Is microevolution related to evolution

1. Status - Under construction: comments are welcome
   
   
2. Index
   
   
   
   1. Master index of this blog
   2. Introduction to this blog
   3. Revision history
   4. Related definitions (D)
   5. Representative quotes (Q)
   6. Arguments (A)
   
   
3. Revision history
   
   
   
   • 02/04/13 - Spelling
   • 10/28/06 - work on arguments
   • 10/26/06 - work on definitions and arguments
   • 10/25/06 - finished representative quote section
   • 01/22/06 - indexing finished
   • 10/17/06 - indexing started
   • 10/15/06 - work on definitions
   • 10/14/06 - Initial post
   
   Back to index
   
4. Related definitions (D)
   I am open to adjustment on this, as always, but I think microevolution refers to those changes between built-in adaptations and a change in species. Underlying all three are the normal process of living.
   
   
   About these four cases
   
   
   1. The normal process of living includes:
      
      
      
      1. shallow roots dieing without rain v.s. deep roots living with available deep water
      2. leaves dieing in the fall v.s. leaves sprouting in the spring
      
      
      These are not cyclic. New roots can form or new leaves can grow but the dead roots or leaves can not be reused; the opposite of what will be seen in the other cases.
      
   2. Adaptation includes:
      
      
      
      1. breathing out when CO2 is high and breathing in when O2 is low
      2. dilation of the pupil when light is low and shrinking in diameter when light is high
      3. thick hair on a horse when temperatures will be cold and thin hair when temperatures will be high
      
      The lungs, eyes, and hair follicles are completely reused after the related change.
      
   3. Microevolution includes:
      
      
      
      1. (I am not aware of any authentic examples of microevolution.)
      
      Please see my summary statement below.
      
   4. Macroevolution includes:
      
      
      
      1. "universal common descent by gradual change"
      2. the shift from a reptile to a mammal
      
      
      The idea of macroevolution is that the majority of the organs are reused.
   
   In summary, as one can see from the above, the middle (microevolution) is a very thin band of change. In fact, some of those on the one side argue that microevolution is adaptation and some of those on the other side argue that microevolution is evolution. In other words, to an extent both sides agree that microevolution does not really exist. That would be fine except that the problem comes when this thin band of change is used to prove that the idea of macroevolution is valid. A related problem is that some on the one side say that those on the other side accept microevolution as fact which, of course, is true only to the extent that microevolution is considered adaption but not beyond that point. Because of these issues microevolution will, in my estimation, remain an active topic.
   
   Back to index
   
5. Representative quotes (Q)
   
   
   
   
   1. Zachary Moore said here:
   2. "There is no mechanistic difference between micro and macroevolution, just differences in scale."
      - followed by
   3. "Beside the fact that there is a clearly observed mechanism for physiological change in the finches,
   4. morphological comparisons demonstrate that macroevolution has indeed occurred."
   
   Mr. Moore's statement was chosen because it includes three elements that I want to discuss here. His presentations are typically well stated and concise.
   
   Back to index
   
6. Arguments
   I see Mr. Moore's statement as debatable because of the following:
   
   
   
   1. what this class of change represents depends on what has happened
   2. it may be simply built-in adaptation.
   3. to the extent that macroevolution has occured the change is no longer microevolution
   4. that something could happen can not be used prove that it did happen
   5. microevolution may appear because of invalid conclusions about data
   
   
   
   About these 5 arguments
   
   1. What this class of change represents depends on what has happened.
      Microevolution is not proof of evolution as is being inferred by Q2. If evolution did not happen then microevolution does not happen. Therefore, the idea of microevolution is a corollary to evolution. Therefore, the idea of microevolution can not be used as proof of evolution. To insist that microevolution is proof of evolution is to use circular logic.
      
      Back to arguments.
      
   2. This class of change may simply be adaptation.
      Microevolution may be adaptation instead of being a subset of evolution as is stated in Q3+Q4.
      
      Like almost every common word, adaptation has multiple meanings. Here, I am using it in the sense that the result is easily reversable as in items 5, 6, and 7.
      
      
      
      horse (winter para 5 - 7).
      eye (pupil para 3).
      capture (sect 3).
      
      
      I am not using it in the sense of permanent or semi-permanent change as in item 4 in the dictionary reference above.
      
      
      
      1. course material definition.
      2. bird, tree pictures definition.
      
      
      An organ of a living thing has the built-in ability to adapt to a certain range of varying conditions. The defining attribute of such changes is that they are comparatively easy to reverse. Changes that are being called microevolution are really the result of built-in adaptation if they are comparatively easy to reverse.
      
      Back to arguments.
      
   3. To the extent that "macroevolution has indeed occurred" (Q3) it is no longer microevolution.
      One type of change can not be automatically associated with another. Both types of change may occur independently of each other. If microevolution and macroevolution both exist.
      
      Back to arguments.
      
   4. That something could happen can not be used to prove that it did happen.
      
      This seems so obvious to me yet it is used over and over in an attempt to prove that evolution did happen. Related to this is the argument that "because you can not provide a theory then my theory must be true." Any evidence for evolution can also be used in many other ways.
      
      Back to arguments.
      
   5. My presentation on finches provides an alternate conclusion regarding the data.
      
      Data is always subjet to interpertation. I do not have access to the actual study or data but I can imagine how it was carried out. If certain data was collected then my interpertation may explain it so I offer my conjecture.
      
      Back to arguments.
   
   
   Back to index