Microevolution, Macroevolution, and our species

Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes. As to respiration in a man and in a beast; the descent of stones in Europe and in America; the light of our culinary fire and of the sun; the reflection of light in the earth, and in the planets.

The "micro" versus "macro" distinction is another instance of the ID/Creationists attempting to set the definitions in science and the parameters of discussions in their "debates" with scientists.

Transitions between various scales, i.e., between quantum level to mesoscopic phenomena to nanoscale level phenomena to microscopic scale levels to various classical scale levels of phenomena are often accompanied by "jumps" or avalanche effects, or other kinds of "emergent effects" that suddenly become the predominant determiners of the subsequent behavior of a system. Rarely are the transitions between realms continuous or linear. Non-linear complex behavior is the norm in such transitions.

Physicists often make distinctions between these various realms in order to apply the most effective tools, both experimental and theoretical, in understanding and describing the phenomena in question within the realm in question. But they are usually aware that extending these approximations outside the realm of discussion will almost certainly overlook transitional or emergent phenomena in adjacent realms.

So there should be nothing particularly unusual or enigmatic about the apparent "abruptness" of differences between closely related species. The differences at the genetic level are being propagated up through many different scale lengths. At some level of genetic difference, it shouldn't be surprising that emergent phenotypic differences could very well appear as "jumps" as other emergent phenomena come into play and have greater influence in subsequent development.

As a physicist, I have never been too impressed with the artificial distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". I would think that the finer scale at the genetic level would be the primary determiner of relatedness. Emergent phenotypic traits may well affect the survivability of the species in the current environment and what gets propagated to succeeding generations, but these phenotypic traits could easily take place in "jumps", I would suspect. There is somewhat of an analogy to the quantum jumps that take place at the molecular level, but these jumps at the classical level are leveraged from below.

no monkey, despite the common metaphor, will ever type -- much less write -- the Iliad

Actually, very few humans can write an epic as good as the Iliad.

Up until the advent of writing no humans could write, and global literacy rates are still not 100%.

Has anyone ever tried to teach a chimp to write?

Has anyone ever tried to teach a chimp to write?

Maybe not write, but there's a chimp who can paint.

http://www.cheetathechimp.org/donate.html

And, he's 75 (human) years old.

Yes, the original Cheeta from the Tarzan films of the 40's.

Did he try Regnery? They specialize in hateful, error-filled diatribes!

Macroevolution involves an increase in complexity, while microevolution involves adaptations of existing features.

An example of adaptation is a change in coloring from light to dark, especially when the potential for both colors already exists.

It doesn't matter how much DNA humans and chimps have in common, the difference in complexity is obvious. Chimps are intelligent and live in complex societies, but they are still much simpler than the simplest human societies.

As we know, complexity is awfully hard to quantify or define. As much as evolutionary biologists despise common sense, there are times when it has to be our last resort. Common sense tells us, loud and clear, that humans are far more complex than chimps (no insult to chimps intended).

Bleh.

Second.

The character "white sclera" must then have evolved on the branch leading to Homo sapiens. How did that happen? Anybody?

It Trolled thusly: It doesn't matter how much DNA humans and chimps have in common, the difference in complexity is obvious.

The amount of DNA humans and chimps have in common is not necessarily a measure of how similar the two species are. Since DNA is not well understood, it's impossible to quantify the difference. Maybe the human-chimp differences are located mostly in "junk" DNA, for example.

Whether you like to admit it or not, genetic inheritance is still very poorly understood.

But we can see that the two species are very different, if we have not completely abandoned reason in favor of reductionism.

I've seen it said that "I don't know" is the beginning of wisdom. What then is "it's obvious" the beginning of?

Common sense tells us, loud and clear, that humans are far more complex than chimps (no insult to chimps intended).

But we can see that the two species are very different

It is quotemined thusly: The amount of DNA humans and chimps have in common is ... necessarily a measure of how similar the two species are. Since DNA is ... well understood, it's ... possible to quantify the difference... the human-chimp differences are located mostly in ... DNA... Whether you like to admit it or not, genetic inheritance is still very ... understood.

Macroevolution is a technical term with a fairly well defined meaning. It refers to long term trends involving the origin of new lineages, adaptive radiation and mass extinction of many species over time. It does not refer to the relatively minor genetic changes that distinguish humans from their closest living relatives. It does not necessarily have anything to do with complexity.

Oh and by the way, if you think that genetic inheritance is poorly understood and that development is a complete mystery, both things are probably true - at least for you.

Macroevolution involves an increase in complexity, while microevolution involves adaptations of existing features.

Aren't macro- and micro- evolution just different regions on the same scale?

About the claim that humans are somehow more complex than chimpanzees - can somebody name one body part, or one tissue type, that is present in humans that is not also present in chimpanzees.

Henry

realpc: "Macroevolution involves an increase in complexity, while microevolution involves adaptations of existing features."

An incorrect claim, but if we accept it as face value, that should firmly place human/chimp divergence in the realm of microevolution.

It doesn't matter how much DNA humans and chimps have in common, the difference in complexity is obvious. Chimps are intelligent and live in complex societies, but they are still much simpler than the simplest human societies. As we know, complexity is awfully hard to quantify or define. As much as evolutionary biologists despise common sense, there are times when it has to be our last resort. Common sense tells us, loud and clear, that humans are far more complex than chimps (no insult to chimps intended).

— realpc

The amount of DNA humans and chimps have in common is not necessarily a measure of how similar the two species are. Since DNA is not well understood, it's impossible to quantify the difference. Maybe the human-chimp differences are located mostly in "junk" DNA, for example.

— realpc

I've never seen any convincing evidence that macroevolution is anything more than microevolution X N. If anyone knows of such, post it.

The fossil record seems to indicate such. Where we have enough fine grained info, often enough 1 species just sort of morphs into the next. Check out the human fossil record for an example.

The creo reality deniers don't often deny microevolution. It is all around us and kills millions of people every year through resistance to anti-everythings.

I could have sworn that, just recently in the comments to another post, realpc was claiming that ID wasn't anti-evolution, but was indeed merely a non-materialistic explanation for evolution and common decent.

Now I find myself gobsmacked to see that he's arguing against common ancestry. So, what's all that about?

Would the real realpc please stand up?

I NEVER argued against common ancestry, or evolution, or random mutations, or natural selection. I don't think any scientific ID advocate would either.

And I don't care what right-wing religious Christian creationists think about any of this. They are not scientific, so their opinions on science don't matter to me.

realpc: "Common sense tells us, loud and clear, that humans are far more complex than chimps (no insult to chimps intended)."

By what metric? Was Einstein more "complex" than George Bush or a microencephalitic baby? Does your "common sense" notion of complexity readily translate to the genetic, epigenetic or biochemical realms? At the root of any significant difference in functional capabilities I see only incremental, slight differences in the core structures.

no monkey, despite the common metaphor, will ever type --- much less write --- the Iliad

RealPC blathers thusly ... the difference in complexity is obvious ...

Common sense tells us, loud and clear, that humans are far more complex than chimps

Has anyone ever tried to teach a chimp to write?

I've never seen any convincing evidence that macroevolution is anything more than microevolution X N. If anyone knows of such, post it.

— raven

Science Avenger --- Before I retired, I was a reviewer of papers with high mathematical content, sometimes for maths journals. I quickly learned to spot oversights and actual mistakes by reading the phrase It's obvious that ...

RealBullDada blithered thusly:

As we know, complexity is awfully hard to quantify or define...

And as we also know, your "arguments" on this subject have absolutely no validity unless and until you can define and quantify "complexity." Until then, Skippy, you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this debate.

Whether you like to admit it or not, genetic inheritance is still very poorly understood.

Given your obvious and consistent ignorance on EVERY subject on which you've bloviated, why should we trust you to judge how well others understand anything?

Sorry, boy, we're all well ahead of you, and have been for some time; and the more time you spend pretending we're all as ignorant as you, the further ahead we get. Buh-bye...

Whether you like to admit it or not, genetic inheritance is still very poorly understood.

It looks to me like realpc is confusing human cultural development with human biological evolutionary development-- a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.
We think we are complex because we use complex things like cars and computers and airplanes, but in fact none of us knows how to construct any of those things. Even the chief designer at Boeing can't tell you how to make the plastics or prospect, mine and smelt the metal in the plane he designed. The complexity comes from the division of labor, not from the evolution of a single human brain. Hunter-gatherers do not, in fact, have radically more complex societies than chimps. The thing they do have which is radically different is art-- in the form of songs, dances, story-telling and plastic arts (including makeup and other body decorations.) In other words, there was one big shift between chimps and humans-- to being able to visualize and communicate symbolically. Our complex societies are simply a secondary after-effect of that one change.
And the latest evidence I've seen (based, admittedly, on popular presentations of science) is that the human brain doesn't seem to have any additional features from any other apes -- it just has a runaway expansion of gray matter.
Now, runaway evolutionary changes are generally associated with sexual selection. And the fact that the arts, including makeup and fashion-- which have no other use than enhancing one's apparent sexual fitness-- were developed tens of millenia before useful things like agriculture would indicate that our complex human brains are no different from the peacock's complex tail-- another proof of sexual selection run amok.
This may be hard to swallow for Christians and Muslims who distain sexuality as a sign of our animal natures, but there you have it. It's probably our randiness that made us what we are today.

I NEVER argued against common ancestry, or evolution, or random mutations, or natural selection. I don't think any scientific ID advocate would either.

— Realpc

And I don't care what right-wing religious Christian creationists think about any of this. They are not scientific, so their opinions on science don't matter to me.

— Realpc

Funny. I know that there are plenty of people on the religious right who find macroevolution to be as morally objectionable as obscenity...

— Mike Dunford

As usual, the YEC's get the timeline wrong.

i submit that the difference between macro and micro evolution is a function of time. If you except one how can you not except the other.

OK, let's see, what of our questions has Paul answered? I mean ever?

The fact is that his wont is to actively ignore everything that has been said, and to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

So I'm not saying that he has never answered anything at all, as #185921 was even a very slight and trivial "answer". But I can't remember a big question that he's answered, like the one with which I started out the comments.

And let's go ahead and say why: He knows no answers to questions like those. He faults the "atheist scientists" for following the guidelines set out by primarily theistic philosophers and scientists during an age that still believed, and he can't give any reason for his false statements against "his neighbor".

So it goes with Xians like him, bringing disrepute and disrespect on all Xians (though if people were better and more fair judges, Paul would not be seen to reflect upon, say, Newton and Dobzhansky). He proves neither to be competent nor intellectually honest, just a wretched propagandist for a particular set of liars of this age. He has no answers, or he'd provide them.

Glen D

In other words, there was one big shift between chimps and humans--- to being able to visualize and communicate symbolically. Our complex societies are simply a secondary after-effect of that one change.

would indicate that our complex human brains are no different from the peacock's complex tail--- another proof of sexual selection run amok.

Stevearoni [sic!] wrote ... The bolded phrase was written by Stephen Gould

#185921 was even a very slight and trivial "answer"

facility of visualization

I'm still awaiting Ontogenetic Depth. Once we get a good description of it, we can put it on the shelf with Irreducible Complexity, Complex Specified Information, the Explanatory Filter, all the other capitalized pseudoscientific notions these guys have produced which have completely failed to amount to anything.

I'm still waiting on whether Paul Nelson will accept moral responsibility for any children who die because of the HIV/AIDS denial he and his cohorts have attached their name to.

So how about it, Paul? I am personally much more interested in letting the public know about your rationalizations for killing children than in your rationalizations for your baldfaced lies about what biologists said three decades ago.

I'm still waiting on whether Paul Nelson will accept moral responsibility for any children who die because of the HIV/AIDS denial he and his cohorts have attached their name to.

realPC writes:

"Macroevolution involves an increase in complexity, while microevolution involves adaptations of existing features."

I'm sorry, but can you give any references to the peer-reviewed professional literature that define those terms as you do above?

Macroevolution referes to evolutionary processes operating above the population level; speciation, extinction, etc.

"An example of adaptation is a change in coloring from light to dark, especially when the potential for both colors already exists."

yes, that is what we would be called microevolution.

"It doesn't matter how much DNA humans and chimps have in common, the difference in complexity is obvious.
Chimps are intelligent and live in complex societies, but they are still much simpler than the simplest human societies."

What does that have to with biological complexity?

Beavers build dams. Does that make them more complex than a rat?

"As we know, complexity is awfully hard to quantify or define."

None the less, you made a claim that chimps are less complex than humans.

I hope I really am misunderstanding Paul's argument, because if I'm not it's embarrassingly bad.

It doesn't matter how much DNA humans and chimps have in common, the difference in complexity is obvious. Chimps are intelligent and live in complex societies, but they are still much simpler than the simplest human societies.

None the less, you made a claim that chimps are less complex than humans.

The bolded phrase was written by Stephen Gould, in his Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Harvard U Press, 1977, p. 405).

Perhaps creating the human race using natural sources takes more than hocus pocus, perhaps it takes the whole evolutionary process.

And then who says the end result stops here. If a creator specifically had us in mind, then by any standard, we still haven't evolved to an end result any "creator" as we think of one, would have had in mind.

(If "God" had no choice in making us. . . just kidding.)

If there is, or was, no specific "conscious" design at work, then I would say that we have to come up with some new "natural laws", or maybe we could even call it (oh, no - here I go) another dimension???

If evolution had/has no conscious direction (and I'm not saying that it does), then what set of laws drives the evolutionary process? Our answers are woefully inadequate using the library of natural knowlege that we have accumulated so far.

I think it's time to look outside the box for the answer. 'Cause (I think) it sure ain't floatin' 'round inside this here ole box.

"As a race it is natural to grow: We know that, we feel that, we experience that, over time."
:) :) :)

"We pity them for taking form so far below ourselves, but therein we err - and err greatly. . ."
-Beston

Schmidt wrote:

"If evolution had/has no conscious direction (and I'm not saying that it does), then what set of laws drives the evolutionary process? Our answers are woefully inadequate using the library of natural knowlege that we have accumulated so far."

This is in fact correct, but only to a certain extent. It depends on how much explanatory power you demand from a theory.

We have decided the most basic and important fact, the historical fact of descent woth modification. We have determined the two most basic processes responsible, "random" mutation and natural selection. We have come a long way in understanding the basic mechanisms of inheritance, molecular biology and development. We have a fairly good knowledge of basic population level phenomenon including drift. We have come a very long way in our knowledge of differnt mechanisms of selection, their limitations and consequences. Of course there is still a lot to learn in all of these fields and more (and a good thing for those of us working in these fields).

As far as prediction is concerned, we cannot predict with any real accuracy exactly what trajectory will be taken by any individual lineage, or the entire biosphere, in the future. Partly this is because of our lack of understanding. Partly this is because of the random element in mutations and drift. Partly this is because of the fact that evolution involves response to the environment and we cannot predict with arrcuray exactly how the environment will change (unfortunately for those warning of global warming).

However, we can make some very definitive probabilistic predictions based on current knowledge. For example, most would consider it extremely unlikely that the type of life that has come to dominate the planet could ever evolve again, given the way in which life has changed the environment. It is also extremely unlikely that certain combinations of morphological characters will ever evolve (i.e. fill in the empty spots in the tree of life), due to historical contingency and functional constraint. We can predict with some confidence that evolution is not over, for our species or most others now living (the exceptions being those that are doomed to extinction in the very near future).

As for the future of the human speices, that is a matter of considerable debate. We now have the technological ability to control our own evolution, at least to a certain extent. The question is, what will we choose for ourselves? We will have the wisdom to choose a bright future of knowledge, progress and achievement, or will we choose to move backwards or even destroy ourselves? Evolutionary theory does not have the answer to this question, but human beings will answer it, one way or another.

Hey Paul, as long as you're avoiding all of the questions you can't answer, which is about all of them, I'd like to ask you how anyone would know if humans are related to each other. I mean, apparently you're willing to think that it's just a coincidence that humans and chimps share 95% + of the same DNA, or that for some unfathomable reason your creator decided to design in a way that would look like evolution occurred.

Now all humans share 99.5 to 99.8 percent of the same genetic information, but I don't see why we should expect common inheritance to account for this fact if the similarities between chimps and humans aren't supposed to stem from common inheritance. So will you bite the bullet and admit that it may very well be that humans in South America are not actually related to humans in Australia? As you asked previously (and obtusely), if the similarities are supposed to mean common descent, what are the differences supposed to mean?

And please give us a sound scientific epistemology based upon your inconsistent view of things. See, I don't know how to tell if chimps are related to humans, if Australian aborigenes are related to Eskimos, or if I'm related to my (purported) Mom (note that I didn't witness my own birth, and if there are similarites, then what of the differences? Come on Paul, you try to pretend that you have answers, cough them up). Inform us about pattern recognition, relationships, and the cause-effect expectations from your design model.

If you don't answer again I just might have to suspect that you have nothing legitimate to say. Huh, imagine that conclusion.

Glen D
http://geocities.com/interelectromagnetic