Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

[Student Nurse]

Last semester I took Microbiology. Before then I was a Christian and believed in creation, but what I studied and what I saw undoubtedly proved evolution - hence the "switchover" or "atheistic conversion" or whatever you want to call it.

I hear a lot of Christians say "the microbiological world proves microevolution" (i.e. evolution on the small scale such as bacteria adapting to new hosts/environments and incorporating plasmids into their DNA in order to become resistant to antibiotics), "but that doesn't prove macroevolution" (ie human evolution)

If this isn't true, then what does it prove to you? How can something be true on the small scale and not on the large? (give examples please)

[Curious]

Would you say that a chimpanzee and a human are different species?

I would say yes.

Would you say that two strains of flys that can not reproduce seperate species?

If you mean "Would you say that two strains of flys that can not reproduce" are " separate species?" then I would say not necessarily. Incompatibility is found within strains of humans but is not evidence of speciation. In human fertility we find that certain females are unable to produce offspring with certain males. Different partners might lead to healthy offspring though. I still think that we are dealing with the same species in this case.

[Goat]

Would you say that a chimpanzee and a human are different species?

I would say yes.

Would you say that two strains of flys that can not reproduce seperate species?

If you mean "Would you say that two strains of flys that can not reproduce" are " separate species?" then I would say not necessarily. Incompatibility is found within strains of humans but is not evidence of speciation. In human fertility we find that certain females are unable to produce offspring with certain males. Different partners might lead to healthy offspring though. I still think that we are dealing with the same species in this case.

I am talking about two different groups of flys that can reproduce with eachother just fine, but can not cross fertilize. No matter what fly in one group vs no matter what fly in another.

[Curious]

I am talking about two different groups of flys that can reproduce with eachother just fine, but can not cross fertilize. No matter what fly in one group vs no matter what fly in another.

A lion and a tiger can produce fertile offspring yet both are said to be distinct species. The point I am trying to make is that the ability to breed is not now seen as characteristic of a particular species. Why should we say that the inability to breed between 2 groups is therefore indicative of speciation when individual groups within species are unable to breed and distinct species quite happily interbreed. The inability to interbreed is actually quite common when the genetics of 2 organisms are TOO alike in some respect.

[Goat]

I am talking about two different groups of flys that can reproduce with eachother just fine, but can not cross fertilize. No matter what fly in one group vs no matter what fly in another.

A lion and a tiger can produce fertile offspring yet both are said to be distinct species. The point I am trying to make is that the ability to breed is not now seen as characteristic of a particular species. Why should we say that the inability to breed between 2 groups is therefore indicative of speciation when individual groups within species are unable to breed and distinct species quite happily interbreed. The inability to interbreed is actually quite common when the genetics of 2 organisms are TOO alike in some respect.

Not 100% true. A lion and a tiger can very likely produce fertile FEMALE offspring, but the Males are infertile.

[Curious]

I am talking about two different groups of flys that can reproduce with eachother just fine, but can not cross fertilize. No matter what fly in one group vs no matter what fly in another.

A lion and a tiger can produce fertile offspring yet both are said to be distinct species. The point I am trying to make is that the ability to breed is not now seen as characteristic of a particular species. Why should we say that the inability to breed between 2 groups is therefore indicative of speciation when individual groups within species are unable to breed and distinct species quite happily interbreed. The inability to interbreed is actually quite common when the genetics of 2 organisms are TOO alike in some respect.

Not 100% true. A lion and a tiger can very likely produce fertile FEMALE offspring, but the Males are infertile.

My answer IS 100% true. I stated that lions and tigers CAN produce fertile offspring. I did not say that lions and tigers WILL produce fertile offspring. You could say that human and human CAN produce fertile offspring but you cannot say that human and human WILL produce fertile offspring because sometimes they do not. You might note, from my previous posts, that I fully admit that hybrids of lions and tigers apparently have maternal fecundity only. It may be surprising, but I really don't want to lie to anyone.

[Goat]

My answer IS 100% true. I stated that lions and tigers CAN produce fertile offspring. I did not say that lions and tigers WILL produce fertile offspring. You could say that human and human CAN produce fertile offspring but you cannot say that human and human WILL produce fertile offspring because sometimes they do not. You might note, from my previous posts, that I fully admit that hybrids of lions and tigers apparently have maternal fecundity only. It may be surprising, but I really don't want to lie to anyone.

So we have this situation.

We have some species that can interbreed, but produce sterile males (Lions and tigers)

We have some species that can interbreed, but can only produce sterile offspring
(donkey and horse)

Then, we have species that apparently are closely related that can not even reproduce.


Doesn't it look like there is a progression there?

[Curious]

My answer IS 100% true. I stated that lions and tigers CAN produce fertile offspring. I did not say that lions and tigers WILL produce fertile offspring. You could say that human and human CAN produce fertile offspring but you cannot say that human and human WILL produce fertile offspring because sometimes they do not. You might note, from my previous posts, that I fully admit that hybrids of lions and tigers apparently have maternal fecundity only. It may be surprising, but I really don't want to lie to anyone.

So we have this situation.

We have some species that can interbreed, but produce sterile males (Lions and tigers)

We have some species that can interbreed, but can only produce sterile offspring
(donkey and horse)

Then, we have species that apparently are closely related that can not even reproduce.


Doesn't it look like there is a progression there?

Donkey and horse can produce fertile offspring. You should really check every single fact before believing it.
Since you mention a progression here, I will mention hybrid vigour. A horse/donkey or donkey/horse cross is superior in intelligence, strength and stamina to either of it's parents. If speciation is due to advantageous mutation and selection, then this would seem unlikely. If speciation is due primarily to a reduction in genetic variation then this would be expected.
Doesn't it look like there is a regression, rather than a progression there?

[Goat]

My answer IS 100% true. I stated that lions and tigers CAN produce fertile offspring. I did not say that lions and tigers WILL produce fertile offspring. You could say that human and human CAN produce fertile offspring but you cannot say that human and human WILL produce fertile offspring because sometimes they do not. You might note, from my previous posts, that I fully admit that hybrids of lions and tigers apparently have maternal fecundity only. It may be surprising, but I really don't want to lie to anyone.

So we have this situation.

We have some species that can interbreed, but produce sterile males (Lions and tigers)

We have some species that can interbreed, but can only produce sterile offspring
(donkey and horse)

Then, we have species that apparently are closely related that can not even reproduce.


Doesn't it look like there is a progression there?

Donkey and horse can produce fertile offspring. You should really check every single fact before believing it.

There have been some very rare times that happened, but the vast majority of hinny's and molly's are sterile also. As a matter of fact, the female Hinny in China is thought to be a unique case.

That does not stop the vast majority and stop the progression shown.

[Curious]

That does not stop the vast majority and stop the progression shown.

What progression have you shown exactly?

[Goat]

That does not stop the vast majority and stop the progression shown.

What progression have you shown exactly?

Step 1) Isolation, where there is no interbreeding due to geography or another reason.

step 2) The hybrids produce sterile males, but females are fertile

Step 3) Hybrids produce sterile males and most females are sterile also

step 4) Can no longer produce offspring.