Speciation, Divergent, And Micro Evolution

[Kairos2014 3]

Hey y'all,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_evolution

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution

 

I remember watching Kent H*vind's videos on this and led me to look up.

 

Are there really a distinction between all three?

They seem like a variation of the same type e.g. darwins observation on the finches?

[mike the wiz 1,210]

I think ultimately whatever we call it, the changes it brings are too small and inconsequential, to lead to macro.

[nnjamerson 12]

No, there's not really any major distinction among those. Basically subpopulations undergoing differing selective pressures can diverge over time. It really is that simple. Over a large number of generations (often great amounts of geological time) the differences which can accumulate may become substantial enough to be notable for an observer, such as divergences in body form, behaviour, etc. As notable differences accumulate, members of the increasingly differing groups typically get to the stage where either no longer recognise those others as compatible mates, or is they do intermediate offspring can be either unviable, or just simply not so well suited to either parental situation.

[thatsneakyguy 13]

I think all 3 are accepted by both Creationists and Evolutionists.  There are observable changes in a population.

 

From the Divergent Evolution Link:

 

Divergent evolution is the accumulation of differences between groups which can lead to the formation of new species, <snip> 

 

From the Speciation Link:

 

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. 

 

From the Microevolution Link:

 

Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population.

 

It seems to me that they are describing slightly different processes.  Divergent evolution is simply accumulating changes.  This could be changes in hair color for example.  Nothing big, but it is a change nonetheless from the original population.

 

Speciation seems like a bigger change in population.  I guess when enough changes accumulated a threshold is crossed  - a new species has been created.  Speciation is when you have new species, which may not be able to interbreed with the original.

 

Microevolution seems to be looking specifically at allele frequencies in a population and the fact that they change.

 

So I think there is a difference between the three terms, but I don't think they are "proof" of  macroevolution.

[mike the wiz 1,210]

 

 

Thatsneakyguy:Speciation seems like a bigger change in population.  I guess when enough changes accumulated a threshold is crossed  - a new species has been created.  Speciation is when you have new species, which may not be able to interbreed with the original.

 

That's pretty fair. In my ere long investigations, it seems there is some ambiguity as to what speciation is given that sometimes we called pigeons, "breeds", and in some cases species are so close that they can interbreed such as Neanderthals genes being traced in the human genome. Some evolutionists used to tell me that sometimes it's not so much that they CAN'T interbreed but that they WON'T. You can get things like wolphins. (killer whales and dolphins). Or Ligers. (lions/tigers).

 

I don't mind if evolutionists are honest, and believe that they have the best scientific explanation of the facts, so I appreciate that you make the delineation that there isn't proof. A lot of evolutionists are far too tempted to bite the chocolate before it melts in their mouths and they usually argue that the accumulation of micro-changes leads to macro-change.

 

The problem with that is in the real world we seem to be seeing that it would be to request us to believe that you can accumulate subtraction.

 

For example, does adding minus two to minus two get us, plus four?

 

When we see these changes in the real world usually it is based on two things IMHO;

 

1. Tremendous genetic combinations. (an almost limitless variety of genetic flavour already in animals.)

2. Removal of information from the gene pool.

 

When we see that dolphins and killer whales are separated that is because of a REMOVAL of information from the gene pool, but when we breed them together this proves a link in the past, showing a common ancestor which means that we can prove that it is the removal of genetic information from a gene pool that leads to the two species. 

 

It is the same if in a hot climate, you lose long-haired individuals from the gene pool. Or when fish lose their sight or beatles lose their wings, or animals lose their tails, etc....this, together with combining genes leads to tremendous variety.

 

An analogy would be this - imagine you had 5 PInk Floyd albums but you could recombine all of the music using musical equipment, so as to make your own tracks and your own albums. You could take one song, split it in five pieces, and add another piece from another song.

 

Logically the variety would be endless even though you have the same information. Because mathematically there are so many thousands of possible combinations. You could probably make Pink Floyd albums your whole life, from that one album, it's one of the strange things about information, the re-use of it leads to limitless large numbers.

 

 

 

 

[Kairos2014 3]

So I think there is a difference between the three terms, but I don't think they are "proof" of  macroevolution.

 

I always knew this was unscientific but sometimes the 3 above can be a little confusing. I think I get the difference now.

 

Thanks

[thatsneakyguy 13]

I always knew this was unscientific but sometimes the 3 above can be a little confusing. I think I get the difference now.

 

Thanks

 

Ok

What do you mean when you say “I always knew this was unscientific�

 

I was under the impression that both creationists and evolutionists agree that the three processes were observable (accepted as scientific).

[Kairos2014 3]

Ok

What do you mean when you say “I always knew this was unscientific�

 

I was under the impression that both creationists and evolutionists agree that the three processes were observable (accepted as scientific).

 

I was implying to macroevolution being unscientific and the 3 above is observable. Isn't that what you were saying "..but I don't think they are "proof" of  macroevolution."?

[thatsneakyguy 13]

I was implying to macroevolution being unscientific and the 3 above is observable. Isn't that what you were saying "..but I don't think they are "proof" of  macroevolution."?

 

Oh, yes sorry.  My misunderstanding.