Thursday, June 11, 2009

Macroevolution

Macroevolution (see also here) refers to a broad view of evolution that encompasses--at a minimum--multiple species. It is not so much a process as a scale of study, and is in contrast with microevolution--evolution within a species. Anti-evolutionists often claim that they accept microevolution, but reject macroevolution (as though macroevolution is some kind of special process that is different from those operating in microevolution).

The journal Evolution: Education and Outreach has a brand new edition that focuses on macroevolution, and contains what look like excellent articles written by experts, for educators.

Below are the articles whose titles got my juices flowing, and that I plan to read. Feel free to explore the rest. The contents of the journal are currently free, but my understanding is that that will change later this year. So get them while you can.

1. Understanding Natural Selection: Essential Concepts and Common Misconceptions

2. The Fish–Tetrapod Transition: New Fossils and Interpretations

3. The Evolution of Marine Reptiles

4. Downsized Dinosaurs: The Evolutionary Transition to Modern Birds

5. From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises

Fact: Anti-evolutionists have long pointed to a lack of transitional fossils from land animals to whales as casting doubt on evolution. For example, Michael Behe once wrote,

"...if random evolution is true, there must have been a large number of transitional forms between the Mesonychid and the ancient whale. Where are they? It seems like quite a coincidence that of all the intermediate species that must have existed between Mesonychid and whale, only species that are very similar to the end species have been found."

6. Evolutionary Transitions in the Fossil Record of Terrestrial Hoofed Mammals

7. Transforming Our Thinking about Transitional Forms


7 comments:

The Pecks 6/11/2009 10:32:00 AM  

Great stuff! Thanks! I'm glad you have your eye out for these kinds of treasures. This Journal is devoted to communicating to the public the findings of evolution so its articles are usually quite readable.

dave c 6/12/2009 04:06:00 PM  

Jared*,

Thanks for the information and links. I will look into some of the articles.
You know, I really hope that biologists successfully evolve a frog into a dog in the laboratory so that we can finally put the debate about macroevolution to rest.

Jared* 6/13/2009 01:31:00 PM  

Dave,

No, it wouldn't. Putting aside the practical absurdity of the idea, it would have to be done artificially (how else would you cram several hundred million years of nature into even several human life spans?). Even if scientists could--mutation by mutation--make an amphibian into a dog, anti-evolutionists would say that it doesn't prove anything historical, such as whether those mutations actually occurred, or whether natural selection would preserve them, and so forth. In fact, Michael Behe has already said as much.

And so, once again we would have to turn to more historical methods and the same kinds of evidence that already exist, and the argument would go on.

Sure, it would be cool, but for many it would be nothing but another opportunity to metaphorically move the goal posts.

Dave C 6/15/2009 12:19:00 PM  

Jared*,

"And so, once again we would have to turn to more historical methods and the same kinds of evidence that already exist."

-Therein lies the uncertainty of macroevolutionary research. It will never be on par with more robust and forward hypothesizing theories like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

It is strange how a science locked into the historical method mode is given so much certainty today. Sure it is great science, but the scientific community needs to be more reasonable about the degree of certainty we attribute to our theories of common descent.

Jared* 6/15/2009 09:06:00 PM  

Dave,

Obviously some kinds of evidence are more direct than others. And ALL science is provisional. Further, historical sciences can be predictive--you must know that.

With all respect, it seems clear that your epistemological pickiness is really intended to provide shelter for your doubts in the face of what most biologists and paleontologists judge to be compelling evidence.

Allen 6/17/2009 10:07:00 AM  

FYI, some scientists are beginning to doubt that birds did evolve from dinosaurs.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090609092055.htm

Jared* 6/17/2009 09:35:00 PM  

Thanks, Allen. I'm no expert, but I know that there have been some hold-outs on dinosaurs -> birds. I think they have an uphill battle, this news summary notwithstanding.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP