Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

[Student Nurse]

Last semester I took Microbiology. Before then I was a Christian and believed in creation, but what I studied and what I saw undoubtedly proved evolution - hence the "switchover" or "atheistic conversion" or whatever you want to call it.

I hear a lot of Christians say "the microbiological world proves microevolution" (i.e. evolution on the small scale such as bacteria adapting to new hosts/environments and incorporating plasmids into their DNA in order to become resistant to antibiotics), "but that doesn't prove macroevolution" (ie human evolution)

If this isn't true, then what does it prove to you? How can something be true on the small scale and not on the large? (give examples please)

[Curious]

That does not stop the vast majority and stop the progression shown.

What progression have you shown exactly?

Step 1) Isolation, where there is no interbreeding due to geography or another reason.

step 2) The hybrids produce sterile males, but females are fertile

Step 3) Hybrids produce sterile males and most females are sterile also

step 4) Can no longer produce offspring.

1) So Eskimos and Africans are different species?
2)If this is a progression are we still talking about Eskimos and Africans?
I am kidding, but it is found that f3 feline hybrids are capable of producing fertile males.
3)Like in mules? Females are sometimes fertile, males are invariably castrated so little chance of any evidence from there.
4)Such as what exactly?

You say this is a progression, which species is this a progression in. If you are using felines and mules, then it is not a progression at all unless you are suggesting that cats progress to horses.

[Goat]

That does not stop the vast majority and stop the progression shown.

What progression have you shown exactly?

Step 1) Isolation, where there is no interbreeding due to geography or another reason.

step 2) The hybrids produce sterile males, but females are fertile

Step 3) Hybrids produce sterile males and most females are sterile also

step 4) Can no longer produce offspring.

1) So Eskimos and Africans are different species?
2)If this is a progression are we still talking about Eskimos and Africans?
I am kidding, but it is found that f3 feline hybrids are capable of producing fertile males.
3)Like in mules? Females are sometimes fertile, males are invariably castrated so little chance of any evidence from there.
4)Such as what exactly?

You say this is a progression, which species is this a progression in. If you are using felines and mules, then it is not a progression at all unless you are suggesting that cats progress to horses.

No, they aren't yet. If there is no interbreeding for a couple hundred more generations, then maybe it would start to be that way.

The genetic diversity in the human species is not very great yet. Neither africans or eskimos is isolated also. So, no, that is not a good example.

[Curious]

The genetic diversity in the human species is not very great yet. Neither africans or eskimos is isolated also. So, no, that is not a good example.

So different species become the same species when long distance travel is invented?
What about before ships were invented? There was no way for them to meet or interbreed then. What about social or cultural restrictions? Maybe Africans don't fancy Eskimos.

[McCulloch]

The genetic diversity in the human species is not very great yet. Neither africans or eskimos is isolated also. So, no, that is not a good example.

So different species become the same species when long distance travel is invented?
What about before ships were invented? There was no way for them to meet or interbreed then. What about social or cultural restrictions? Maybe Africans don't fancy Eskimos.

Africans and Inuit have not been separated for a long enough time for them to have become different species.

[Goat]

The genetic diversity in the human species is not very great yet. Neither africans or eskimos is isolated also. So, no, that is not a good example.

So different species become the same species when long distance travel is invented?
What about before ships were invented? There was no way for them to meet or interbreed then. What about social or cultural restrictions? Maybe Africans don't fancy Eskimos.

It doesn't matter if it is distance, or merely some other form of isolation. It has been observed that animals have gone into seperate species because of such barriers as moutians, or rivers.

If the eskimo's were isolated for a couple hundred thousand more years, they could very well have become another species. However, they are not isolated. They swap genes with other people in north america.

It is you that brought up the 'eskimo' and 'african' example. Yes, it is a poor example, but that is what you came up with. It is known as a 'strawman' arguement.

[otseng]

otseng, do you have me on ignore?

No.

But, though I wish I could spend time answering everyone, it's basically just lack of time that prevents me from answering everyone.

I would like to know what you think is a complex mutation?

DNA mutations should result in a synthesis of a novel amino acid sequence which in turn produce novel and functional proteins. We can start with this. Are there any examples of a new protein that have evolved through mutations?

Yes.

The article that you cite is simply the discovery of an unknown protein. It is not an example of an introduction of a new protein through mutation.

[Galphanore]

otseng, do you have me on ignore?

No.

But, though I wish I could spend time answering everyone, it's basically just lack of time that prevents me from answering everyone.

Ok

I would like to know what you think is a complex mutation?

DNA mutations should result in a synthesis of a novel amino acid sequence which in turn produce novel and functional proteins. We can start with this. Are there any examples of a new protein that have evolved through mutations?

Yes.

The article that you cite is simply the discovery of an unknown protein. It is not an example of an introduction of a new protein through mutation.

Ok, how about the Nylon eating bacteria?

In 1975 a team of Japanese scientists discovered a strain of Flavobacterium living in ponds containing waste water from a factory producing nylon that was capable of digesting certain byproducts of nylon-6 manufacture, such as, 6-aminohexanoate linear dimer, even though those byproducts had not existed prior to the invention of nylon in 1935. Further study revealed that the three enzymes the bacteria were using to digest the byproducts were novel, significantly different than any other enzymes produced by other Flavobacterium strains (or any other bacteria for that matter), and not effective on any other material other than the man made nylon byproducts. This strain of Flavobacterium, Sp. K172, became popularly known as nylon eating bacteria, and the enzymes were collectively known as nylonase.

[otseng]

Ok, how about the Nylon eating bacteria?

I'll take it. It would seem like a good example of a novel (and functional) enzyme that was produced through a genetic mutation.

Let's go up a step in complexity. Is there an example of a protein evolution where the new protein interacts with other proteins (instead of just a chemical)?

[Curious]

If the eskimo's were isolated for a couple hundred thousand more years, they could very well have become another species. However, they are not isolated. They swap genes with other people in north america.

It is you that brought up the 'eskimo' and 'african' example. Yes, it is a poor example, but that is what you came up with. It is known as a 'strawman' arguement.

Not at all. The argument is concerning consistency. Eskimos were unable to interbreed with Africans in the past due to location. The advent of global travel has made these "different species" able to interbreed and so they are said to be the same species. Now let's use the same argument with previously isolated "species". It is now possible to mate these previously isolated "species" and produce viable, fertile offspring. Do these "different species" now become a single species for exactly the same reason?

[McCulloch]

Not at all. The argument is concerning consistency. Eskimos were unable to interbreed with Africans in the past due to location. The advent of global travel has made these "different species" able to interbreed and so they are said to be the same species. Now let's use the same argument with previously isolated "species". It is now possible to mate these previously isolated "species" and produce viable, fertile offspring. Do these "different species" now become a single species for exactly the same reason?

Biologists define a species as as a group of animals which given the opportunity and willingness, any fertile female in the group could successfully breed with any fertile male member in the group. Inuit and Africans were never different species. The reason why Inuit and Africans did not interbreed for centuries was geographic separation (lack of opportunity and willingness) not genetic inability.
Evolution posits that isolated breeding groups within a species, if isolated for long enough, may evolve into a new species.