I dont think it's as simple as that, if experimentally it was impossible
to find a distinction between macro and micro I don't think these terms
would have even been applied! As I see it, there are some kind of genetic
boundries that mean dogs are dogs, for all our engeneering, they are still
dogs. And more importantly, they can only vary so much, without mutation
they can't change more than that.
There are many examples of evolution that show a horse evolving into a
bigger horse for example, but beyond that there is very little evidence of
anything. I think that things like this are evidence for a difference
between macro and micro. The fact that we can't clearly define the
boundries doesn't mean they are not there. Our fly is still a fly, and yet
it has changed much, and into many varieties of fly, but it is still a
fly. On that evidence alone I could presume that there are boundries,
otherwise it would be just as easy to make a moth out of our fly as it
would be to make just another variety if fly!
I think what I am trying to say is that there is genetic information in a
creature that has room for certain variation, like a little dog to a
massive beast of a dog, but beyond that, you need new information. I have
no idea if random mutation can create more information or not, so I won't
comment. If you want to see micro evolution, you can recreate it in a lab,
if you can't recreate it, it's probably macro! Thats my definition of the
difference, I just made up, I like it.
Donald
_______________________
Donald Howes
Acting Systems Manager
Research services
UNE
"I am not ashamed of the gospel because it is the power of God for
everyone who believes" Romans 1:16
______________________
On Thu, 16 Jul 1998, Mike Hardie wrote:
> Donald Howes wrote:
> >I'm getting confused, I don't know about everybody else, but are we talking
> >about micro or macro change? If it is micro, then within genetic bounds
> >natural selection does indeed promote certain traits. I was under the
> >impression that the bacterium with antibiotic resistance was a case of
> >this. The one's that had it survived, and are now the dominant strain. The
> >same is true of hair and skin(I don't know about the cholesterol thing).
> >
> >The question about the fruit fly is a macro one. Is it possible to mutate a
> >fly past the point of being a fly?
> <snip>
>
> I don't think "micro" and "macro" is a real distinction at all. That is,
> the supposed boundary between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is
> whether there is difference in "kind"... but all the various "kinds" of
> animals are defined based on essentially arbitrary criteria, not on some
> real boundary we can observe in nature. For example, we might say that
> "having feathers" is a unique property of birds. But this does not mean
> that having feathers is an intrinsically significant sort of thing, nor
> that an evolutionary change producing feathers is any different than one
> producing, say, a difference in coloration.
>
> In other words, if you grant that evolutionary change happens, then you
> must grant that "macro" changes can happen. This is because the only
> difference between a macro and a micro change is whether or not the change
> places a creature on the other side of a boundary between definitions.
> Simply put: the difference between a micro and a macro change is a purely
> semantic one, not an actual difference in the sort of thing that occurs.
>
> So, to answer your question, if it is possible to mutate a fly, then yes it
> is possible to mutate a fly past the point of being a fly at all. This
> will simply happen when the mutations become significant enough in number
> and scope that the resulting beastie no longer meets our definition of
> "fly-kind".
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Hardie
> <hardie@globalserve.net>
> http://www.globalserve.net/~hardie/dv/
>