#macroevolution

[nameless-sdk]

[billloguidice]

Microevolution can be used to predict longer term evolution, new study shows

Microevolution can be used to predict longer term evolution, new study shows #evolution #microevolution #macroevolution #study #climate #evolvability #change #selection #science

A new paper published in Science, Evolvability predicts macroevolution under fluctuating selection, shows that evolvability, which is the ability of populations to evolve and adapt over just a few generations, can help us understand how evolution works on deeper time scales. While our relatively stable past environment has limited selective pressures, current climate change has caused more rapid…

[bills-bible-basics]

EVOLUTION -- KJV (King James Version) Bible Verse List Visit https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/ to see more. Note: While the following verses are not actually discussing evolution, being as the theory obviously did not exist back then, nevertheless, they could very easily be used to describe the belief in evolution today, being as the mentality is basically the same. "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish." James 3:15, KJV "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20, KJV "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13, KJV "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20, KJV "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things . . . Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:21-23, 25, KJV "Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us." Jeremiah 2:27, KJV "And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks." Jeremiah 3:9, KJV "But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities." Jeremiah 10:8, KJV If you would like more info regarding the origin of these KJV Bible verse lists, go to https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/. Thank-you! https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/evolution-kjv-king-james-version-bible-verse-list/?feed_id=119943&EVOLUTION%20--%20KJV%20%28King%20James%20Version%29%20Bible%20Verse%20List

[tj-crochets]

Hey y'all! My brother (not the one I live with) and I have birthdays fairly close together, and he'd like to get together and do some kind of joint celebration, but I have no idea what to do. He's an anti-vaxxer but is willing to wear a mask around me, but his kids won't so effectively whatever we do has to be outside Do you have suggestions of things we could do that are A. outside B. suitable for small children (youngest is old enough to run around and talk but not really reading yet) and C. no flashing lights?

[oysterie]

moved some stuff around in my room and got my chem lab work mostly done tonight i feel good ofc ofc

[neovenatorgirlteeth]

NEW PAPER FROM CAU HUGE IF TRUE

Cau A. (2024). A Unified Framework for Predatory Dinosaur Macroevolution. Bulletin of the Italian Paleontological Society , 63(1): 1-19. doi:10.4435/BSPI.2024.08

[elwingflight]

I’d argue that we have excellent evidence that Diplodocus didn’t cause Gonorrhea (knowing what does cause gonorrhea, general understanding of infectious diseases, general understanding of animals).

Direct experimental evidence is not actually the only way to build scientific knowledge!

[panda-studiesmed]

16 Days Till Med School Entries

Today I was at the library with a really good friend of mine 🤗 we laughed too hard!

It's always so nice to have friends around especially while studying! It makes it easier since the struggle is shared lmao by this being said...*cough* @claykitty-studyblog *cough* still waiting for u to come with me 😏

I did:

Microevolution ✅️

Macroevolution ✅️

Crossingover ✅️

Thanks to @study-diaries for the tag!!

Last song I listened to: according to my Spotify it was Imam Chovek by Itzo Hazarta (not expecting anyone to know it lmao)

Currently watching: Magnificent century 👌 👑 it's a turkish historical series and it's SOOO good!! Just binged 3 episodes lmao

Sweet / Savoury / Spicy?: sweet for sure!! 🍰

Relashionship status: happily taken for 2 years now 🌎💕

Current obsession: bruh, I don't think I have one atm

I tag: @claykitty-studyblog @glassingshards @rain-is-studying @zzzzzestforlife @medstudsposts @anna--studies @thequeerlibrarian-studyblr

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

So the Preliminary SVP Schedule got released

For those unfamiliar, SVP = Society of Vertebrate Paleontology

usually when paleontologists say "SVP" they mean specifically the conference that SVP hosts each year, one of the biggest events for the "spends their lives studying old bones" people each year

each day has six sessions - three in the morning, three in the afternoon - and they're packed with talks. like, if you want to see talks in two different concurrent sessions, you gotta run around like a maniac

anyways

Wednesday Morning has Sauropods & Ornithischians, Early Mammals & Carnivorans, and then Fishes & Amphibians as three different sessions (all of these are groups of three going forward)

Wednesday afternoon has Dinosaur Soft Tissues, Ungulates, and Marine Reptiles

Thursday Morning has Romer Prize (fancy student talks), Birds, and Preparators' Session

Thursday afternoon has Theropod Flight Origins, Mammal Paleoecology, and Sauropsids

Friday morning has Euarchontoglires & Xenarthra, Archosaurs, and Methods & Paleohistology

Friday afternoon has Actinopterygians, Crocodylomorphs & Turtles, and Paleoecology & Paleoclimatology

Saturday morning has Theropods I, Afrotheria & Mammal Macroevolution, and Synapsids

and Saturday afternoon has Theropods II, Marine Mammals & Bats, and Squamates

The fact that Theropods get four separate focused sessions while Ornithischians and Sauropods are smushed into one is... well, I'm laughing my head off at Theropod bias right now

would you like theropods? Or more theropods? How about some THEROPODS

[coldcrashpictures]

Awesome new video on conservation and the Jurassic Park/World movies!

Completely unrelated, but I'm actually a current UChicago PhD student studying paleontology (+ macroevolution and a litany of other stuff), and I'm wondering which evolution/paleo-centric classes you took.

I managed to squeeze into Dinosaur Science during my last semester of 4th year. I dunno if Paul Sereno would remember me, but if you see him, tell him I say hi!

[hapalopus]

Macroevolution.net is not a reliable source - the site was created to push an "alternative theory of evolution." It's basically a creationist website with extra steps

A better source on hybrid animals is Messybeast:

Is this real, or an AI generated image? At this point, I cannot tell, and your taxonomy research always seems so thorough.

Having trouble finding the original source of those photos, but lion x leopard hybrids do exist. Here's a site that has more info on feline hybrids which includes one of these photos as an example. They don't occur in the wild due to the species being natural competitors and are the result of people breeding female African lions and male leopards in captivity.

[bills-bible-basics]

EVOLUTION -- KJV (King James Version) Bible Verse List King James Version Bible verse list compiled by #BillKochman for #BillsBibleBasics concerning the topic "Evolution". Visit my page at https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/ to see all the lists I've compiled to date. Thanks! Note: While the following verses are not actually discussing evolution, being as the theory obviously did not exist back then, nevertheless, they could very easily be used to describe the belief in evolution today, being as the mentality is basically the same. "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish." James 3:15, KJV "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:" 1 Timothy 6:20, KJV "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Timothy 3:13, KJV "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" Isaiah 5:20, KJV "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things . . . Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Romans 1:21-23, 25, KJV "Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us." Jeremiah 2:27, KJV "And it came to pass through the lightness of her whoredom, that she defiled the land, and committed adultery with stones and with stocks." Jeremiah 3:9, KJV "But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities." Jeremiah 10:8, KJV If you would like more info regarding the origin of these KJV Bible verse lists, go to https://www.billkochman.com/VerseLists/. Thank-you! https://www.billkochman.com/Blog/index.php/evolution-kjv-king-james-version-bible-verse-list/?feed_id=48284&_unique_id=643b0ad9d9e63&EVOLUTION%20--%20KJV%20%28King%20James%20Version%29%20Bible%20Verse%20List

[script-a-world]

Submitted via Google Form:

I have a world in which evolution changes rapidly because there's a magical component to it because there's a ancient population of shapeshifters whose DNA is in just about everyone's ancestries. Problem is, I'm having trouble trying to define rules as to what makes sense and how quickly/slow certain changes can be? I'm talking mostly on the microevolution scale but sometimes it definitely results in some macroevolution. People are not chameleons, no. I mean like, I hear that skin colour is macroevolution, but in my world it's microevolution and it changes when people move around. It doesn't take 10000 years it takes maybe 50 years.

Tex: 10,000 years to 50 years seems to be the ratio you already want to work with, and it seems as good of a pick as any when it comes to worldbuilding in a fantasy world. What aspects are important in your worldbuilding, and is this something you require for the development of a plot, or something to answer questions that you’re using worldbuilding to address?

Addy: If skin color (or other things) can change within a person's lifetime, that doesn't seem like actual evolution. Seems more like epigenetics to me, albeit particularly slow-acting.

Evolution is a gradual process where random changes in the genome either fit or do not fit their environment. If the genome change fits, it's likely that the bearer of that gene will live long enough to have children. Random genes pop up all the time, it's just that many of them aren't helpful. That's why evolution takes time - you only have a chance to change at each new generation.

If you've got shapeshifters and people with hyperadaptability, there seem to be two approaches to me.

One, epigenetics. People have these genes, but they aren't always expressed. Think of how animals have summer and winter coats, and animals kept indoors have thinner winter coats. Birds change their plumage depending on the season. Goats in colder weather will grow finer coats than goats in warmer weather (which is why the most expensive cashmere comes from very cold mountainous regions). So your people have all these genes, it's just a matter of whether or not those genes are activated at the moment. This could work extremely quickly, on a matter of weeks or months.

Second option is a magic handwaving. Maybe each region of the world has its own magical frequency (like how the background noise of songbirds, insects, etc is different depending on what species are native), and people's bodies slowly "tune into" that natural regional frequency. So their bodies express effects more suited to that frequency as they tune in, and any children born are born with their parents' tuning.

If you wanted to have generational changes but not changes-in-a-living-person, the adaptation/tuning phase could be limited to gestation or early childhood.

But straight genetics... genetics don't change over the lifetime of an individual, so that's a limiting factor. You can work around it with other things, but genetics just aren't suited for that.

[kragehund-est]

if I was the macroevolution dot net guy i think i'd believe hummingbirds are some sort of kingfisher / sweat bee hybrid.

[creature-wizard]

The thing is, questions like "what if there was something to these ancient stories?" and "what if the gods of ancient religions were actually extraterrestrials?" were never bad questions to ask in and of themselves.

What was bad was trying to push stuff like Atlantis and ancient aliens as scientifically valid while doing zero scientific research and deliberately ignoring actual scientific research.

What was bad was claiming that all of it supported this cosmic spiritual reality that everyone needs to accept and believe in so they can ascend to the fifth density.

It's literally no different than the stuff young earth creationists pull. They insist that it's scientifically valid to state that the world is only 6000 years old, that "macroevolution" never happens, that Noah's flood was very real, that tyrannosaurs ate plants before the Fall, and so much other demonstrably wrong stuff. And then they claim that all of their (pseudo)science is proof that their religion is objectively correct, and you need to convert if you want to go to Heaven.

If you can understand why young earth creationists are in the wrong, you can understand why New Agers are in the wrong.

[queenlucythevaliant]

Guys. Guys. My sisters and brothers in Christ. There is no meaningful way to divide “micro” evolutions vs “macro” evolution. (Explanation got long and really emphatic, so see below the cut). 

Some Christians like to use these words to distinguish current, directly observable processes of descent with modification from the cumulative sum of these processes ie “I can accept that dogs diversify into different breeds but not that all life shares a common ancestor.” This is. Really arbitrary.

Where are you drawing the line between “micro” and “macro”? Typically, people say that they don’t believe that one “kind” can evolve into another “kind.” So speciation? Because speciation is not only observable, but predictable and repeatable.

Okay, so there are a bunch of different species concepts, but for the sake of simplicity let’s use reproductive isolation because that’s what most people are familiar with. A new species emerges when a new population no longer interbreeds with an original population.

This can happen behaviorally (like if a new species of bird has a different mating dance and thus can’t court members of the original species), mechanically (genitals no longer compatible – right- and left-handed shellfish are a good example of this), or at cellular level (sperm and egg no longer compatible), or genetically (different numbers of chromosomes).

Guys. This happens all the darn time. We can watch it happen in real time and see the differences between species accumulate. We can even take a sample population, divide it in half, and subject the two subpopulations to different conditions causing them to diverge. It’s predictable and repeatable. I had a professor who did work like this in Alaskan fish capable of living in both fresh and salt water. His team was able to repeatedly create divergent fresh and saltwater exclusive populations which did not interbreed and had significant physiological differences. I had another prof who worked with cicadas and saw new species emerge because one year there was a big change in local climate and some of the five-year periodicals (I think) didn’t come out and breed for an extra year. They were reproductively isolated from the five-year periodicals that did emerge on time. Over the course of like fifty years they got more and more different from the original population and expanded to fill an empty niche and absolutely boomed in population, expanded geographical range, etc. There are journals full of this stuff.  

Okay, so maybe you mean “kinds” more generally. Maybe you consider all fishes one “kind.” In that case, how do you account for the placement of whales? Or any crown group tetrapods, for that matter? Do you consider primates all one kind? In that case, what do you make of the changes in chromosome number between types of old- and new-world monkeys? If that’s within-”kind” variation in primates, is it also within “kind” variation when it divides chimpanzees from humans? This kind of taxonomy is just entirely untenable. 

It gets even murkier when you look at microbes (my specialty), which don’t differentiate the same way that multicellular life does. Microbes reproduce asexually, and their main source of variation is horizontal gene transfer. As a result, there’s a lot of gray area between microbial species and even very different species are capable of swapping DNA under certain, not-that-unusual circumstances. So even if you want to say that all fishes, for example, are one “kind," then you basically have to group every prokaryotic species together the same way because they are way more reproductively compatible with one another than any broad group of animals you could think of.

And remember, microbes account for the overwhelming majority of life on earth—there are at least 100 million times more bacteria in the oceans than there are stars in the universe. Is this “micro” or “macro”? Mechanistically, it’s much less dramatic than so called “macroevolution” in animals, yet the scale, breadth, and timeframe involved would likely be considered “macro.” Not to mention, getting from the origin of life to the origins of multicellularity encompasses many more large evolutionary leaps that getting from multicellularity to modern man. If you’re willing to call microbial evolution “microevolution,” then you’re seventy-five percent of the way to just accepting that humans share a common ancestors with all other life on earth. If you’re not, well, there goes the entire “kinds” schema again. 

Okay, so maybe the difference between “macro” and “micro” evolution isn’t speciation or “kinds”. Maybe you think that “macro” evolution refers to the greater processes by which very divergent species (say, humans and redwood trees) evolved from a single common ancestor long ago in deep time. Maybe the distinction between “macro” and “micro” evolution is essentially an historical one.

Apart from being very subjective, the big issue with this distinction is that it means that processes which observably occur in the present must have occurred either differently or not at all in the past. This is an absolutely wild claim, and I can’t think of any other subject about which people would say this.  

This would be like saying—huh okay, now I gotta come up with an analogy—it would be like saying yes, I accept that fashion trends change season-to-season at present, but I’m not willing to accept claims that neckties could have come from cravats given enough time. It just defies logic.

Finally, it bears saying that “micro” and “macro” evolution are not scientific terms. I cannot state this emphatically enough. I have never once heard these terms from any professor, bio student, or serious publication. The only place I have ever seen them is in YE Creationist discourse. Christians made them up because some would like to hold two essentially incompatible positions.