Test My Theory: Macro evolution DOES happen?

[RoadRunner79]

I was discussing a known rapid one-gen "macro" evolution as a possible response to the creationist claim that we NEVER see "macro" changes in species, and the implications for the specimen's chances for successfully passing on that mutation.

You want Hyla Versicolor then, the Gray Tree Frog. It's an American frog that's largely identical to the Cope's Gray Tree Frog, except that the latter is diploid, and the former is tetraploid. Over the course of one or two generations, Hyla Versicolor evolved a double chromosome set that classifies is as an entirely new species. If literally doubling your chromosome count doesn't qualify as a macro change, I don't know what does.

Unless, of course, "macro" changes are supposed to be obvious, outward appearance changes, which only really bespeaks a superficial understanding of biology. If you're being asked for a crocoduck, then you're being asked for evidence of chimera-ism, not evolution. If immense, baseline genetic changes that fundamentally alter the species you're in don't count, then it's possible, just saying, that creationists are just looking for reasons not to be pleased and nothing would satisfy their conditions.

This is interesting!

I've never looked into this very much and have not really heard of it given for evidence of evolution.  

Here are some of my first thoughts (please correct anything that is in error).

• Now given my understanding of the topic, I am assuming, that this isn't considered gradual change over time.  That is, that the frog did not gain chromosomes gradually over many generations, to end up with double the chromosomes.
  
• That some anomaly in reproduction caused the chromosomes to double in a single generation.  It is surprising to me, that they did survive although they obviously did.  (I would think this would normally be fatal)
  
• My first assumption, which seems to be confirmed by a quick google search, is that the diploid and tetraploid variatioins are unlikely to be able to reproduce successfully together; either with the offspring not surviving very long, or being infertile.  I would be curious if it is thought, that if there where two tretraploid variations to initiate the species, or if a rare mating occurred between the two, which was able to perpetuate this difference.
  
• This is a rare example, and not typical of what is referred of the process of macroevolution. 
  

It's also interesting, that you bring up chimera's.   A little different than what you are talking about, but have you ever looked at human chimeraism?   I was introduced to it, once, when someone was commenting on my different colored eye brows.  I primarily have brown hair, but on one side, I have blonde for the upper part of my body, patches in my beard, and hair, one blonde eye brow/ eye lashes, one arm has blonde hair etc.... I've never been tested, but I could have two sets of DNA, that caused this.  My understanding is that it is being found to be more common than previously though (if not always apparent).

---

Can you two please get a thread?

I apologize... I will ignore them from here on.   Don't want to take the thread off topic.

[ApeNotKillApe]

[RoadRunner79]

Down my way we have a well respected chemist who actually runs the creationist museum in Portsmouth.
I was at an open meeting where creatoinism was discussed and it became clear that he knew a lot about chemistry but sod all about anything else.
He was quite, quite mad.

---

Do you not think that chemistry is involved here (if not foundational)? Also, if you have read the article, he is inquiring for others to explain this to him on a professional level.

I agree with pretty much all of that.  I would also consider it to be microevolution or natural variation.  I don't believe that it explains large changes in body plan or morphology.   What is the mechanism or theory, by which these types of changes occur?  Or if understanding is lacking, what is the evidence, that these did occur as the story is told?   We do are best to connect the dots, as evolution tells us, but what tells us, that we should be drawing these lines at all?

This highly regarded chemist says that he doesn't understand it, and seems to say that there is a distinction.

Microevolution over time leads to bigger changes. Its the difference between taking one step down a road and taking many. So an accumulation of small changes leads to big cjanges eventually.
I shall explain this as though to a simple child. If everyday you put a pebble in one spot on the ground over enough time you will have a mountain of stones. Little things accumulate and there has been billions of years of evolution, which sped up exponentially when sex started.
[/quote]

I agree with your extrapolation here, and I can add up the pebbles to get explain the final mountain. I don't however feel that a skyscraper can be explained by the same extrapolation (especially if you are only adding pebbles). I can take a number of steps down the road, and add those up, and I will reach the coast. However adding up those steps doesn't get me to Hawaii or the moon.

The issue is not, that I don't understand the claim, but that I question the evidence and reasoning supporting it(or lack there of). You need to connect the dots, from the small variations, to the quite different results that are being posited. Why should I infer that this evolutionary change has taken place?

Alternatively; rather than showing a reason through the mechanism to make the inference, you could show evidence that it has occurred (despite the ability to explain it). I normally find that the evidence given assumes evolution, rather than demonstrating it. That it is little more than this part looks much like this other part over here and since we assume common descent, they must be related (except when it does not fit the model, then this reasoning does not apply). The data points for this connection is usually low and not always congruent across species, yet evolution is fact, so it must have happened. But the question is... why is this a fact?

[Faith No More]

You can't even understand that ID is not science. Why would we waste time explaining to you the science behind evolution?

Baby steps, RR. Try understanding the scientific process first.

[downbeatplumb]

Road runner said the below but I seem to have deleted his name. (My bad)

I agree with your extrapolation here, and I can add up the pebbles to get explain the final mountain.  I don't however feel that a skyscraper can be explained by the same extrapolation (especially if you are only adding pebbles).  I can take a number of steps down the road, and add those up, and I will reach the coast.  However adding up those steps doesn't get me to Hawaii or the moon.

The issue is not, that I don't understand the claim, but that I question the evidence and reasoning supporting it(or lack there of).  You need to connect the dots, from the small variations, to the quite different results that are being posited.  Why should I infer that this evolutionary change has taken place?

Alternatively; rather than showing a reason through the mechanism to make the inference, you could show evidence that it has occurred (despite the ability to explain it).  I normally find that the evidence given assumes evolution, rather than demonstrating it.  That it is little more than this part looks much like this other part over here and since we assume common descent, they must be related (except when it does not fit the model, then this reasoning does not apply).  The data points for this connection is usually low and not always congruent across species, yet evolution is fact, so it must have happened.  But the question is... why is this a fact?

The thing is I was doing is called "a lie to children" it's a very simplified version of events that bears very little in common with the actuality but gives the gist.
I apologise if I misunderstood your level of comprehension, but was basing my explanation on the level of knowledge you display here, which as far as I can tell is as near to zero as detectable.

So here is a detailed example of how small incremental changes led to a major change over time.
It is the change of fish jaws to become the ear bones in mammals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...y_ossicles

[Esquilax]

I agree with your extrapolation here, and I can add up the pebbles to get explain the final mountain.  I don't however feel that a skyscraper can be explained by the same extrapolation (especially if you are only adding pebbles).  I can take a number of steps down the road, and add those up, and I will reach the coast.  However adding up those steps doesn't get me to Hawaii or the moon.

The issue is not, that I don't understand the claim, but that I question the evidence and reasoning supporting it(or lack there of).  You need to connect the dots, from the small variations, to the quite different results that are being posited.  Why should I infer that this evolutionary change has taken place?

Since we're using analogies, consider microevolution as a ball rolling down a hill: at the top of the hill you've got the first generation of a given species, and at any point along the ball's path, you have another, descendant generation. Obviously, the ball is growing further away from the point we've designated as the first generation, just as each successive microevolutionary change alters the genetics further away from that first generation too. Inch by inch, we get further from what we originally had. But you, in this analogy, are standing at a point down the hill, in the ball's path, pointing a few yards yet further down the hill, and asserting that there's no way for the ball to roll to that point.

But from everything we understand about gravity and momentum, the ball will roll to that point assuming nothing stops it. From everything we understand about mutation and simple accumulation, successive smaller changes can be perceived as larger changes over time. For the ball not to continue rolling down its path, there would need to be some force acting against it to stop it. Without that, inches accumulate, and the ball continues to grow further from generation one. What is the force that will stop the evolutionary ball?

Essentially what I'm asking is, why did you compare macroevolution to Hawaii and the moon? What is it that's making you assume that the "macro" destination is impossible to get to via the pebble analogy, instead of just something higher than the mountain is currently?

Alternatively; rather than showing a reason through the mechanism to make the inference, you could show evidence that it has occurred (despite the ability to explain it).  I normally find that the evidence given assumes evolution, rather than demonstrating it.  That it is little more than this part looks much like this other part over here and since we assume common descent, they must be related (except when it does not fit the model, then this reasoning does not apply).  The data points for this connection is usually low and not always congruent across species, yet evolution is fact, so it must have happened.  But the question is... why is this a fact?

So, what do you know about laryngeal nerves?

The (recurrent, in humans and a lot of vertebrates) laryngeal nerve supports all the muscles in the larynx, and it's a homologous feature shared by most vertebrates. Everything from fish to humans have them, and the structure and purpose is largely identical, except for one key difference: see, in fish, which are more primitive in an evolutionary sense, the nerve simply travels in a straight line down into the larynx. But during the evolutionary progression that led to the development of necks in higher life forms, that nerve became "trapped" under the aortic arch, so that for us it travels down past the larynx, under the aorta in our chest, and then back up redundantly into the neck. Every vertebrate with both a laryngeal nerve and a neck has this, and every vertebrate with a laryngeal nerve and without a neck does not. This extends even to giraffes, where the nerve dips down fifteen feet to come back up, where a straight shot trip would be a couple of inches at best.

Why does this happen? Well, because the genetic plan for the laryngeal nerve altered slowly over time. As organisms evolved necks, they still had the genetics for the original laryngeal nerve, and with no way for it to magically pop into a better position, the nerve continued to grow around the aorta as it usually does, only lengthening to fit the new dimensions of the neck and thoracic cavity. This is a trait that we all share, because we all have the same genetic lineage, a common ancestor with the same nerve whose offspring developed very different neck plans, with that nerve being bound by the laws of physics to simply stretch to accommodate what it was inheriting, because it is an inherited trait.

Now, this is only one point of data, but the only way it makes sense is in light of macroevolution being true, at least in the sense that it's the most parsimonious explanation. Without that heritability there's simply no way that a giraffe would evolve fifteen feet of redundant nerve tissue where five inches would do, nor would that exact trait be held in common with so many other vertebrate species, but not in common with others in places on the evolutionary tree where that heritage wouldn't be an issue. It's a nice little single example to point to, to show that we actually do have a solid base in real biology to conclude that macroevolution is a thing.

[Pat Mustard]

We have, you're just lying through your arsehole (so business as usual for you then).

What do you think was a lie?  We can fact check it if you like.

The lie that science makes a differential between "micro" and "macro" evolution. It's been long disproved, and pointed out to you on multiple occasions, yet you still parrot that lie.

Tell me does lying come to you naturally, or do you work on it?

---

Can you two please get a thread?

If roadrunner keeps lying about evolution, I'll keep pointing out that he's lying. Some impressionable person who doesn't know the matter may read his posts, and I'd hate them to think he's posting anything within the same country as the truth on evolution.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do we have a deadhorse emoji here?

[chimp3]

I.D. is like Christian rock and roll. They are laying claim to something they had no part in developing. They resisted rock and roll in the beginning,  they resisted physics and biology. Now they have cheap imitations of the real thing. Christian rock and roll sucks and so does their science.

[RoadRunner79]

Road runner said the below but I seem to have deleted his name. (My bad)

I agree with your extrapolation here, and I can add up the pebbles to get explain the final mountain.  I don't however feel that a skyscraper can be explained by the same extrapolation (especially if you are only adding pebbles).  I can take a number of steps down the road, and add those up, and I will reach the coast.  However adding up those steps doesn't get me to Hawaii or the moon.

The issue is not, that I don't understand the claim, but that I question the evidence and reasoning supporting it(or lack there of).  You need to connect the dots, from the small variations, to the quite different results that are being posited.  Why should I infer that this evolutionary change has taken place?

Alternatively; rather than showing a reason through the mechanism to make the inference, you could show evidence that it has occurred (despite the ability to explain it).  I normally find that the evidence given assumes evolution, rather than demonstrating it.  That it is little more than this part looks much like this other part over here and since we assume common descent, they must be related (except when it does not fit the model, then this reasoning does not apply).  The data points for this connection is usually low and not always congruent across species, yet evolution is fact, so it must have happened.  But the question is... why is this a fact?

The thing is I was doing is called "a lie to children" it's a very simplified version of events that bears very little in common with the actuality but gives the gist.
I apologise if I misunderstood your level of comprehension, but was basing my explanation on the level of knowledge you display here, which as far as I can tell is as near to zero as detectable.

I get that a lot here, often before I say much of anything. I also don't get into much detail, with those who just want to insult, and not support their positions.

So here is a detailed example of how small incremental changes led to a major change over time.
It is the change of fish jaws to become the ear bones in mammals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_...y_ossicles

Thanks for the link, I'm sure I've seen this before, but probably glossed over it. Where possible, I think if we started in this way, and there was more of this, things may be different. In looking it up, I did find some places that present it better. Although the two best; their drawings don't seem to quite match up which I find odd. It may be that they are leaving things out, and that they do match, but present different points. It just seems odd to omit data that could make the case stronger.

I normally hate drawings as evidence, but in this instance, they seem reasonable. There is a couple of places, that question the usefuleness of the intermediates to justify the movement (impedance matching) but nothing very detailed or which I think makes it questionable on the evolutionary standpoint. It also doesn't seem too bad in assuming evolution to demonstrate it or have to make use of just so stories.

There is some convergence (between 2-6) depending on the article, with most seem to be agreeing on 3 as fairly certain. However in this instance, I don't find that convergence, weakens the arguments for common descent (although may raise some other interesting questions).

I'm still looking into it, and half expect to find some incongruency, or left out information, that some will try to wash over, but so far there isn't much arguemnet.

Thanks