I was under the impression that macroeconomics is the study of economy wide phenomena generated by a large number of microeconomic factors. like GDP is a function of the sum of all markets.
the OLD and IRRELEVANT terms of so called "macro" and "micro" evolution are the same thing. There is no difference except that "macroevolution" included what is now better termed as speciation, which, all in all, turns out to be relatively vague and unimportant in the grand scheme of natural selection.
A friend of mine who is a studying-scientist and does allot on evolution tells me that there is a difference between evolution on a grand scale and on a micro-level- he compared it to Physics and Quantum physics.
He is a very firm believer in evolution btw and knows his stuff...
So perhaps the quantum physics analogy is better than economics
Originally posted by ushomefree
Da Pittman-Your analogy was a bad one. But back to how micro and macro-evolution are the same: would you agree, that all organisms undergo variation (within the scope of its DNA) but never evolve into new organisms (outside the scope of its DNA)?
Something I found. I didn't take the time to read all of it, but the first answer is right on.
Originally posted by ushomefreeYour wrong, it was horrible 😛 But my idea was there 😉
Da Pittman-Your analogy was a bad one. But back to how micro and macro-evolution are the same: would you agree, that all organisms undergo variation (within the scope of its DNA) but never evolve into new organisms (outside the scope of its DNA)?
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveYou would agree with your buddy
Good question.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-GavHe does love those
Not really he is trying to lead Ordo (or whoever it was) into a poorly constructed trap. Asking a yes/no question forces someone into a rather tight space which might limit the explanation they can give...its poor science to do that.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
A friend of mine who is a studying-scientist and does allot on evolution tells me that there is a difference between evolution on a grand scale and on a micro-level- he compared it to Physics and Quantum physics.He is a very firm believer in evolution btw and knows his stuff...
So perhaps the quantum physics analogy is better than economics
There is some grand scale stuff to be studied in evolutionary biology...at the ecosystem level and beyond, but this stuff doesn't really pertain to natural selection, which is really the issue at hand and what I'm addressing. In this respect, you're friends analogy is wrong.
I'm curious as to what your friend thinks this difference is. It is not one that I have found is generally recognized. I'd guess he is referring to the broader aspects of evolutionary biology and not so much natural selection in itself.
edit It might seem that way to a biologist and not to me, a molecular biologist, mostly because I'm looking up through the bottom of the glass and he's looking top down. I dont know what field your firend is in (obviously).
Originally posted by Ordo
There is some grand scale stuff to be studied in evolutionary biology...at the ecosystem level and beyond, but this stuff doesn't really pertain to natural selection, which is really the issue at hand and what I'm addressing. In this respect, you're friends analogy is wrong.I'm curious as to what your friend thinks this difference is. It is not one that I have found is generally recognized. I'd guess he is referring to the broader aspects of evolutionary biology and not so much natural selection in itself.
I thought that in fields like archeology, macro and micro were still significant distinctions... You know, like the Gould tradition and in punctuated equilibrium.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So when does micro turn into macro? What is the deciding factor that enough micro change makes a new species?
1. Never. "micro" and "macro" dont' exist.
2. There is no line for speciation, hence its a point of large debate. Shadow's definition is a start, but its painfully vague and horribly impractical.
Originally posted by Ordo
There is some grand scale stuff to be studied in evolutionary biology...at the ecosystem level and beyond, but this stuff doesn't really pertain to natural selection, which is really the issue at hand and what I'm addressing. In this respect, you're friends analogy is wrong.I'm curious as to what your friend thinks this difference is. It is not one that I have found is generally recognized. I'd guess he is referring to the broader aspects of evolutionary biology and not so much natural selection in itself.
edit It might seem that way to a biologist and not to me, a molecular biologist, mostly because I'm looking up through the bottom of the glass and he's looking top down. I dont know what field your firend is in (obviously).
Well as you've noticed I'm not very good at all this evolutionary stuff and so I probably got what he said wrong...
He said
"Microevolution works brilliantly, thats like small changes caused by natural selection but NOT new species, it works perfectly. However Macroeveolution at the bio-chemical level doesn't always work there are situations that i can't explain away... and infact science proves that it can't evolve in simple steps with natural selection and its looking more and more like evolution is actually like classical and quantum physics when you look at the big picture its OBVIOUS evolution is real and that its provable there are many linking species, its easily explainable step by step and it all make sense however when you go into the relm of bio-chemistry there are holes in the theory..so it needs like a quantum-evolution theory to go with the classical one"
So as you can see I got his analogy of Macro-Micro and quantum physics totally wrong- he never made that analogy.
He then mentions a sludge worm or some other thing and says
"it has single valve heart if you change just 1 amino acid (for those of us who don't know that's apparently just 1 base on the DNA) it changes some of the fin cells at the back into heart cells and this joins with the single valve heart to make a FULLY WORKING duel valve heart the species they mutated are stronger and live longer than the originals and this is with just 1 change of base which could have happened accidentally by normal mutation..."
so thats an example of evolution for JIA or something...
[edit] I think the heartvalve example would be an example of microevoltion, as my friend defined it in the first quote.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
when a dog no longer looks like a dog and looks more like a primate creature i would count it as different species 🙂
The idea of a species is something that we humans made up for cataloging purposes. Nature dose not have to obey the rules we make up. 😉
However, there is a point were divergent groups can no longer mate and produce a viable offspring. I guess that would a new species.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
when the animal is completely different after million of yrs of micro evolution that it can no longer interbreed and is declared a new species
If the theory of evolution is viable how come no life has been created in a laboratory?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/
How could life come into existence (as complicated as a cell is) by chance, randomly, without intelligence, without a controlled environment, and with all the right conditions that scientists today are not able to re-create? We have chemicals, many intelligent/educated minds, controlled laboratory environments, technology (the first cell didn't have technology or many intelligent/educated minds to aide it's development), and other resources and it will take them another ten years to created life? I don't believe that they will do it but that is irrelevant. If the first cell did not need all of that to form itself then why does it take all of that now (presupposing that scientists are able to do it)?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
If the theory of evolution is viable how come no life has been created in a laboratory?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20249628/
How could life come into existence (as complicated as a cell is) by chance, randomly, without intelligence, without a controlled environment, and with all the right conditions that scientists today are not able to re-create? We have chemicals, many intelligent/educated minds, controlled laboratory environments, technology (the first cell didn't have technology or many intelligent/educated minds to aide it's development), and other resources and it will take them another ten years to created life? I don't believe that they will do it but that is irrelevant. If the first cell did not need all of that to form itself then why does it take all of that now (presupposing that scientists are able to do it)?
Because life took millions of years to come into existence.
Why did your god only create life once? Why hasn't he created more life? Maybe he can't do that anymore. 😆