The Micro-Macro Distinction Part 6: Observed Instances of Macro-Evolution

Source for #2 http://www.pnas.org/content/105/41/15639.full

This is just a small sample of the Many Macro-Evolution Events that have been observed.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• Microevolution
• macroevolution
• micro
• macro
• Creationism
• science
• darwin
• debate
• richard
• dawkins
• intelligent
• design
• truth
• logic
• Top
• list
• best
• favorite
• greatest
• Changes
• proof
• response
• big
• theory
• reason
• kent
• belief
• evidence
• Hovind

[kronicaster]

Ok so wy are smokers still dieing from cancer and nit amune to the negative efects of the carsinigen nicotiene through evolution and wy is it that the apearance and anatomy of the human being not changed for millions of years just asking you seem smart enough to answere this im a laypearson

[ThePuppyTurtle]

@kronicaster Is this intended to be an argument or just an honest question? If you want better answers then these ask the user "C0nc0rdanceanswers" about them.

1: Considering that random mutation is random, not any given beneficial mutation can be expected to occur. There is no reason they should develop immunity to it.

2: Humans in their modern form haven't been around for even a million years. Only about 200,000 our line has changed in the last few million years, and the fossils prove it.

[dookdawg214]

I was just arguing with a creationists recently who said, "Oh, but bacteria is still bacteria, so it's micro-evolution. Ape to man is totally different." I asked him what he thought about wolf to poodle. His response: "Still dog to dog." So I pointed out that ape-like to man is still primate to primate. He didn't accept it. These clowns get all hung up on human-made category names instead of accepting that micro and macro follow the same process.

[whitefox998]

@ThePuppyTurtle I've been watching your this series there's a few problems in this one. For one example four and three aren't an example of speciation so you should state that you're expanding your definition to include the formation of new genes and structures. Also, I'd be a bit more hesitant about using the rockwall lizard example since there's been talk in the biological community that it might be an example of phenotypic plasticity.

But thanks for the link to the algae paper, cool stuff.

[whitefox998]

@jussts Aseuxal species are usually distinguished genetically rather than by mating preferences/abilities with other populations. Bacterial species can be, for example, identified due to their inability or difficulty in conjugating with other bacterial species which have become to genetically different to swap genes freely. However when it comes to other asexual animals like bdelloid rotifers I think it get's a little wonky but if I think though those species are defined morphological.

[jussts]

@JoesephKatana "Which leads me to an odd question, how does one define speciation for asexual species? I mean, its family tree can only split, one can't try to breed them to see if its viable. I think I'll go look it up."

That's a really interesting question. I'd be curious to know the answer as well.

[JoesephKatana]

Female horses + male donkeys = non fertile mules (interesting because of number of chromosomes difference), also I was expecting the Lenski experiments with the E.Coli evolving to digest citrus (watch?v=vUhYGgtwNkE). Its the example I hear about the most.

Which leads me to an odd question, how does one define speciation for asexual species? I mean, its family tree can only split, one can't try to breed them to see if its viable. I think I'll go look it up.