Re: [asa] (fruit flies???) A Message from the RTB Scholar Team

From: Dennis Venema <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>
Date: Tue Apr 22 2008 - 14:52:06 EDT

Bernie,

I think we have a difference of definition for ³macro evolution

fair enough ­ defining terms is part of this debate. In short, this version
of ³macro² is simply ³accumulated micro² over long periods of time. There is
lots of evidence for this ­ for example, comparison of the chimp and human
genomes. The number of differences is very small ­ proportionally it didnıt
take much (biologically) to get here from the last common ancestor, though
the process took several million years.

Timber wolf to poodle isnıt impressive- it is called ³micro evolution²

Yet this only took a few thousand years. To me, thatıs impressive.

It means changes across species- such as ape-like creatures to man, or land
animals to whales

But if we could zoom in to a finer resolution than the fossil record can
usually provide (although in several cases it does), we would find only an
³unimpressive² series of transitions ³within (so-called) species.²

The problem with trying to speed up evolution in the lab is that (a)
organisms donıt usually handle increased mutation frequency very well, and
(b) time is needed not only for variation to arise but for variation to be
recombined through sexual reproduction into new combinations. The second
issue is that selection in the wild is typically gradual ­ exploiting the
boundaries of a given niche. In all-or-none situations ­ i.e. strong, sudden
selection ­ the usual outcome is extinction (as has happened to the vast
majority of species that have ever lived).

dennis

On 4/22/08 11:13 AM, "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> I think we have a difference of definition for ³macro evolution.² To the
> YEC, it doesnıt mean large sudden changes. It means changes across species-
> such as ape-like creatures to man, or land animals to whales. Timber wolf to
> poodle isnıt impressive- it is called ³micro evolution² and everyone agrees to
> those level of species changes.
>
> If evolution were true (as I think it is), why can we get fruit flies to
> evolve into something totally different like a bumble bee or even some new
> creature? Not just color or sexual reproduction changes, but real ³new
> animal² kind of changes‹even if it takes 20 generations, which doesnıt take
> too long with fruit flies (a couple of weeks per generation). Is the problem
> still with time scale‹we could do it if we had 300 generations, but that would
> take 12 years of meticulous controlŠ?
>
>
>
> From: Dennis Venema [mailto:Dennis.Venema@twu.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:57 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie; AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] (fruit flies???) A Message from the RTB Scholar Team
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> most evolutionary biologists donıt think that so-called ³macroevolution² -
> mutations that have sudden, large-scale effects ­ plays much of a role in
> evolution. These, while dramatic and underscoring the importance of the
> affected genes in development, likely produce changes too far outside the
> range of normal to provide a benefit.
>
> in terms of artificial selection leading to rapid, large-scale morphological
> changes, look no farther than the dog in your house (descended from a timber
> wolf) or the various forms of wild mustard on your plate. Anyone who doubts
> the ability for mutation and selection to produce large-scale changes in a
> short amount of time should have a serious look at a Chihuahua. Then consider
> the time scale of this transition in terms of geology ­ when compared with
> timber wolves it would appear instantaneously in the fossil record.
>
> Mustard evolution under natural selection:
>
> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIE4Evochange.shtml
>
> Dennis
>
>
> On 4/22/08 9:40 AM, "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Keith-
>
> Sounds like you are referring to what YECıs call ³micro evolution.² I think
> if we really understood evolution, we should be able to do ³macro evolution²
> also in the labŠ such as creating new creatures; since we can do the same
> thing nature does, only much faster when directed by intelligence (we can
> measure, screen, and control populations of animals that reproduce rather
> rapidly).
>
>
>
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]
> <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu%5d> On Behalf Of Keith Miller
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 5:40 PM
> To: AmericanScientificAffiliation Affiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] (fruit flies???) A Message from the RTB Scholar Team
>
>
> Bernie wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I believe that evolution happened but hereıs my stumbling block. Since
>> nature does evolution with mutation (chance) and natural selection, we should
>> be able to considerably ³speed things up² by applying intelligence in a lab
>> situation.
>
>
> We do speed it up, its called artificial selection. New species have been
> generated by artificial selection. The rapidity with which artificial
> selection has generated the diversity of domesticated animals and plants has
> demonstrated how quickly selection plus mutation-generated genetic change can
> generate observable phenotypic effects.
>
>
>
> Again, there is no debate about the reality of speciation. Even young Earth
> creationists do not deny it -- although it is often dismissed as only
> variation within a completely undefined (and undefinable) "kind."
>
>
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
> Keith B. Miller
>
> Research Assistant Professor
>
> Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
>
> Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
>
> 785-532-2250
>
> http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/
>
>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Apr 22 14:53:23 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 22 2008 - 14:53:23 EDT