Validity of Micro/macro-evolution idea

I don't really have a clear perception of the line between to the two...one is clearly possible the other is quite far removed. However I do believe that Life on Earth is quite aged...certainly greater than thousands of years.

But what distinction has science offered....an answer I'm still waiting for. I don't know everything on evolution but where are the answer to all these question and note": Whatever my motivations are...it is clear that I have kept this squarely on the scientific discussion relating refrences scientist should be familiar with...You're the first person to mention anything about religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So you think speciation could occur. I agree; unless the situation changes so that these tunnel varients are forced back into the general population, full speciation is likely, as has been seen in other cases around the world.

If that is acceptable, then what is to stop that speciated group from speciating, and then *that* group speciating, etc?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's nothing wrong with the propposal but...there is a "sound barrier" here.

One assumes we can accelerate straight to the speed of light...but there is a lightspeed barrier. There is a point of diminishing returns.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

how do you know this?

 

They are not necessary for Darwinian evolution. Not only are they unnecessary, they are specifically denied by Darwinian evolutionary theory. They contradict Darwinian theory. A demonstration of their common existence would eliminate Darwinian theory as the core theory of evolutionary change. And yet you keep insisting, repeatedly, that Darwinian evolution requires them.

Until you have acquired, somehow, an understanding of Darwinian evolutionary theory, you will continue to make fundamental, simple, basic, stupid mistakes whenever you make assertions about it.

Again the appeal to authority. As I have pointed out, you never argue from fact, only authority. Factual "contradictory qualifications" you were given - for example, that Hoyle assumes independence in events that are not independent. That is an objection to Hoyle's calculation that is independent of anyone's authority - you can check it yourself. You do not need authority, only a willingness to handle fact and some simple arithmetic.

Are you seriously thinking of yourself as a willing student?

 

What concerns me is why the connection is made (see below).

Does this signify interaction beyond what would be required to be possible or is it simple linear progression?

 

Good Question. Observation confirms the status quo.

 

Which observations?

 

Ophilolite said the fossil record shows macro evolution in action...
Is it true? Observe the fossil record...

 

Having not read the thread in its completeness, I still might add a word here.

The notion of punctuated equilibrium, or generally rapid macroevolution, suggests – as River wind illustrates – a certain modularity. Now I think the point has been argued that this hasn’t been observed in the same way that the subtler, lower-gear shifts of microevolution have – but it has: reaction norms (see West-Eberhard, de Jong, Schlichting and the like) permit rapid differentiation from the ecological norm on a scalar or categorical level. The debate of course, ends up being whether underlying genetic variance for such shifts exists (the adaptationist school; de Jong and his lot) or whether genes lead the process at all (West-Eberhard and the traitor Schlichting…

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). Granted, evidence for the former is far more overwhelming, but the fixation of novel states via environmental and/or punctuated genetic shifts followed by peripheral adaptation could generate the kind of phenotypic-speciative change that’s being discussed. Frankly, even the former kind of phenotype-genotype architecture could generate punctuated equilibrium, assuming even a little modularity, for which examples do indeed exist. So, I think it’s incorrect to assume that there’s no evidence for it – on a mathematical scale (i.e. reaction norms/GxE), I think it could easily be argued there’s as much reason to consider punctuation as Darwinianism. The truth, of course, will be somewhere in the middle, as all things, and probably via scalar changes in phenotype as opposed to complete reaction norm crossovers.

You’ll have to excuse me for coming late to the debate, but I’m catching up.

 

Not only was that difficult to read but difficult to comprehend...Thanks...

 

Sorry, sorry. I love the jargon, I can't help it.

What I'm saying is: we have evidence - loads of it - for minor to major deviations of particular genotypes from their usual additive expression, caused by exogenous or even endogenous factors. So it's possible to have an unpredicted deviant from the usual range of observed phenotypes, due to reaction norms (GxE, basically). Principally, you'd expect that to be cued by exogenous - environmental - factors, but endogenous is possible too (i.e. sex, although this would presumably still encompass the normal phenotypic range). Now, in that case you could produce vastly different-looking animals or plants quite quickly. Related individuals with similar architecture might well diverge into similar phenotypes that are divergent from the type, or usual, phenotype. They wouldn't probably be reproductively isolate, but with enough divergence they might - dogs for example are all still dogs but I don't think a Great Dane could successfully mate with a chihuahua. So...you might generate rapid speciation that way.

I just think that the big processes are really probably (in fact, necessarily) bounded in the local dynamics - the reduced, genotype-phenotype coefficients, modified in space, time and circumstance. Nobody ever wants to talk about this, though, seemingly. Look at Gould - does he mention the quantitative architecture, epigenetic or otherwise? Nope. None of them do.

I should write a book, because that really pisses me off. What a bunch of assholes. These guys never heard of Fisher or fucking Pearson? For fuck's sake.

 

Sorry about the language.

 

Don't mutations cause physical expressions of previously dormant phenotypes?

 

They can, if you buy into West-Eberhard. Exogenous or endogenous insults. It would I guess be the only endogenous deviant factor, really. Gender's already there so that's no good.

 

So the webbed feet of polar bears were probably by mutation-caused phenotype manifestation?

 

In the case of particular features and specific cases, I don't know. But it's possible. All mammals have some webbing.

 

So, according to Darwinism, all mutant web-footed animals are destined to live in the sea? Bad news for Dan Akroyd.

 

What? Do you live in the sea?

GeoffP: thanks for the posts! Gave my biology studies a good workout, to remember and parse all those terms. Still working a bit on the first one, but I agree fully with the rest

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!