Macro, Micro, and Evolution

Yahzi · 12th May 2006, 02:22 PM

Here is a very simplified version for people (like me) who know nothing about biology. In real life, everything is more complex, longer, with more complicated interrelationships.

So first, let’s start with a (simplified) strand of DNA. All DNA is a long chain of the same 4 complex molecules (called neucleotides) in various orders.

CCAACTTGCAT

After much study, scientists decided to break these chains up into blocks called genes, and named them.

[CCAA][CTTG][CAT]
G1......G2.......G3

Various combinations of genes produce various results. For example, if you have G1, G2, and G3, you have green eyes. Having G2 and G3 but not G1 means blue eyes. Having none of them means black eyes. (In real life, G1 might also affect other things as well, like left-handedness or blood type.)

Now we all understand a mutation means something goes wrong, and that gene is either broken or changed. Suppose a person had all three genes in the above example, but G87 had been mutated and broken. That person would have black eyes just like a person who didn’t have the gene at all.

But where do mutations come from? The answer is the copying process. When you go to make a new person, you have to copy your DNA. There is a chemical process that starts at the top of the DNA chain, and copies each molecule, one at a time, like adding popcorn onto a string. But what if something goes wrong?

CCACTTGCAT

Woops! I got interrupted and accidentally dropped the second A on the floor. Now it’s gone, and the new DNA strand is the blueprint for a person with blue eyes. Sorry.

[CCA][CTTG][CAT]
G???...G2.......G3

And here we come to the point: The copying process that introduces mutations does not know what gene it is copying. It only copies molecules (the letters) one at a time, not genes as a single object.

So if you posit that micro evolution is possible – that the genes that control for eye color can be mutated (and we know mutations occur!) – then how do you explain how this copying process always works perfectly when it is copying the genes for sexual reproduction? And if it doesn’t, then mutations can be introduced into the sexual reproduction equipment. Assuming those aren’t fatal, and do not immediately lead to non-fertility, this new creature could reproduce and pass along the gene. Then suppose you get another small change in the sexual function: now the new creature can still interbreed with its mutated fellows, but suddenly cannot interbreed with the original stock. Now suppose the new creatures and the old creatures are just plain healthier than the middle creatures, and so eventually all the middle ones die out (their niche is taken over by the new ones). And what do you have? Two species that cannot interbreed. Two kinds from one. (This argument works for any mutation, including new organs, unless you contend that it is impossible for mutations to eventually add up to something good. Since this contention violates the laws of information science – for example, I have personally extracted more information from a weak signal by introducing randomness to it – we can dispense with this contention.)

The essential point here is that the copying process does not know what it is copying. It copies molecules, not genes. Ergo, if a mistake is possible anywhere, then it is possible everywhere. And since mistakes need not always be fatal or infertile, you can eventually make enough mistakes that you aren’t where you started from.

To posit that species cannot evolve even while genes can change is to posit that some mechanism prevents errors in the speciation gene-copying but not in the other gene-copying. But gene-copying (that is, reproducing a strand of molecules one molecule at a time) is well understood, and there is no mechanism, nor is there room for or the possibility of such a mechanism.

Given this, the distinction between macro and micro evolution is untenable, insomuch as it requires a mechanism (protecting some genes but not others during copying) that does not exist.

Does this help?

cbish · 12th May 2006, 03:28 PM

Sure does. Except I might change this part.

Originally Posted by Yahzi

now the new creature can still interbreed with its mutated fellows, but suddenly cannot interbreed with the original stock.

Does this help?

How about; new creature and mutant leave for a very long time and when they return, can no longer interbreed with original stock.

Something about the word "suddenly" throws a flag at me because this is one of the major misconceptions Evolution Deniers try to promote. That macroevolution is a single birth event. A lizard hatched an egg and out came a chicken. Very Kent Hovid.

blutoski · 13th May 2006, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Yahzi

Given this, the distinction between macro and micro evolution is untenable, insomuch as it requires a mechanism (protecting some genes but not others during copying) that does not exist.

I think this is the Creationists' point, though: that macroevolution does not exist.

My impression is that creationism refers to microevolution as recombination or possibly a harmful mutation, and macroevolution as the emergence of biblical kinds.

I think they argue that genes recombine to produce novel traits, but that when genes mutate, they are essentially defective. Therefore, their argument is that multiple mutations are just plain fatal and wouldn't lead to new body plans.

writerdd · 13th May 2006, 09:17 AM

The creationists are right. There is no such thing as macro evolution. You will never find, for an extreme example, a fish giving birth to an iguania.

What they seem to misunderstand is that it takes a lot of so-called "micro evolution" over a lot of time to add up to big changes. Add isolation in time or geography, and eventually what was once one species is now two. (The two species may coexist in time if the isolation is geographic, or they may exist at different points in time if the isolation was temporal). Either way, there was no "macro evolution" event that occurred to create a new species.

However, creationists have a twisted logic regarding this point. On the one hand, they try to pick apart the idea of macro evolution (assuming that an all at once big change is necessary for a new species to arise) and on the other hand, they cry because they claim there are no transitional fossils. Well, the lack of transitional fossils would actually point to what they call macro evolution.

Yahzi · 13th May 2006, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by blutoski

I think they argue that genes recombine to produce novel traits, but that when genes mutate, they are essentially defective. Therefore, their argument is that multiple mutations are just plain fatal and wouldn't lead to new body plans.

I agree that is often the follow-up; but I think a lot of creationists really don't understand what the problem with non-speciation evolution is. My goal was to explain that mutations occur at a level where genes don't exist yet, so reproductive capabilities are as likely to be mutated as anything (jeez, then, why didn't I just say that?

)

The argument over whether mutations can ever be benificial (or whether new information can arise) is the next step.

Cynric · 13th May 2006, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Yahzi

Here is a very simplified version for people (like me) who know nothing about biology. In real life, everything is more complex, longer, with more complicated interrelationships.

SNIP

Does this help?

It's a very good summary. You made one slight error, though. You used logic and reason to try and educate people who are determined to believe that manifestly obvious truths are, in fact, false.

Otherwise excellent.

joe87 · 13th May 2006, 09:25 PM

Here's an article that talks about massive duplication of genetic material in paleoangiosperms.

Quote:

Researchers from the Floral Genome Project at Penn State University, with an international team of collaborators, have proposed an answer to Charles Darwin's "abominable mystery:" the inexplicably rapid evolution of flowering plants immediately after their first appearance some 140 million years ago. By developing new statistical methods to analyze incomplete DNA sequences from thirteen strategically selected plant species, the researchers uncovered a previously hidden "paleopolyploidy" event, an ancient whole-genome duplication that preceded the appearance of the ancestral flowering plant.

I don't know much about biology either, but this sounds like a way to explain rapid evolution without invoking creationism. Could this be called macro evolution?

Dustin Kesselberg · 13th May 2006, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by writerdd

The creationists are right. There is no such thing as macro evolution. You will never find, for an extreme example, a fish giving birth to an iguania.

What they seem to misunderstand is that it takes a lot of so-called "micro evolution" over a lot of time to add up to big changes. Add isolation in time or geography, and eventually what was once one species is now two. (The two species may coexist in time if the isolation is geographic, or they may exist at different points in time if the isolation was temporal). Either way, there was no "macro evolution" event that occurred to create a new species.

However, creationists have a twisted logic regarding this point. On the one hand, they try to pick apart the idea of macro evolution (assuming that an all at once big change is necessary for a new species to arise) and on the other hand, they cry because they claim there are no transitional fossils. Well, the lack of transitional fossils would actually point to what they call macro evolution.

"Macro evolution" is evolution above the species level. Macro evolution does exist and it is micro added up.

12th May 2006, 02:22 PM	#1
Yahzi Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672	Macro, Micro, and Evolution Here is a very simplified version for people (like me) who know nothing about biology. In real life, everything is more complex, longer, with more complicated interrelationships. So first, let’s start with a (simplified) strand of DNA. All DNA is a long chain of the same 4 complex molecules (called neucleotides) in various orders. CCAACTTGCAT After much study, scientists decided to break these chains up into blocks called genes, and named them. [CCAA][CTTG][CAT] G1......G2.......G3 Various combinations of genes produce various results. For example, if you have G1, G2, and G3, you have green eyes. Having G2 and G3 but not G1 means blue eyes. Having none of them means black eyes. (In real life, G1 might also affect other things as well, like left-handedness or blood type.) Now we all understand a mutation means something goes wrong, and that gene is either broken or changed. Suppose a person had all three genes in the above example, but G87 had been mutated and broken. That person would have black eyes just like a person who didn’t have the gene at all. But where do mutations come from? The answer is the copying process. When you go to make a new person, you have to copy your DNA. There is a chemical process that starts at the top of the DNA chain, and copies each molecule, one at a time, like adding popcorn onto a string. But what if something goes wrong? CCACTTGCAT Woops! I got interrupted and accidentally dropped the second A on the floor. Now it’s gone, and the new DNA strand is the blueprint for a person with blue eyes. Sorry. [CCA][CTTG][CAT] G???...G2.......G3 And here we come to the point: The copying process that introduces mutations does not know what gene it is copying. It only copies molecules (the letters) one at a time, not genes as a single object. So if you posit that micro evolution is possible – that the genes that control for eye color can be mutated (and we know mutations occur!) – then how do you explain how this copying process always works perfectly when it is copying the genes for sexual reproduction? And if it doesn’t, then mutations can be introduced into the sexual reproduction equipment. Assuming those aren’t fatal, and do not immediately lead to non-fertility, this new creature could reproduce and pass along the gene. Then suppose you get another small change in the sexual function: now the new creature can still interbreed with its mutated fellows, but suddenly cannot interbreed with the original stock. Now suppose the new creatures and the old creatures are just plain healthier than the middle creatures, and so eventually all the middle ones die out (their niche is taken over by the new ones). And what do you have? Two species that cannot interbreed. Two kinds from one. (This argument works for any mutation, including new organs, unless you contend that it is impossible for mutations to eventually add up to something good. Since this contention violates the laws of information science – for example, I have personally extracted more information from a weak signal by introducing randomness to it – we can dispense with this contention.) The essential point here is that the copying process does not know what it is copying. It copies molecules, not genes. Ergo, if a mistake is possible anywhere, then it is possible everywhere. And since mistakes need not always be fatal or infertile, you can eventually make enough mistakes that you aren’t where you started from. To posit that species cannot evolve even while genes can change is to posit that some mechanism prevents errors in the speciation gene-copying but not in the other gene-copying. But gene-copying (that is, reproducing a strand of molecules one molecule at a time) is well understood, and there is no mechanism, nor is there room for or the possibility of such a mechanism. Given this, the distinction between macro and micro evolution is untenable, insomuch as it requires a mechanism (protecting some genes but not others during copying) that does not exist. Does this help?
	__________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com Last edited by Yahzi; 12th May 2006 at 02:48 PM.

12th May 2006, 03:28 PM	#2
cbish Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Nevada City, CA Posts: 1,191	Sure does. Except I might change this part. Originally Posted by Yahzi now the new creature can still interbreed with its mutated fellows, but suddenly cannot interbreed with the original stock. Does this help? How about; new creature and mutant leave for a very long time and when they return, can no longer interbreed with original stock. Something about the word "suddenly" throws a flag at me because this is one of the major misconceptions Evolution Deniers try to promote. That macroevolution is a single birth event. A lizard hatched an egg and out came a chicken. Very Kent Hovid.
	__________________ You have to live it to believe it! If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for you!

13th May 2006, 08:37 AM	#3
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,158	Originally Posted by Yahzi Given this, the distinction between macro and micro evolution is untenable, insomuch as it requires a mechanism (protecting some genes but not others during copying) that does not exist. I think this is the Creationists' point, though: that macroevolution does not exist. My impression is that creationism refers to microevolution as recombination or possibly a harmful mutation, and macroevolution as the emergence of biblical kinds. I think they argue that genes recombine to produce novel traits, but that when genes mutate, they are essentially defective. Therefore, their argument is that multiple mutations are just plain fatal and wouldn't lead to new body plans.
blutoski Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,158

13th May 2006, 09:17 AM	#4
writerdd Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 132	The creationists are right. There is no such thing as macro evolution. You will never find, for an extreme example, a fish giving birth to an iguania. What they seem to misunderstand is that it takes a lot of so-called "micro evolution" over a lot of time to add up to big changes. Add isolation in time or geography, and eventually what was once one species is now two. (The two species may coexist in time if the isolation is geographic, or they may exist at different points in time if the isolation was temporal). Either way, there was no "macro evolution" event that occurred to create a new species. However, creationists have a twisted logic regarding this point. On the one hand, they try to pick apart the idea of macro evolution (assuming that an all at once big change is necessary for a new species to arise) and on the other hand, they cry because they claim there are no transitional fossils. Well, the lack of transitional fossils would actually point to what they call macro evolution.
writerdd Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 132

13th May 2006, 03:01 PM	#5
Yahzi Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: AZ Posts: 2,672	Originally Posted by blutoski I think they argue that genes recombine to produce novel traits, but that when genes mutate, they are essentially defective. Therefore, their argument is that multiple mutations are just plain fatal and wouldn't lead to new body plans. I agree that is often the follow-up; but I think a lot of creationists really don't understand what the problem with non-speciation evolution is. My goal was to explain that mutations occur at a level where genes don't exist yet, so reproductive capabilities are as likely to be mutated as anything (jeez, then, why didn't I just say that? ) The argument over whether mutations can ever be benificial (or whether new information can arise) is the next step.
	__________________ ID lives in a cardboard refrigerator box and throws rocks through the windows of evolution's unfinished mansion. ---Beleth Buy my book! www.WorldOfPrime.com

13th May 2006, 03:47 PM	#6
Cynric Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 253	Originally Posted by Yahzi Here is a very simplified version for people (like me) who know nothing about biology. In real life, everything is more complex, longer, with more complicated interrelationships. SNIP Does this help? It's a very good summary. You made one slight error, though. You used logic and reason to try and educate people who are determined to believe that manifestly obvious truths are, in fact, false. Otherwise excellent.
Cynric Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 253

13th May 2006, 09:25 PM	#7
joe87 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 89	Here's an article that talks about massive duplication of genetic material in paleoangiosperms. Quote: Researchers from the Floral Genome Project at Penn State University, with an international team of collaborators, have proposed an answer to Charles Darwin's "abominable mystery:" the inexplicably rapid evolution of flowering plants immediately after their first appearance some 140 million years ago. By developing new statistical methods to analyze incomplete DNA sequences from thirteen strategically selected plant species, the researchers uncovered a previously hidden "paleopolyploidy" event, an ancient whole-genome duplication that preceded the appearance of the ancestral flowering plant. I don't know much about biology either, but this sounds like a way to explain rapid evolution without invoking creationism. Could this be called macro evolution?
joe87 Scholar Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 89

13th May 2006, 09:49 PM	#8
Dustin Kesselberg Usus magister est optimus Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Al Jumahiriyah al Arabiyah al Libiyah ash Shabiyah al Ishtirakiyah al Uzma Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by writerdd The creationists are right. There is no such thing as macro evolution. You will never find, for an extreme example, a fish giving birth to an iguania. What they seem to misunderstand is that it takes a lot of so-called "micro evolution" over a lot of time to add up to big changes. Add isolation in time or geography, and eventually what was once one species is now two. (The two species may coexist in time if the isolation is geographic, or they may exist at different points in time if the isolation was temporal). Either way, there was no "macro evolution" event that occurred to create a new species. However, creationists have a twisted logic regarding this point. On the one hand, they try to pick apart the idea of macro evolution (assuming that an all at once big change is necessary for a new species to arise) and on the other hand, they cry because they claim there are no transitional fossils. Well, the lack of transitional fossils would actually point to what they call macro evolution. "Macro evolution" is evolution above the species level. Macro evolution does exist and it is micro added up.