A Sincere Question Regarding Macroevolution

by jacobm 20 Replies latest jw friends

  • jacobm
    jacobm

    Hello everyone,

    I have a sincere question related to Macroevolution:

    Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evoscales_01

      Question:

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

    • FayeDunaway
      FayeDunaway

      When I was a witness I was surprised witnesses never conceded to microevolution, because obviously witnesses can believe in it, but they would never say that in their literature. Maybe it was to avoid problems, maybe it was ignorance.

      I think the platypus might be a living example of macroevolution.

    • Vidiot
      Vidiot

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

      Not yet.

      It'd be really difficult simply due to the immense amount of time it takes for it to happen (a possible exception might be the field of observing the evolutionary development of bacteriological strains, which has been demonstrated as much faster).

      One can, however, reasonably conclude it does indeed happen, simply as a natural long-term extension of ongoing microevolution (which scientists have seen).

    • ILoveTTATT2
      ILoveTTATT2

      There have been many documented, visible cases of speciation. These usually occur in small living things, like mosquitoes, bacteria, etc because of the short time it takes for them to have a new generation (some bacteria can duplicate as fast as every 20 minutes). Because changes big enough for it to be considered a speciation event take possibly thousands of generations, it is very difficult to observe speciation in a human lifetime.

      Even at 20 minutes and 1000 generations, it would take almost two weeks for an appreciable change to occur. If the change happens within 10,000 generations and the time between generations is an hour, it would take 1 year and 52 days...

      This experiment with E. Coli takes about 4 years for every 10,000 generations.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

      The E.Coli bacteria evolved new features!

      This is another experiment that shows that unicellular life can evolve into multicellular:

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7536/full/517531d.html

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

      Hi Jacob.

      There is no such thing as a "jump" in evolution. Imagine a population of the same species that becomes separated by a geological event such as the breakup of Gondwana. The two new populations can no longer interbreed. Over a long period of time both populations begin to evolve in different ways. Eventually the reach a point where even if they were to meet again successful breeding would be impossible.

      A comparison between the 223 species of marsupials in Australia and the thousands of species of placental mammal elsewhere is a good example of this sort of process...

      Defining a species is also fraught with difficulties and exceptions.

      Speciation happens over long periods of time. The reasons that scientists know that it has happened millions of times come from multiple lines of evidence. DNA comparison, transitional fossils, biogeography and comparative anatomy are perhaps the most compelling.

      A lot of further details can be found here...

    • cofty
      cofty

      Further to TATT2's example about Lenski's experiment with E coli here is a description....

      The experiment was an amazing piece of work that is still ongoing.

    • dgeero
      dgeero
      Microevolution and Macroevolution are creationists terms. There is just evolution. The only difference is the scale of time.
    • Vidiot
      Vidiot

      ILoveTTATT2 - "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

      The E.Coli bacteria evolved new features!"

      This was what I was referring to in my previous post, but I hadn't read about it too recently.

      I'm curious... were the latest "generations" genetically removed enough (from their several-years-plus predecessors) to legitimately classify them as a different/separate species?

    • Vidiot
      Vidiot

      Personally, I think the most interesting evolution-related research is Jack Horner's spearheaded attempt to reverse-engineer a small dinosaur from a chicken embryo:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_(paleontologist) (scroll down to the "Build a Dinosaur Project" heading)

      Very cool stuff.

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


      I guess the first question we should ask is what would you consider to be "macroevolution" and what would you consider as being a "jump" or "transcendent"?

      If you're having a hard time with the question it's probably because things like "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are not scientific terms. They're not even defined at all. It's a bit like a creationist who asserts that animals can't be bred into a different "kinds". They're just hiding behind vague language so that no matter what evidence is provided they can always move the goal post further out.

      However, "species" is a scientific term. It's any set of animals that are capable of producing viable offspring together. And "sub-species" is a group of animals that can mate but who do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors.

      For example, lions and tigers shared a common ancestor about two million years ago. But, due to geographic isolation (separation of Africa from Asia), the two populations were no longer able to breed and evolution went two separate directions. While they're different species their genetics are still very similar and they can be bred to produce Ligers - but those offspring are sterile. In a few more eons of genetic mutation and natural selection (aka evolution) the two populations wont be able to breed at all. All species are transient. There's no "final" form.

      So the question is, at what point would you consider it "macro-evolution"? How different do lions and tigers have to be for us to consider it a "jump"?

      I'll give you a good analogy for this. Both Italy and France have Latin speaking populations. But due to geographic and national separation the two populations started speaking differently. Over hundreds and hundreds of years, we ended up with the French and Italian languages. Both are Latin based - but are very different. So when did a Latin speaking mother give birth to a French speaking child?

      We all know this is an absurd question. It was the entire accumulation of changes in words that made French a different language than Latin. There wasn't any single event or generation in which it happened. The same is true of evolution. And why the terms "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are meaningless.

      If you want to learn more on this I suggest you do a little research on Allele Frequencies. Here's a great starter video on the subject:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhFKPaRnTdQ

      Hope this is helpful :)


    Share this

    Google+
    Pinterest
    Reddit