Comparative evolution: 2006-10-08

Friday, October 13, 2006

Is microevolution related to evolution

Status - Under construction: comments are welcome
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)
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
  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

Thursday, October 12, 2006

It depends

Status - final draft
Index
1. Master index of this blog
2. Introduction to this blog
3. Revision history
4. Introduction
5. Body
6. Conclusion
Revision history
- Date - activity
- 10/30/06 - started
Back to index
Introduction
Constructing a logical argument seems to be among the challenges of life. When we really want something to be true we can trick ourselves into thinking we have a proof when we do not. There are many types of bad logic but circular logic ranks near the top in frequency of use.

For example, suppose I find a apparently shuffled deck of 10,000 numbered cards and an invitation that asks me to explain the origin of the numbers on the cards. I sort the list and immediately see patterns in the sorted numbers and begin searching for a formula which will generate those patterns. If I am able to create such a formula then I will be pleased with my accomplishment. Unfortunately, I can never know for sure if I have the formula that the numbers were generated by (there could be many formulas that would yield the number set) or if the numbers were simply generated randomly. Keep in mind that using a computer to generate random numbers requires a formula.

Such is the case with the thousands of living things. As with finding the shuffled deck we have found the plant and animal kingdom. And the invitation is there to explain how such a complex set of things came to be.

Back to index
Body
The subject of this page is patterns and specifically internal patterns and external patterns in living things.

Let me tell you a tale? My great-great-granddaughter Megan recently graduated from college with a PhD in biochemistry. In her day, computers are a million times faster than today. In her day, so much is known about DNA that reconstructing the complete DNA for any animal using computers modern to her day is simple. Her job assignment this week is to reconstruct three now (in her day) extinct animals: a whale, a dolphin, and a sea anemone. A person is required to be licensed to do this. With that license comes a license number. To track the many reconstructions that are being performed the persons license number is inserted into the so-called junk DNA. When she has completed her assignment, that species of whale, that species of dolphin, and that species of sea anemone will have some common junk DNA.

Now to external patterns or homology. Homology is everywhere. From our youngest age we sort things by common traits. Colors have in common that they are produced in the eye. Sounds have in common that they are produced in the ear. Babies love to look at colors and love to hear plesant sounds. As toddlers, we learn to slip the star shaped block into the star shaped hole in a box. As first graders we can learn about words that end the same thus enabling collections of common sentences into poetry. To say that orange evolved from red would be to use circular logic. To say that Dad's voice evolved from Mom's would be to use circular logic. To say that the star shaped block evolved from the box would be to use circular logic. To say that "how I wonder where you are" evolved from "Twinkle, twinkle little star" would be to use circular logic.

Back to index
Conclusion
Just as the patterns in the numbers are a corollary to the sorting process, the commonality of internal and external features of the plants and animals is a corollary to the sorting process. To attempt to use a corollary to prove what the corollary is based on is to use circular logic. In the case of Megan above, common junk DNA proves that Megan reconstructed the animals. What common junk DNA or patterns in charactersitics of living things means depends on what happened. Further, if evolution did not happen then the visible patterns are only a product of the sorting process therefor the patterns can not be used to prove that evolution happened.

Plants and animals may have evolved but the patterns can not be used to prove anything.

Back to index

Finches and beaks

Status - Final draft: comments are welcome
Index
Revision history
- 10/29/06 - assumptions
- 10/12/06 - initial page
Given and assumed - climate
1. drought is considered least severe when rain ample to support the wildlife occurs
2. drought is considered the more severe the less rain occurs
Given and assumed - birds
1. a finch in captivity dies at about age 5 years
2. Finche's primary food is small seeds
3. old age, predators, and starvation are the primary causes of death in birds
4. more birds are born than will survive
5. starvation is the major cause of death during a drought
6. birds with smaller beaks are more agile than birds with larger beaks
Back to index
Given and assumed - seeds
1. a limited number of seeds appear each year
2. seed shells harden during a drought
3. seeds become less abundant during a drought
4. seeds must be cracked to be useful as food
Back to index
Given and assumed - birds and seeds
1. birds eat almost all the seeds
2. stronger "jaws" are required to crack hardened seeds
3. birds with greater agility will eat more seeds
4. a bird which can not crack seeds will die in a few weeks
Back to index
Given and assumed - researchers
1. the researchers actually measured the birds beaks
2. the researchers captured adult birds, made measurements, tagged, and freed the birds
Back to index
I propose that
1. a statistically stable number of birds are born with a predetermined mature beak size regardless of the climate
  
  This is parallel to human height. Identifying the mature height of a specific human is impossible at the birth of that human but a statistic can be applied which will predict the number of various heights that the mature humans will achieve. That statistic is independent of climate.
2. the percentage of small beaked birds born in a season is larger than the percentage of large beaked birds born
  
  This is parallel to human height. More humans of average or less height are born than is the number of tall humans born.
Back to index
Conclusion(s)
1. during times of ample rain
  1. the larger the number of small beaked seed eating birds survive due to the greater abundance of soft shelled seeds and to the greater abundance of seeds in general
  2. the smaller the number of large beaked seed eating birds survive due to the greater agility of the small beaked birds compared to the agility of the large beaked birds
2. during times of severe drought
  1. the lower the number of small beaked seed eating birds survive due to the harder shells and to the lower number of seeds in general
  2. the larger the number of large beaked seed eating birds survive due to the lower competition from small beaked birds
Therefore, that birds beaks grow larger during greater drought is an illusion - a much larger number of large beaked birds survive and a much larger number of small beaked birds die during drought. However, a constant ratio of large to small beaked birds is born each cycle so that the percetage of small beaked birds springs back during seasons of ample rain.

Back to index