(October 23, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Polaris Wrote: It's like saying that people who have similar ethnic characteristics are undergoing gradual evolution each time they pass on their genes.

I don't think it is anything like that. The vast majority of the time there is no mutation beyond the normal range of the gene pool. Occasionally there are truly abberant mutations or, as the evo devo quote from wikipedia suggest, changes in the switching mechanisms which control embryo assembly. When -infrequently- the mutation is beneficial for the current state of the environment, the advantage can be passed on if there is improved competitiveness for breeding.

Evolution is NOT like clay-mation in which every generation presents a smooth but gradual change toward a new species. It is infrequent and rarely advantageous. But over eons of time, some changes stick and enough changes can result in new species. If you read up on evo devo it seems that more radical and faster changes can occur based on how the genetic information in expressed in embryo creation. So when these switching HOX genes are effected -and possibly directly by environmental influences- you can get much more rapid morphological changes simply by changing the size or number of repetitions of a modular structure. I haven't adequately digested this yet but if it pans out it seems that much more drastic change may be able to occur much more abruptly than previously thought.

(October 23, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Polaris Wrote: Microevolution is an analogy to evolution, but is not evolution.

What are you saying? What does being an analogy to evolution look like? What do you think it really is?

You don't "believe" in evolution anymore than you have to "believe" in gravity. We can KNOW and prove what both are and that both are facts. Facts are not "believed" facts are proven.

(October 23, 2012 at 10:12 pm)Brunitski Wrote:

(October 23, 2012 at 9:01 pm)Polaris Wrote: The issue with microevolution is the sample is extremely small, of just a small population nothing close to the size of the species. It's like saying that people who have similar ethnic characteristics are undergoing gradual evolution each time they pass on their genes. Microevolution is an analogy to evolution, but is not evolution.

Hang on, are you still trying to support this stupid canard? There is only evolution. This has been comprehensively shown by a number of well respected scientists in a variety of peer reviewed journals. I can find references for you if you insist, but probably the best way forward is for you to stop taking your definitions from dubious Creationist retards. The use of the terms were hijacked by Timothy Wallace and latched onto by dickheads who want to teach their favorite magic mans creation myth in our schools.

Here; maybe this will help:

Talk Origins Wrote:Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.

Creationists have created another category for which they use the word "macroevolution." They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.

Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.

Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.

There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct "kinds." This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.

Now I know that you are probably go to wikipedia and look up Micro-evolution - just make sure there is no cherrypicking when you triumphantly report back.

How about you go study biology and then come back? Until then, you really just come off as a typical American. Also throwing the word creationist where it obviously does not belong just makes you look stupid.

Whateverist. Evolution is gradual, but what many try to pass off as evolution given the variables of microevolution is not evolution. Mainly they just end up at the same point cycle after cycle, which is not evolution but just simple Darwinism like the representation of moths during the Industrial Revolution. It resembles evolution, but it is not evolution. Eventually certain traits in microevolution may lead to actual evolution, but such is currently beyond the realm of human understanding....maybe if were like the Asari, but our lifetime limits keep us from really grasping such a breakthrough in evolutionary theory.

Plus most of what happens in microevolution is actually just cancelled out anyway. It's a combination of Darwinian and Mendelian theory that accounts for that...sure the changes may survive a few generations, but they end up killing off the individuals with those traits so it leaves pretty much no room for evolution...even when some do survive, these traits are not represented and therefore there still is no evolution for the most part. Only a small percentage of changes in the microevolution realm if want to call it that carry through enough to be seen as actual evolution.

Your the one proposing partner selection has nothing to do with evolution, why don't you go and learn about biology?

(October 23, 2012 at 11:26 pm)jonb Wrote: Your the one proposing partner selection has nothing to do with evolution, why don't you go and learn about biology?

Actually. It really does not. It's not like you're going to have a whole species all-of-a-sudden not want to mate with individuals with short dicks.

(October 23, 2012 at 11:40 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(October 23, 2012 at 11:26 pm)jonb Wrote: Your the one proposing partner selection has nothing to do with evolution, why don't you go and learn about biology?

Actually. It really does not. It's not like you're going to have a whole species all-of-a-sudden not want to mate with individuals with short dicks.

What about birds, for example? Ones that have flashier plumage could better attract mates for certain species, for instance.

(October 23, 2012 at 11:41 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(October 23, 2012 at 11:40 pm)Polaris Wrote: Actually. It really does not. It's not like you're going to have a whole species all-of-a-sudden not want to mate with individuals with short dicks.

What about birds, for example? Ones that have flashier plumage could better attract mates for certain species, for instance.

Those advantages are usually of secondary importance biologically speaking. Through countless species and genres, such show has been primarily a defense mechanism against predators all the way back to the Cambrian.

(October 23, 2012 at 11:40 pm)Polaris Wrote: It's not like you're going to have a whole species all-of-a-sudden not want to mate with individuals with short dicks.

The very kind of thing you think doesn't happen does, and it took 35 generations of fruit flies to achieve it (and I'm pretty sure I already referenced it in this thread). To elaborate, reproductive isolation was achieved not through any novel bit of code but by relative light levels and the flies preference for them.......So, again, you are arguing against what has been observed, not once, not twice, but many.... many times. You are arguing against what we have observed happening both inside labs at our behest and outside of them unbeknownst (at least for a time) to us. There are species of cichlids native to man made lakes that did not exist prior to the 1900's.....ffs.. It's not even an isolated event. Where do you get this shit?

(October 23, 2012 at 11:48 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(October 23, 2012 at 11:40 pm)Polaris Wrote: It's not like you're going to have a whole species all-of-a-sudden not want to mate with individuals with short dicks.

The very kind of thing you think doesn't happen does, and it took 35 generations of fruit flies to achieve it (and I'm pretty sure I already referenced it in this thread). To elaborate, reproductive isolation was achieved not through any novel bit of code but by relative light levels and the flies preference for them.......So, again, you are arguing against what has been observed, not once, not twice, but many.... many times. You are arguing against what we have observed happening both inside labs at our behest and outside of them unbeknownst (at least for a time) to us.

You're using a size of 35 generations as an example? Are you fucking kidding me? Assuming even an equivalent generation of 100 (three times the current breeding average where I live), that is only a span of 3500 years. That's just simple Darwin at that point...you need generations in the tens of thousands to actually show microevolution, which is why bacteria is very much desired as a test subject.

Why would I be kidding you? That's how many generations of fruit flies it took to achieve isolation. And?

An equivalent generation of 100? Wtf would that be equivalent to amigo? Why do we need to assume anything at all? I'm just relating the particulars of an observation that just so happens to be something you think doesn't happen. The fruit flies in question were isloated simply by their preference for relative levels of light and humidity. Nothing else was required.