Common evidence of micro-evolution in modern life, or: "Microevolution made easy"

[RadarArtillery]

Common evidence of micro-evolution in modern life, or: "Microevolution made easy"

 

 

Microevolution, described as "evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, esp. over a short period.", is a subset of the commonly misunderstood theory of Evolution. Microevolution is the process of small changes within a species, ranging from anything from body size to body shape, in the more extreme cases.

An example of microevolution that you can see today, if you are familiar with the common house sparrow, is the contrast between northern and southern individuals of the same species. Sparrows in the north, for example, have larger bodies then those in the south, which is believed to be directly related to natural selection. [1] A sparrow with a larger body retains more body heat, allowing it to survive in the colder temperatures of the northern united states while its smaller brethren succumb to the elements and die. When this sparrow breeds, its size is passed down to the next generation, and so on, until it results in the variance between the northern and southern members of the species we have today.

This same process of microevolution can be introduced artificially to plants or animals, in the case of dogs or marijuana for example. [2] A breeder will artificially tamper with natural selection by disallowing specimens with undesirable traits to breed, or forcing two specimens with desirable traits to breed. He manipulates the genes of his breed, killing off traits and adding in new ones, until he gets something completely new and unique. The Doberman, for example, is widely believed to have been created from the German Pinscher, Rottweiler, Weimaraner, Manchester Terrier, and Beauceron. [2] Though many of these dogs share similar characteristics to the Doberman (The Rottweiler's coloration, for example), it is not disputed that they are entirely separate breeds by The American Kennel Club.

 

An absolutely shining example of this process, that can be put forth with almost total certainty, is the evolution of the virus. Specifically, for the purposes of this paper, the flu virus: Every year the virus evolves so massively that the antibodies from the previous year's infections and vaccinations do not recognize it as the same virus, because it is not. [3] Every year's version of the flu is an evolved, new version of the strain tailored by natural selection to slip past your body's defenses. This is perhaps the most common, undisputed, and every day example of microevolution. Even the -- most -- ardent opponents of evolution, and microevolution, will admit that the flu virus goes through this process.

 

In conclusion, the writer feels that this paper will serve its purpose: Not to sway grand-scale debates about macroevolution, not to attack creationism directly, but to lay the most basic level facts and concepts of microevolution as simply as possible on a single page. It's not a substitute for a fully researched understanding of the subject, but it IS a springboard into the more complicated papers on the subject.

 

[1] http://evolution.ber..._0/evoscales_03

[2] http://dpca.org/bree...eed_history.htm

[3] http://evolution.ber...news/130201_flu

Quick note: This was reposted from TheTailsRefuge. It is, however, my content. Anyone looking to confirm this may contact Silveracecard on that website via PM, and I will gladly confirm that I am one in the same with him.

[Moontanman]

There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution except time...

[RadarArtillery]

There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution except time...

I know there's not, but people insist on making that distinction. Macroevolution is literally the accumulation of microevolution.

 

This was written for people who insist on believing in one but not the other, which is kind of like insisting on believing in KoolAid but not water. The next article I intend to write will attempt to close the distinction between the two.

 

You can see what I'm doing, yes? Providing irrefutable evidence for the process of microevolution, and then trying to help people realize that macroevolution would necessarily exist if microevolution did. Then, people have to choose between accepting the evidence they've already been provided with and stepping outside the sphere of science altogether.

 

 

It sort of reminds me of the distinction Ken Ham makes between "Observational science" and "Historical science"... That is, it's unnecessary and often used to fuel ideas that are blatantly wrong.

[Moontanman]

I apologize, a late night migraine is my only excuse and i signed out early due to it but evidently not early enough..

[chadn737]

I know there's not, but people insist on making that distinction. Macroevolution is literally the accumulation of microevolution.

 

This was written for people who insist on believing in one but not the other, which is kind of like insisting on believing in KoolAid but not water. The next article I intend to write will attempt to close the distinction between the two.

 

You can see what I'm doing, yes? Providing irrefutable evidence for the process of microevolution, and then trying to help people realize that macroevolution would necessarily exist if microevolution did. Then, people have to choose between accepting the evidence they've already been provided with and stepping outside the sphere of science altogether.

 

 

It sort of reminds me of the distinction Ken Ham makes between "Observational science" and "Historical science"... That is, it's unnecessary and often used to fuel ideas that are blatantly wrong.

 

The problem is that many creationists accept microevolution as fact, but insist on a barrier to it. I don't think the problem really lies in proving microevolutionary change, which has been utilized by breeders for centuries through artificial selection.

 

The problem is promoting a proper understanding of phylogenetic relationships and demonstrating that there is no barrier between microevolutionary change and macroevolutionary changes. Hence the importance of teaching "tree thinking".

[RadarArtillery]

 

The problem is that many creationists accept microevolution as fact, but insist on a barrier to it. I don't think the problem really lies in proving microevolutionary change, which has been utilized by breeders for centuries through artificial selection.

 

The problem is promoting a proper understanding of phylogenetic relationships and demonstrating that there is no barrier between microevolutionary change and macroevolutionary changes. Hence the importance of teaching "tree thinking".

Believe it or not, I find that a lot of creationists don't even really know what evolution is to begin with, thus the "Micro-Macro" distinction. I was trying to narrow the distinction, but I may not have been going about it very effectively here.

 

The goal of the short series I intend to write (I intend to do one for The Big Bang, and maybe one for Carbon dating) is to make the concepts as easy to understand as possible. A lot of creatonists and religious types in general take issue with evolution, saying things like "So you believe we just evolved from a rock?" when that's... Not what evolution is at all. They mistake it for making claims about the origin of life, when it's really just a way of explaining the diversity of species.

 

That all being said, you're not the first to criticize this paper for being too divisionary and not really doing what I'm trying to achieve with it, so I think I either need to rewrite it to talk about the evolutionary process as a whole or delete it entirely. Have you got any suggestions, or an opinion, if I were to write a more complete and less divisionary paper on the subject of evolution as a whole and whether or not it would be helpful?

 

Perhaps some good topics to include as evidence, with relevant material?

[chadn737]

Believe it or not, I find that a lot of creationists don't even really know what evolution is to begin with, thus the "Micro-Macro" distinction. I was trying to narrow the distinction, but I may not have been going about it very effectively here.

 

The goal of the short series I intend to write (I intend to do one for The Big Bang, and maybe one for Carbon dating) is to make the concepts as easy to understand as possible. A lot of creatonists and religious types in general take issue with evolution, saying things like "So you believe we just evolved from a rock?" when that's... Not what evolution is at all. They mistake it for making claims about the origin of life, when it's really just a way of explaining the diversity of species.

 

That all being said, you're not the first to criticize this paper for being too divisionary and not really doing what I'm trying to achieve with it, so I think I either need to rewrite it to talk about the evolutionary process as a whole or delete it entirely. Have you got any suggestions, or an opinion, if I were to write a more complete and less divisionary paper on the subject of evolution as a whole and whether or not it would be helpful?

 

Perhaps some good topics to include as evidence, with relevant material?

 

 

I didn't criticize you with being divisive (please don't use "divisionary", this is not a word). I grew up as a Creationist. The idea of microevolution has largely been accepted even amongst the most ardent young earth creationists. Ken Ham even stated his acceptance of microevolution in the debate. Presented with such evidence, the Creationist response is that such changes already exist within a population and that they cannot explain the macroevolutionary changes necessary. You must be prepared for this.

[RadarArtillery]

 

 

I didn't criticize you with being divisive (please don't use "divisionary", this is not a word). I grew up as a Creationist. The idea of microevolution has largely been accepted even amongst the most ardent young earth creationists. Ken Ham even stated his acceptance of microevolution in the debate. Presented with such evidence, the Creationist response is that such changes already exist within a population and that they cannot explain the macroevolutionary changes necessary. You must be prepared for this.

Actually, believe it or not: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/divisionary and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/divisionary

 

Mmm, yes, I grew up in a home with similar views. I've heard it dismissed as "adaption, not evolution", as though the two were different.

Edited February 10, 2014 by RadarArtillery