, though I don't think
- having read the extra excerpts posted elsewhere (thanks again :-) -
he was saying what Glenn thinks he was. As I read the excerpts,
Eldredge's complaint was that the accent of 'ultradarwinists' was too
much on reproductive success at the expense of adaptation to the
environment.
Of course adaptation is important, but if it doesn't lead to
reproductive success, then the genes simply won't get passed on to the
next generation, so adaptation to the environment _is_ an
epiphenomenon - though an interesting and important one.
> > > You would expect to find greater variation at macro-evolutionary
> >> timescales, because there has been more time for genetic changes to
> >> occure and more importantly, accumulate within any genome.
> >>
> >That is not useful, and is not consistent with your statements above.
>
> what is not consistent with it? he is saying the only difference is
> time and scale in both portions of the post.
Again, thank you. :-)
For Glenn, let me try to clarify:
I view a genome as a community of genes which travel through time in
the bodies of a collection of organisms we call a species. Within any
species any new individual can introduce mutations, which - if they
are successful at coexisting with the other genes in the species -
will be preserved within the genome; being swapped as individuals
within the species mate with one another.
Now, although the rate of benefitial mutation is slow, the number of
individuals within a species at any time could count in millions; so
the genome could steadily accumulate new benefitial genes and voila -
adaptation!
Notice that this process means that there is a tendency for the genome
to increase in size over time and this gives us a good candidate for a
macro-evolutionary trend.
More speculatively; as the size of the genome increases, this will
provide a selection pressure to improve the genetic machinery itself
with the result that individuals within a species may have to grow
larger, in order to provide for their ever more expensive genetic
machinery. Could this trend explain the emergence of large scale
organisms like us? I think so, but I'm only a layman.
What I find really fascinating is that potentially, all of this is in
Darwin. Now _that_ is visionary!
Regards,
(-: Ian :-)
JTEM
"Richard Smol" <jazzcat...@dds.nl> wrote
> david ford wrote:
> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
> Yes, they are the same mechanism.
I didn't think mutations were required to explain micro evolution,
while they are necessary to explain macro evolution.
R.Schenck
Braidwood) wrote:
>"R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<o9ed20hc9kl2vkf63...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:11:56 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
>> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Ian Braidwood" <diri...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>> >news:53ad390d.0402...@posting.google.com...
>> >> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
>> news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>> >> > Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
[nudge nudge, wink wink, know what i mean]
damn dirty dawkinist!
[/nudge nudge, wink wink, know what i mean]
> Within any
>species any new individual can introduce mutations, which - if they
>are successful at coexisting with the other genes in the species -
>will be preserved within the genome; being swapped as individuals
>within the species mate with one another.
>
>Now, although the rate of benefitial mutation is slow, the number of
>individuals within a species at any time could count in millions; so
>the genome could steadily accumulate new benefitial genes and voila -
>adaptation!
>
>Notice that this process means that there is a tendency for the genome
>to increase in size over time and this gives us a good candidate for a
>macro-evolutionary trend.
a problem with this would be that there doesn't appear to be any
correlation between genome size and 'complexity/adaptedness'.
>
>More speculatively; as the size of the genome increases, this will
>provide a selection pressure to improve the genetic machinery itself
>with the result that individuals within a species may have to grow
>larger, in order to provide for their ever more expensive genetic
>machinery. Could this trend explain the emergence of large scale
>organisms like us? I think so, but I'm only a layman.
>
by large scale do you perhaps mean multicellular?
i don't know about that. at least, it should be relatively
straghtforward to examine the issue, we coudl just look at the
machinery of animals above and below the hypothetical cutoff. but,
that wouldn't be fair, testing a theory. lets allow for equal
treatment for creationism and this theory, and therefore not test it
and just accept it, like mr. glenn wants people to do.
>What I find really fascinating is that potentially, all of this is in
>Darwin. Now _that_ is visionary!
>
yeah, darwin was truly revolutionary. the more you look at what he
did and how he went about it, the more you can see the stunning
implications of it. I really think he is a exemplar scientist.
snip
John Wilkins
Ultimately, all genetic variation arose as mutations. There need not me
mutation in any short period of microevolutioknary change, or even
across species, but eventually mutations will be needed if any great
change is to occur, and of course that is not a problem as mutations
occur in every individual and population all the time.
Ian Braidwood
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 18:24:31 +0000 (UTC), diri...@virgin.net (Ian
> Braidwood) wrote:
>
> >"R.Schenck" <nygdan_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<o9ed20hc9kl2vkf63...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 19:11:56 +0000 (UTC), "Glenn"
> >> <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Ian Braidwood" <diri...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> >> >news:53ad390d.0402...@posting.google.com...
> >> >> dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message
> news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
<SNIP!> I know, you wanted to read the whole lot again... It just
sucks, doesn't it? :-)
> >For Glenn, let me try to clarify:
> >
> >I view a genome as a community of genes which travel through time in
> >the bodies of a collection of organisms we call a species.
>
> [nudge nudge, wink wink, know what i mean]
> damn dirty dawkinist!
> [/nudge nudge, wink wink, know what i mean]
Aaagh! You... got... urgh! me.
In all fairness, I've only read the first three books more than once
and even The Selfish Gene only four times. :-)
[Is she a... goer? Your wife, a goer, Eh?]
> > Within any
> >species any new individual can introduce mutations, which - if they
> >are successful at coexisting with the other genes in the species -
> >will be preserved within the genome; being swapped as individuals
> >within the species mate with one another.
> >
> >Now, although the rate of benefitial mutation is slow, the number of
> >individuals within a species at any time could count in millions; so
> >the genome could steadily accumulate new benefitial genes and voila -
> >adaptation!
> >
> >Notice that this process means that there is a tendency for the genome
> >to increase in size over time and this gives us a good candidate for a
> >macro-evolutionary trend.
>
> a problem with this would be that there doesn't appear to be any
> correlation between genome size and 'complexity/adaptedness'.
Good point, but it does seem that evolution likes to build in massive
redudancy (perhaps this explains all those Christians ;-) and then, of
course there is selfish DNA. If (from our point of view) junk DNA can
get itself copied without handicaping the organism carrying it too
much, then there's no reason the genome couldn't grow beyond its
needs. For the organism, there could be a pay-off between the cost of
carrying the extra DNA and the cost of editing it out.
> >More speculatively; as the size of the genome increases, this will
> >provide a selection pressure to improve the genetic machinery itself
> >with the result that individuals within a species may have to grow
> >larger, in order to provide for their ever more expensive genetic
> >machinery. Could this trend explain the emergence of large scale
> >organisms like us? I think so, but I'm only a layman.
>
> by large scale do you perhaps mean multicellular?
Yes. I think that perhaps multi-cellular life is the eukaryotes' way
of competing with all those pesky prokaryotes. You can't trust a
prokaryote, take it from me.
> i don't know about that. at least, it should be relatively
> straghtforward to examine the issue, we coudl just look at the
> machinery of animals above and below the hypothetical cutoff. but,
> that wouldn't be fair, testing a theory. lets allow for equal
> treatment for creationism and this theory, and therefore not test it
> and just accept it, like mr. glenn wants people to do.
Speaking as someone who could do with the money, I'd be quite happy to
get equal treatment with ID, but you're right. Whilst it's fun
speculating, our ideas should be tested and dropped if they fail. I
guess I'm destined to be a pauper who loves the truth.
(Of course, I'd rather be a very rich man who loves the truth, so if
anyone would like to help me out on this, I do have a Paypal account.
:-)
TTFN,
(-: Ian :-)
John Wilkins
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 03:48:49 +0000 (UTC),
> John Wilkins <john.w...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> It's just my impression. I notice that most papers that discuss
> >> macroevolution pay some lip service to the fact that there may
> >> be higher level processes. This is a big change from 20 years
> >> ago when everyone believed that microevolution explained everything.
> >>
> >> It seems to me that most scientists now recognize that speciation
> >> is important and they know that speciation isn't covered by
> >> microevolution.
> >
> > Well, by definition :-) But more substantively, I think that everyone
> > accepts that there are extra-specific factors involved, such as
> > coevolution, biogeography, climatology, etc. The issue is whether there
> > are any *endogenous biological* factors to speciation - that is, factors
> > affecting only the biology of the species involved - that are not
> > reducible to population genetic causal factors.
>
> I think I understand the problem. When scientists refer to microevolution
> they have in mind a "process", namely the change in the frequency of
> alleles within an evolving population.
I would rather say they refer to a collection of models of processes.
>
> Macroevolution, on the other hand, does not refer to a process. The
> term is used as the description of a discipline or a field of study.
> Scientists who study macroevolution are interested in long-term
> changes in the history of life.
And here I would rather say that they refer to a historical description
of life's evolution. There is no consensus on the models from which
macroevolutionary trends (remember my vain distinction between
macroevolution, macroevolutionary patterns, and macroevolutionary trends
here) fall out, apart from a Markov Chain. We still aren't even able to
determine when a trend requires explanation (perhaps via sorting
effects) or when it is sufficient to say, this can be accounted for by
contingency and chance.
> I'd like to quote from Jeffrey S.
> Levinton's book "Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution" (2nd ed.)
> to illustrate this point. Levinton is not a fan of Gould so he can't
> be accused of bias in that direction.
In fact he dislikes Gould's treatment of macroevolution almost rabidly
:-)
In fact, in principle physics plus the initial state of the universe
must determine the gross structure of the universe rigidly on some
accounts, allowing for quantum effects if any. But our best physics ever
is likely still to merely provide us with many possible universes, only
one of which is the observed universe.
Microevolution sensu population genetics allows for many possible
phylogenies, only one of which is the one observed (leaving out the fact
that we cannot arrive at the One True Tree for epistemological reasons).
>
> Levington continues ....
>
> "Does the evolutionary biologist differ very much from this
> scheme of inference? A set of organisms exists today in a
> partially measurable state of spatial, morphological, and
> chemical relationships. We have a set of physical and
> biological laws that might be used to construct predictions
> about the outcome of the evolutionary process. But, as we
> all know, we are not very successful, except at solving
> problems at small scales. We have plausible explanations for
> the reason why moths living in industrialized areas are rich
> in dark pigment, but we don't know whether or why life
> arose more than once or why some groups became extinct
> (e.g., the dinosaurs) whereas others managed to survive
> (e.g., horseshoe crabs). Either our laws are inadequate and
> we have not described the available evidence properly or
> no such laws can be devised to predict uniquely what should
> have happened in the history of life. For better or worse,
> macroevolutionary biology is as much historical as is
> astronomy, perhaps with looser laws and more diverse objectives.
> If history is bunk, then macroevolutionary studies are ...
> well, draw your own conclusions!
>
> Indeed, the most profound problem in the study of evolution
> is to understand how poorly repeatable historical events
> (e.g., the trapping of an endemic radiation in a lake that
> dries up) can be distinguished from lawlike repeatable
> processes. A law that states 'an endemic radiation will
> become extinct if its structural habitat disappears' has
> no force because it maps to the singularity of a historical
> event."
>
I am of the school of thought that believes that laws in biology are
merely singular descriptions that generalise observations as far as
possible. There are no laws in the traditional sense of physical
determination in biology - and I would say there are none in chemistry,
physics or any other science either!
Any theoretical explanation, in my weird and marginalised viewpoint, is
a claim that the logical implications of a model closely match the
observed data within some arbitrarily restricted domain of phenomena.
Biology fails to incorporate into its physical models, for example,
tectonic plate movement, in aprt because we don't have one yet that will
predict (or retrodict) what plates do in purely theoretical terms, but
also and more importantly, because it is not part of the biological
"domain". Yet such things are immediately influential on what happens to
biological things (like when lakes dry up).
Moreover, *all* life is a singular event. If anything *does* have a
physical law approaching the old notions, they apply to
"indiscernibles", where the substitution of, say, one mass for another
or one gold atom for another, makes no appreciable difference to the
explanation. But try replacing one predator (say, a Siberian tiger) for
another (a Siberian fox) and see what it does to the model equations.
Organisms and groups of organisms are individuals and are discernibly
different. What is indiscernibly different in biology are abstractions -
"wing" or "eye". In actuality, there is only a bat wing or a trilobite
eye, and even then they vary in populations and species.
> I think it's important to appreciate what evolutonary biologists
> are saying. There's an important difference between evolutionary
> theory and the real history of life. The actual history has to
> be consistent with modern theory (it is) but the actual unique
> sequence of historical events doesn't follow directly from application
> of the theoretical mechanisms. These biological mechanisms are part
> of a much larger picture that includes moving continents, asteroid
> impacts, ice ages, contingency etc. The field of macroevolution
> addresses these big picture issues.
>
> Macroevolutionary theory tries to identify patterns and trends that
> help us understand the big picture. In some cases, the macroevolution
> biologists have recognized generalities (theories & hypotheses) that
> only apply to higher level processes. Punctuated equilibria and
> species sorting are examples of such higher level phenomena. The
> possible repeatedness of mass extinctions might be another.
>
> Because it deals with history, macroevolution should not be
> contrasted with microevolution. Microevolution and macroevolution
> are not competing explanations of the history of life any more than
> astronomy and physics compete for the correct explanation of the
> history of the known universe. Both types of explanation are
> required.
I do think, though, that microevolution is equally historical - for any
process of allele frequency change, you need the size of the population,
the panmixis parameters, the densities of allele frequencies, and the
selection "pressures" (which are themselves singular in each case). It's
just that we can over such singular things more easily than we could for
very large scale processes as occur in macroevolution.
Oh, I am. He said so in my hearing.
david ford
> Actually, there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
> scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
> is just a whole bunch of microevolution is shrinking rapidly.
>
> non-scientists are just catching up with modern (1960's) ideas of
> evolution. They are being taught in school that microevolution
> is a fact and they are being taught that macroevolution is nothing
> more than cumulative microevolution. This isn't a bad thing since
> it represent the triumph of the Modern Sythesis and the defeat of
> several silly ideas like hopeful monsters.
>
> However, real modern evolutionary theory has moved on since the 60's
> and it's now widely recognized that there are lots of things going
> on at the macroevolutionary level that can't be completely
> explained by changes in the frequrencies of alleles in a population.
>
> None of these things are magical. They include various speciation
> mechanisms and mass extinctions, for example. They also include the
> possibility of more controversial mechanisms such as species selection
> - also called species sorting.
>
> Gould was a major proponent of a hierarchical theory of evolution
> that allowed for distinct mechanisms of macroevolution.
>
> It's clear that the Creationists don't know what they are talking
> about when they criticize evolution in general and macroevolution
> in particular. However, let's not compound their ignorance by
> pretending that macroevolution can be completely explained by lots
> of microevolution. That's not a true representation of modern
> evolutionary theory.
[LM]"The number [of "knowledgeable scientists"] who
continue to believe that macroevolution is just a whole bunch
of microevolution is shrinking rapidly."
During which years did a majority of a) geneticists, b)
morphologists, and c) paleontologists [LM]"believe that
macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution"?
Mayr, Ernst. 1988. _Toward a New Philosophy of Biology:
Observations of an Evolutionist_ (Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press), 564pp. On 402,
the first paragraph of the chapter "Does Microevolution
Explain Macroevolution?":
AMONG all the claims made during the evolutionary
synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance
was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution
can be "reduced to," that is, explained by,
microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly,
this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was
widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with
macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists.
Many of them insisted that there is a more or less
complete discontinuity between the processes at the two
levels-- that what happens at the species level is entirely
different from what happens at the level of the higher
categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy still
seems undecided.
[LM]"there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
microevolution." What are the grounds for saying that
extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution isn't
well-supported?
Vanderkooi, Garret. 1972. Letter _Nature_ 240: 365.
In its entirety:
SIR,-- In your editorial entitled "Creation in California"
(_Nature_, 239, [page] 420; 1972) you ask for scientists
to identify themselves who do not hold to the "doctrine
of evolution" (your terminology), who are working in a
field related to the evolutionary question. I am a
research chemist presently involved in work on
biological membrane structure and function, and
formerly on polypeptide and protein conformations, and
am ready to state my dissenting position.
I do not believe that the evidence in hand demonstrates
that the origin and development of life on Earth
occurred by an evolutionary pathway. My objection is
not to evolution on a small scale, that is microevolution,
meaning the variation and development within related
plant or animal groupings; indeed, I would go so far as
to say that in my opinion this type of evolution has been
proven to occur. One is not warranted, however, to
extrapolate from the evidence for microevolution to the
contention that general evolution is therefore also true.
The simplest living cells are still very complicated on a
molecular level; to suppose that there were even simpler
cells in the past is pure speculation designed to fit a
theory. In any case, it is generally agreed that the
coming into existence of the first living cell must have
been an extremely improbable event, but we know it
happened because cells now exist.
Natural phenomena may be defined as events which
have a finite probability of happening, on the basis of
known or at least knowable natural laws. Events which
are extremely rare or which have a vanishingly small
probability of occurrence cannot readily be classified as
natural phenomena. The origin and development of life
fall into this category. It must be admitted that such
events may be the result of a supernatural act, unless one
wishes arbitrarily to dismiss the possibility that God
exists and that He can and does operate the universe. It
is my reasoned opinion that the empirical evidence in
hand concerning the nature and origin of life is better
explained in terms of supernatural, creative acts than it
is by the general theory of evolution.
The editor of _Nature_ is to be complimented for
providing a forum for the open discussion in scientific
circles of the creation _versus_ evolution question.
Your faithfully,
GARRET VANDERKOOI
_Institute for Enzyme Research,_
1710 _University Avenue,_
_University of Wisconsin,_
_Madison, Wisconsin_ 53706
Allbrook, David. 1973. Letter _Nature_ 241: 150.
In its entirety:
SIR,-- It is welcome that you are initiating a review of
any time-honoured scientific tenet of faith-- for this is
what evolution has become to many of us-- rather like a
theological doctrine, to be defended with some passion.
It is a good thing for people to question broad
philosophical assumptions and keep open minds. On the
issue of evolution as a primary directive force in the
cosmos, I propose to do just that whilst feeling free to
use the evolutionary hypothesis in relevant cases in my
research and thinking.
I feel undogmatic and somewhat sceptical in the debate.
Special creation cannot be proved, and a thorough-going
evolutionary origin on the basis of environmental
adaptation explains much, but leaves plenty of
unanswerable queries.
My atheist undergraduate diet of Haldane, Huxley,
Bernal, Wells and so on failed to satisfy me that
evolution is the sole creative force behind the cosmos
and the biosphere and modern _Homo sapiens_. On
more recent review, I find it too much for my credulity,
for reasons similar to those cited by Vanderkooi and
Van Kley (_Nature_, 240, [page] 365; 1972). On the
other hand, I find God real and His activity
demonstrable over the years.
One demonstrates biogenetic evolution in the laboratory
and field at [the] species and generic level, but I doubt
the validity of extrapolating these data and turning them
into a first cause. Wouldn't we beat our students about
the head for far less a sin?
So one opts for some creative power-- I call Him God--
as a first cause, which I maintain is common sense and
fair science. Why did it happen-- that is a non-scientific
issue. How it happened is a valid question, but too
difficult, except as the answer comes clear here and
there from observation and experiments.
Yours faithfully,
DAVID ALLBROOK
_Department of Anatomy,_
_The University of Western Australia_
fallacy of false extrapolation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.4.44L.01.0309100834320.2240460-100000%40irix2.gl.umbc.edu
better conception of faulty extrapolation
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0309142357280.7954-100000%40linux3.gl.umbc.edu
Macbeth on faulty extrapolation in Darwin's theory of natural
selection
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0308240006280.21425-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
Gould's 1980 rejection of the extrapolationist model; 1981 Lovtrup;
a fossil record request for Andrew M.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990222232808.1486760C-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
Larry Moran
[snip]
>> I think I understand the problem. When scientists refer to microevolution
>> they have in mind a "process", namely the change in the frequency of
>> alleles within an evolving population.
>
> I would rather say they refer to a collection of models of processes.
I agree. This is actually "microevolutionary theory" but when we
refer to "microevolution" that's usually (but not always) what we mean.
>> Macroevolution, on the other hand, does not refer to a process. The
>> term is used as the description of a discipline or a field of study.
>> Scientists who study macroevolution are interested in long-term
>> changes in the history of life.
>
> And here I would rather say that they refer to a historical description
> of life's evolution. There is no consensus on the models from which
> macroevolutionary trends (remember my vain distinction between
> macroevolution, macroevolutionary patterns, and macroevolutionary trends
> here) fall out, apart from a Markov Chain. We still aren't even able to
> determine when a trend requires explanation (perhaps via sorting
> effects) or when it is sufficient to say, this can be accounted for by
> contingency and chance.
Yes, "macroevolutionary theory" is still being debated. However, unlike
the case with "microevolution" scientists still make a distinction between
macroevolution (the phenomenon) and the theory that explains it. The
real question is whether there's a difference between microevolutonary
theory (e.g., population genetics) and macroevolutionary theory. I think
there is a difference.
>> I'd like to quote from Jeffrey S.
>> Levinton's book "Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution" (2nd ed.)
>> to illustrate this point. Levinton is not a fan of Gould so he can't
>> be accused of bias in that direction.
>
> In fact he dislikes Gould's treatment of macroevolution almost rabidly
>:-)
"Dislikes" is actually being too kind. He's not a fan of punctuated
equilibria.
So ... you agree that macroevolution cannot be reduced to lots of
microevolution?
I think I agree ...... :-)
The "theory" of population genetics describes abstract populations.
In that sense, it is not a unique historical event. If we want to
test the theory we have to set up a particular experiment but that's
no different than many other fields of science. If we want to ask
whether a real population has evolved (or is evolving) then we get into
unique historical events that may affect the predicted outcome of
population genetics.
Well that certainly cinches it ..... :-)
Others seem to have heard differently from time to time but I do think
he's one of the most prominent hold-outs.
Larry Moran
JTEM
"david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
> Natural phenomena may be defined as events which
> have a finite probability of happening,
No.
"Natural" events should be reproducible.
The conditions that spawned life, if exactly replicated, should
always spawn life. Every time. Repeating the exact same
event under the exact same conditions should produce the
same results.
Scientific results must be reproducuble, because they are a
result of science and not a theological lottery.
The only "Percentage chance" or "Variable" involved here is
our ability to accurately observe & reproduce exact conditions.
Glenn
>
> "david ford" <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote
>
> > Natural phenomena may be defined as events which
> > have a finite probability of happening,
>
> No.
>
> "Natural" events should be reproducible.
Should is normative, and untrue to boot.
>
> The conditions that spawned life, if exactly replicated, should
> always spawn life. Every time. Repeating the exact same
> event under the exact same conditions should produce the
> same results.
Depends on what "conditions" and "exactly replicated" mean.
If random occurences are included, you may be correct.
Of course, you aren't.
>
> Scientific results must be reproducuble, because they are a
> result of science and not a theological lottery.
Scientific results must be reproducible because they are a
result of science? Wow.
How bout this one: Science is as science does.
>
> The only "Percentage chance" or "Variable" involved here is
> our ability to accurately observe & reproduce exact conditions.
>
You'll have a problem with evolution then.
Something about science accurately observing and reproducing...
JTEM
"Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote
> > The conditions that spawned life, if exactly replicated, should
> > always spawn life. Every time. Repeating the exact same
> > event under the exact same conditions should produce the
> > same results.
> Depends on what "conditions" and "exactly replicated" mean.
That's worse than "Depending on what the definition of 'is' is."
> If random occurences are included, you may be correct.
> Of course, you aren't.
Bullshit.
You can argue that [Factor A] and [Factor B] came together
under [Conditions B] randomly, but that doesn't change the
fact that the results of this given interaction, under the given
conditions, must always be the same.
According to science, the conditions which spawn life, if
exactly replicated, will always spawn life. Period. What's
more, the conditions which can't spawn life, if exactly
replicated, will never spawn life.
There is no "Percentage chance," granted to every organic
molecule, that life will spontaniously form. That's a fantasy,
a cheap rationalization.
> You'll have a problem with evolution then.
> Something about science accurately observing and reproducing...
It's been done. Numerous times. Too numerous to count... starting
long before anyone was even capable of imagining a written
language...
Everything from the wheat that we eat to the dog playing in our
yard is proof-positive of evolution, and the "Reproduction" of a
natural phenonema by man.
Larry Moran
david ford <dfo...@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> [LM]"The number [of "knowledgeable scientists"] who
> continue to believe that macroevolution is just a whole bunch
> of microevolution is shrinking rapidly."
> During which years did a majority of a) geneticists, b)
> morphologists, and c) paleontologists [LM]"believe that
> macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution"?
Roughly from 1940 to about 1980.
> Mayr, Ernst. 1988. _Toward a New Philosophy of Biology:
> Observations of an Evolutionist_ (Cambridge, MA: The
> Belknap Press of Harvard University Press), 564pp. On 402,
> the first paragraph of the chapter "Does Microevolution
> Explain Macroevolution?":
> AMONG all the claims made during the evolutionary
> synthesis, perhaps the one that found least acceptance
> was the assertion that all phenomena of macroevolution
> can be "reduced to," that is, explained by,
> microevolutionary genetic processes. Not surprisingly,
> this claim was usually supported by geneticists but was
> widely rejected by the very biologists who dealt with
> macroevolution, the morphologists and paleontologists.
> Many of them insisted that there is a more or less
> complete discontinuity between the processes at the two
> levels-- that what happens at the species level is entirely
> different from what happens at the level of the higher
> categories. Now, 50 years later the controversy still
> seems undecided.
Beginning about 1978 Ernst Mayr began to realize that it was preferable
to claim credit for punctuated equilibria rather than oppose it. He saw
that this was one way of promoting his favorite hobby horse while
at the same time trashing the beanbag genetics that he never fully
grasped. As usual, he tries, whenever possible, to re-write history in
order to make it look as though he was right about everything decades ago.
This revisionism is made much easier by the fact that at one time or
another he supported just about every idea in evolutionary biology. Thus,
it's always possible to find an old Mayr quotation that "predicts" every
new advance in the field. I'm sure he believes that he was always opposed
to the coupling of microevolution and macroevolution.
> [LM]"there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
> scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
> microevolution." What are the grounds for saying that
> extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution isn't
> well-supported?
I've covered this in other postings.
> Vanderkooi, Garret. 1972. Letter _Nature_ 240: 365.
> In its entirety:
> SIR,-- In your editorial entitled "Creation in California"
> (_Nature_, 239, [page] 420; 1972) you ask for scientists
> to identify themselves who do not hold to the "doctrine
> of evolution" (your terminology), who are working in a
> field related to the evolutionary question. I am a
> research chemist presently involved in work on
> biological membrane structure and function, and
> formerly on polypeptide and protein conformations, and
> am ready to state my dissenting position.
[snip]
This is a 34 year old letter from a Creationist.
It doesn't have anything to do with what I said about the majority
of scientists today.
Do you have a point? Why are you raising this issue? You don't even
believe in macroevolution so what difference does it make to you
how evolutionary biologists explain it?
Larry Moran
r norman
First, there is quantum mechanics which produces probabilistic laws.
When repeated in sufficient number, you give reproducible average
results but when performed singly, you cannot possibly ensure the same
result every time.
Second, there are innumerable biological and physical events which
depend on the details of the statistical ensemble of particles which
make up the system. For example, thermal agitation may bump this
particular molecule up enough to react, but at a different time it may
not. Depolarize a membrane and a protein channel in the membrane may
open this time, but next time it does not. The event is best
described with a probability distribution. There is no conceivable way
of reproducing the situation to produce identical results each time.
There are too many particles in thermal motion to control and yet the
process is so small that it statistical averages do not apply.
Perhaps a more physical example would help: Measure the voltage
across a large resistor extremely accurately -- to microvolts -- even
wth no source of current. You will not get zero every time. In fact,
you will see a random fluctuation caused by thermal excitation of the
individual electrons that act as current carriers in the resistor.
You cannot predict the actual voltage, only its probability
distribution. Note: these are not quantal theory probabilities, but
probabilities that come about entirely from classical physics.
Third, do any experiment involving live organisms, especially one
involving animal behavior. You will see rather large variation in the
details of the data even though you replicate the situation as
accurately as is humanly possible. Organisms are simply variable. It
really doesn't matter whether they are responding to circumstances we
don't see and control or whether they are being controlled by brownian
motion or other thermal agitation effects in cells that ultmately
change their behavior or whether they are being controlled by truly
probabilistic quantum theoretical events. The fact is, the specific
numeric values you collect as data are irreproducible.
All this is why statistics was invented. It is not always simply
careless or improper experimental technique that produces variability
in results -- it may be part and parcel of reality.
Glenn
>
> "Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote
>
> > > The conditions that spawned life, if exactly replicated, should
> > > always spawn life. Every time. Repeating the exact same
> > > event under the exact same conditions should produce the
> > > same results.
>
> > Depends on what "conditions" and "exactly replicated" mean.
>
> That's worse than "Depending on what the definition of 'is' is."
>
> > If random occurences are included, you may be correct.
> > Of course, you aren't.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> You can argue that [Factor A] and [Factor B] came together
> under [Conditions B] randomly, but that doesn't change the
> fact that the results of this given interaction, under the given
> conditions, must always be the same.
Those results are random, not "the same".
>
> According to science, the conditions which spawn life, if
> exactly replicated, will always spawn life. Period.
Bullshit. What science is that?
>What's
> more, the conditions which can't spawn life, if exactly
> replicated, will never spawn life.
Cute, but lends you no support.
>
> There is no "Percentage chance," granted to every organic
> molecule, that life will spontaniously form. That's a fantasy,
> a cheap rationalization.
You're talking to yourself.
>
> > You'll have a problem with evolution then.
> > Something about science accurately observing and reproducing...
>
> It's been done. Numerous times. Too numerous to count... starting
> long before anyone was even capable of imagining a written
> language...
People say they hear that a lot in church.
>
> Everything from the wheat that we eat to the dog playing in our
> yard is proof-positive of evolution,
You got one sentence right.
>and the "Reproduction" of a
> natural phenonema by man.
>
Wierd.
JTEM
"r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote
> First, there is quantum mechanics
Which operate at, what? A "quantum level"?
Rather irrelevant, that.
> Second, there are innumerable biological and physical events which
> depend on the details of the statistical ensemble of particles which
> make up the system. For example, thermal agitation may bump this
> particular molecule up enough to react, but at a different time it may
> not.
Yeah, like if it's frozen. Definitely.... (Someone get this man a
straight-jacket).
Goodness me, I don't think I've ever seen someone type so much in
an effort to say so little...
> Third, do any experiment involving live organisms, especially
> one involving animal behavior.
Yeah, like observed animal behavior is relevant to an exchange
on spontanious life.... sure.... that's the ticket....
> All this is why statistics was invented.
So you could type hundreds of words without actually saying
anything?
Please.
JTEM
"Glenn" <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote
> > You can argue that [Factor A] and [Factor B] came together
> > under [Conditions B] randomly, but that doesn't change the
> > fact that the results of this given interaction, under the given
> > conditions, must always be the same.
> Those results are random, not "the same".
No, they are not.
Chris Krolczyk
(snip)
> Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnc2clfi....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
> > Actually, there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
> > scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
> > microevolution. The number who continue to believe that macroevolution
> > is just a whole bunch of microevolution is shrinking rapidly.
> During which years did a majority of a) geneticists, b)
> morphologists, and c) paleontologists [LM]"believe that
> macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution"?
Handwaving, David. Handwaving.
Larry clearly states that there's a *phenomenon* of
this happening, not "which years" it occurred in.
> [LM]"there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
> scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
> microevolution." What are the grounds for saying that
> extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution isn't
> well-supported?
Ah. And a mere two letters to the editor in issues of _Nature_
constitutes a refutation of Larry's point?
You've got a funny standard for evidence there, David.
-Chris Krolczyk
Glenn
He identifies himself as a research chemist.
So F**CKING what if he is a creationists. Dawkins
is an atheist.
>
> It doesn't have anything to do with what I said about the majority
> of scientists today.
And neither does Wilkins "merely relaying" what the word originally
meant? History is important to consider.
>
> Do you have a point? Why are you raising this issue? You don't even
> believe in macroevolution so what difference does it make to you
> how evolutionary biologists explain it?
>
Read the friggin thread title.
r norman
It seems you are the one who declared in absolute terms that "Natural
events should be reproducible" and that "Repeating the exact same
event under the exact same conditions should produce the same
results." You are the one who declared "Scientific results must be
reproducuble, because they are a result of science and not a
theological lottery."
I gave you three different scales or levels of organization where
those statements are totally false. Similarly, there is no reason to
believe that any specific historic event including the origin of life
must play back exactly the same for every replication.
Please, indeed You should actually read what you write sometimes.
RoyBoy
> "AC" <mightym...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:slrnc2da06.1n0....@namibia.tandem...
> > On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:24:58 +0000 (UTC),
> > Glenn <glenns...@spamqwest.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Larry Moran" <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote in message
> > >> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 15:06:37 +0000 (UTC),
> > >> Ken Shaw <non...@your.biz> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [snip]
> > >>
> > >> > You fundamentally misunderstood the point I was making in the
> > >> > posts leading to the one you reference here. I wasn't arguing
> > >> > that evolution above the species level doesn't occur but that
> > >> > since the processes involved are the same as those that occur
> > >> > within a species that the micro/macro terms were of no utility.
> > >> >
> > >> > While Goldschmidt may have thought there was something more to
> > >> > evolution than drift and selection, he was writing in 1940 and
> > >> > much more has been learned since then ( including for instance
> > >> > functionally everything about DNA ).
> > >>
> > >> I don't agree with Ken. In my opinion there's a good case to be
> > >> made that macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution. We
> > >> may not be able to say with confidence that species sorting and
> > >> other mechanisms occur frequently but we've surely progressed
> > >> beyond the stage where we can dogmatically state that macroevolution
> > >> is no different than microevolution. That's just not correct. The
> > >> best one can say at the present time is that the question is
> > >> still being debated.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Evolutionists should just sum up all their evolutionary mechanisms
> > > of "evolution", "microevolution", "speciation", "macroevolution",
> > > "common descent" to --- "shit happens". That would prevent
> > > anything slipping through the "cracks".
> >
> > Does speciation occur or not, Glenn? Why won't you answer?
> >
> I have answered your posts regarding this question, idiot.
Yikes! Way to go on avoiding the question.
John Wilkins
So do I, as we have discussed. What I am unsure about is to what extent
that difference is endogenous to the biological organisms themselves.
>
> >> I'd like to quote from Jeffrey S.
> >> Levinton's book "Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution" (2nd ed.)
> >> to illustrate this point. Levinton is not a fan of Gould so he can't
> >> be accused of bias in that direction.
> >
> > In fact he dislikes Gould's treatment of macroevolution almost rabidly
> >:-)
>
> "Dislikes" is actually being too kind. He's not a fan of punctuated
> equilibria.
Also too mildly put :-)
Always have*. Just haven't been sure how much *microevolution* (the
models) hides what is external to the population. If, for example, the
"selection pressures" acting on a population are treated as populational
properties, then we can say that microevolution is a populational model.
But "selection pressures" is an abstraction - they are always real world
external conditions, and microevolutionary models do not predict or
account for them unless they are representing the populational dynamics
of some *other* species.
So, is there a difference between microevolution and macroevolution in
that respect? I think that we hide the historicity and singularity of
microevolutionary processes because we can still get a useful model that
way, but it seems to me that both levels of evolution are in fact
massively contingent. The major difference is that we haven't worked out
how to model macroevolution yet, because contingency multiplies its
effects at longer timescales.
On theory reduction - we thrashed that out some time back. IMO *all*
higher level theories can be reduced to lower level theories, and
emergence is just a term for something we hadn't the time or ability to
compute out of lower level theories. But that is not quite the same
thing as saying that the *only* lower level theory on which
macroevolution subsists is microevolutionary. In fact, I reject the
claim that it is.
...
Absolutely. We agree.
>
...
* FSVO "have"...
--
John Wilkins
john...@wilkins.id.au http://wilkins.id.au
JTEM
"r norman" <rsn_@_comcast.net> wrote
> I gave you three different scales or levels of organization
> where those statements are totally false.
Besides the fact that this just plain isn't true, you admit you
stepped completely outside the context of the exchange in
order to create a strawman, which you then misapplied to
this exchange.
It's irrelevant. Again, besides not being true.
So molecules couldn't move around if they were frozen? Big
shit deal! Again, totally irrelevant.
Mark Isaak
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote:
>Yes, "macroevolutionary theory" is still being debated. However, unlike
>the case with "microevolution" scientists still make a distinction between
>macroevolution (the phenomenon) and the theory that explains it.
I got the impression from this thread that macroevolution is actually
several theories, and not closely related ones at that.
For example, punctuated equilibrium is one.
The 2002 _Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics_ has an article
titled "The fate of clades in a world of recurrent climatic change:
Milankovitch oscillations and evolution" (by Jonsson and Dynesius).
It talks about orbitally forced range dynamics (ORD), which I presume
would qualify as macroevolution.
The natural selection that causes incipient species to become even
more reproductively isolated is macroevolution, is it not?
These phenomena all concern evolution at or above species level, but
in very different ways. Am I mistaken in calling them all
macroevolution, or is macroevolution a grab-bag term for many
different processes connected loosely only by what they affect?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
r norman
What is your problem?
You are the one who came up with the notion that scientific results
and natural results must be absolutely reproducible. You made this
claim several times without regard to the specific example of
abiogenesis. Neither abiogenesis nor your claim about scientific
reproducibility was related to the subject line of the thread.
I refuted the claims you make about reproducibility to allow
probabilistic results and you ridiculed my statements without
answering any of them. I quoted your specific words to indicate just
what I was criticizing but you snipped all relevant information from
your response so people could not see what you did.
Now you again simply declare my statements to be both irrelevant and
false without giving any reason. You also snip all context so no one
can tell what is going on.
Finallly, you raise a totally irrelevant issue of frozen molecules
that comes out of nowhere -- certainly from nothing I wrote (but of
course you can't tell because of your snipping) and then ridicule me
for a statement that I never made concerning these frozen molecules.
Incidentally, to try to be more on topic, if your claim about
scientific repeatibility is correct, then clearly genetic drift is a
totally unscientific concept and must be stricken from evolutionary
theory. Further, the longstanding notion that the genetic code is a
"frozen accident" gives the lie to your statement that abiogenesis
would always give the same results if the exact conditions were
replicated. Yes, some people now think the genetic code may have some
physicochemical basis but that does not change the philosophical
concept -- no one believes every detail of biochemical, molecular
biological, and cellular function and organization would exactly
repeat if you tried to replicate the conditions.
david ford
david ford:
Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> > > Actually, there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
> > > scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
> > > microevolution. The number who continue to believe that
> > > macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution is
> > > shrinking rapidly.
> >
> > During which years did a majority of a) geneticists, b)
> > morphologists, and c) paleontologists [LM]"believe that
> > macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution"?
>
> Handwaving, David. Handwaving.
>
> Larry clearly states that there's a *phenomenon* of
> this happening, not "which years" it occurred in.
Yes. I asked for what years and for what particular categories of
individuals the situation Larry described occurred. Larry was kind
enough to supply an answer.
You are, of course, free to consider not-rhetorical questions
[CK]"handwaving."
> > [LM]"there's probably a slight *majority* of knowledgeable
> > scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
> > microevolution." What are the grounds for saying that
> > extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution isn't
> > well-supported?
>
> Ah. And a mere two letters to the editor in issues of _Nature_
> constitutes a refutation of Larry's point?
>
> You've got a funny standard for evidence there, David.
I support some of Larry's points. What point of Larry's do you think
I was trying to refute by presenting the 2 letters?
neepy
> On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 00:50:08 +0000 (UTC),
> > Larry Moran <lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> scientists who think that macroevolution is decoupled from
> >> microevolution. The number who continue to believe that
> >> macroevolution is just a whole bunch of microevolution is shrinking
> >> rapidly.
> >
> > you give evidence?
>
> It's just my impression. I notice that most papers that discuss
> macroevolution pay some lip service to the fact that there may
> be higher level processes. This is a big change from 20 years
> ago when everyone believed that microevolution explained everything.
Most papers that discuss biological evolution don't make the
distinction between "micro" and "macro" at all.
> It seems to me that most scientists now recognize that speciation
> is important and they know that speciation isn't covered by
> microevolution.
Are you saying that "most scientists" think that "microevolution"
cannot lead to speciation? That is simply wrong.
If you mean something like "isolation mechanisms" are "more important"
then you can't have grasped the fact that isolation of breeding
populations wouldn't produce different species without
"microevolution" within those isolated groups. The micro-macro
distinction is a mostly unhelpful and unnecessary one.
> Can you think of any prominent evolutionary biologist who strongly
> believes that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution?
Richard Dawkins:
"The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is becoming
a favorite one for creationists. Actually, it's no big deal.
Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution stretched out over
a much greater time span."
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.htm
Stanley Friesen
>dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>> Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
>
>
>Who?
He was a scientist from the middle of the 20th century who proposed the
idea that new species arise all at once, in the birth of a few
individuals with the new morphology. His opponents called these
individuals "hopeful monsters", since they could not reproduce unless
they met another of their own sort by chance.
His ideas have LONG been debunked, and are only of historical interest.
>
>I've no idea who this guy is and why something from 1953 is relevant
>to day. Perhaps you are better off summing up his argument.
It isn't. Goldschmidt was wrong, pure and simple.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
catshark
wrote:
<Pulls up chair, checks popcorn, beer . . . >
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Nunc Id Vides, Nunc Ne Vides
- Unseen University Motto -
catshark
We-e-e-e-ll . . . .
<http://www.evolutionary.tripod.com/gould_nh_86_22-30.html>
>
>The peace of God be with you.
>
>Stanley Friesen
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Larry Moran
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in
> message news:<slrnc2duo0....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
[snip]
>> It's just my impression. I notice that most papers that discuss
>> macroevolution pay some lip service to the fact that there may
>> be higher level processes. This is a big change from 20 years
>> ago when everyone believed that microevolution explained everything.
>
> Most papers that discuss biological evolution don't make the
> distinction between "micro" and "macro" at all.
That's probably correct since most of those papers are only concerned
about microevolution and/or molecular evolution. That's probably why
I specifically said "papers that discuss macroevolution", don't you
think?
>> It seems to me that most scientists now recognize that speciation
>> is important and they know that speciation isn't covered by
>> microevolution.
>
> Are you saying that "most scientists" think that "microevolution"
> cannot lead to speciation? That is simply wrong.
No, actually, my statement is probably true as long as you restrict
it to "informed scientists" and don't try and include physicists,
and chemists etc.
What I meant was that most evolutionary biologists are aware of the
fact that speciation requires events other than simply changes in
the frequencies of alleles within a population. They have been
sensitized by the ongoing debate. They now recognize that some sort
of population isolation mechanism is a key component that should not
be swept under the table just to satisfy the population geneticists.
> If you mean something like "isolation mechanisms" are "more important"
> then you can't have grasped the fact that isolation of breeding
> populations wouldn't produce different species without
> "microevolution" within those isolated groups. The micro-macro
> distinction is a mostly unhelpful and unnecessary one.
Nobody is saying that microevolutionary processes aren't involved.
They're just not sufficient. Please try and keep up.
>> Can you think of any prominent evolutionary biologist who strongly
>> believes that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution?
>
> Richard Dawkins:
>
> "The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is becoming
> a favorite one for creationists. Actually, it's no big deal.
> Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution stretched out over
> a much greater time span."
>
> http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/
> Articles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.htm
I don't want to defend Richard Dawkins since I'm opposed to many of
his ideas about evolution. So let's concede that there are at least
two ultra-Darwinians (Maynard Smith and Dawkins) who still hold to this
old-fashioned, myoptic, reductionist, view of evolutionary theory.
Larry Moran
Glenn
"catshark" <cats...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:q4tp20ti5b9bv848l...@4ax.com...
>
>
> <Pulls up chair, checks popcorn, beer . . . >
>
after.
catshark
And that would be different from all those articles you've been posting of
late . . . how? We all get our entertainment where we find it.
>Gilligan and crew are rescued and everyone lives happily ever
>after.
I'm glad to know that it's settled to your satisfaction.
Steve Schaffner
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:58:43 +0000 (UTC),
> neepy <dsuthe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in
> > message news:<slrnc2duo0....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
> >> It seems to me that most scientists now recognize that speciation
> >> is important and they know that speciation isn't covered by
> >> microevolution.
> >
> > Are you saying that "most scientists" think that "microevolution"
> > cannot lead to speciation? That is simply wrong.
>
> No, actually, my statement is probably true as long as you restrict
> it to "informed scientists" and don't try and include physicists,
> and chemists etc.
Tut tut, Larry, there's no need to be rude. *Some* physicists
understand the distinction, anyway.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Glenn
True.
>
> >Gilligan and crew are rescued and everyone lives happily ever
> >after.
>
> I'm glad to know that it's settled to your satisfaction.
>
I never doubted the outcome.
And it has been settled to my satisfaction.
Glenn
"Steve Schaffner" <s...@darwin.broad.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:ydloes2...@darwin.broad.mit.edu...
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) writes:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 12:58:43 +0000 (UTC),
> > neepy <dsuthe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote in
> > > message news:<slrnc2duo0....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca>...
>
> > >> It seems to me that most scientists now recognize that speciation
> > >> is important and they know that speciation isn't covered by
> > >> microevolution.
> > >
> > > Are you saying that "most scientists" think that "microevolution"
> > > cannot lead to speciation? That is simply wrong.
> >
> > No, actually, my statement is probably true as long as you restrict
> > it to "informed scientists" and don't try and include physicists,
> > and chemists etc.
>
> Tut tut, Larry, there's no need to be rude. *Some* physicists
> understand the distinction, anyway.
>
that the only people that are right are right (as he sees it).
neepy
> ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (stew dean) wrote:
> >dfo...@gl.umbc.edu (david ford) wrote in message news:<b1c67abe.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> >> Does microevolution lead to macroevolution--
>
> >> Goldschmidt didn't think so.
> >
> >Who?
>
> He was a scientist from the middle of the 20th century who proposed the
> idea that new species arise all at once, in the birth of a few
> individuals with the new morphology. His opponents called these
> individuals "hopeful monsters", since they could not reproduce unless
> they met another of their own sort by chance.
>
> His ideas have LONG been debunked, and are only of historical interest.
Richard Dawkins:
"The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is becoming
a favorite one for creationists. Actually, it's no big deal.
Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution stretched out over
a much greater time span."
http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.htm