# Micro Evolution vs. Macro Evolution Explained Graphically **URL:** \ **Category:** Side Conversation\ **Created:** [August 24, 2018, 2:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334 "2018-08-24T14:05:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 18

**Author:** ![anon46279830](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e7dd6/32.png) [@anon46279830](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/anon46279830)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334/18 "2018-08-25T21:03:23Z")

> [@swamidass](#): > > The riddle seems to be: what is @Revealed\_Cosmology’s argument? What is highlighted on the red box on my graph. That one can’t extrapolate short term rates of change to great changes over longer time. This is because there are two different kinds of “evolution” at work. One is change of distribution of existing alleles in existing genes in some population. The other is new alleles with function being introduced, or whole new genes inserted/moved in a way that changes function. Maybe there is a drought and the rhinos with the bigger horns have more trouble reaching the water at the bottom of water holes. Then the climate flips back and the few rhinos left with the big horn genes have a large advantage in getting mates so the phenotype cycles back the other way. But that is a change in the frequency of existing genes. It was not new genes coming into the population, or an allele previously not present coming along and adding new info to the genome. It isn’t just re-shuffling the existing deck of cards, new cards get inserted. This is just one example. > [@swamidass](#): > > 1. Rate of **genetic** and/or **morphological** change in a short period of time does not necessarily match rate of change over a long period of time. > > It depends greatly on the scales of time we are comparing. It also matters if we are looking at the fossil or genetic record. Genetics tends to be very clock like large time scales, and is more clock like for large mammals in the several million year time window. All clocks drift though, and we expect large drift at the 100 millions of year timeline. Such large drift that you don’t expect the clocks to be accurate at very large time scales. You may remember [this thread where you minimized the problem of the molecular clock and the fossils not matching up?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/the-cambrian-explosion-and-evolution/160/10). Now you do have a point when you say narrow the problem to large mammals and a several million year window. I do think that even what is shown on my graph is an example of signal being louder than noise while in real life the genetic noise is louder. Suppose I just simplify my problem, since I have such trouble making myself clear, and just put the genetic side of things away for now and apply what I am saying to fossils? > [@swamidass](#): > > The graph, however, should look different, with something more like a staircase, with fast change followed by equilibrium. Though there are exceptions like brain case size. Well that is not what I was trying to show. I was trying to show almost like a wave-particle type of relationship. Where the possible genes in the population from any crest-to-trough could produce an individual anywhere within that range. The fossil (again let’s set aside the gene part for now) is going to be within the range of that wave we just don’t know where until we find it. > [@swamidass](#): > > I’d agree that there is not a close correspondence between these two. However, I’m not sure any one is claiming that there this is important to make the inference to macro evolution. Thank you for using the term macro-evolution. And it shouldn’t be important to macro-evolution. Because its not. Its a different though connected process, and rates which apply to the one don’t apply to the other. Nor is one just a continuation of the other. Still, when asked to support the ideas of molecules to man evolution people will still trot out examples of changes in the frequency of existing genes within a population as an example. One of my points is that this is not a valid example. Further, the rate of change inferred from that process cannot be correctly applied to macro-evolution. > [@swamidass](#): > > > On this graph every move of the blue line is novel information. Not saying it doesn’t happen. I am talking about the rate it can occur in populations and this is different from and slower than a re-shuffling of existing information. > > This is not a coherent statement. (1) Re-shuffling existing information is novel information. (2) The evolution of humans is almost entirely explained by the re-shuffling of existing information. There are essentially no new proteins required to move from our common ancestors with the great apes to human. It is as if we are made of the same lego blocks, just put together in different ways (to a first approximation) by changes in gene expression. On further reflection it is not as coherent as I wish I had made it, but IMHO coherent enough that guys as smart as you and T-Water ought to have less trouble understanding it. I disagree with your assertion that re-shuffling existing information is new information. Think of a poker game. There are only so many cards like there are only so many phenotypes. Each hand played the deck is reshuffled, but there are only so many possible combinations. A straight-flush is not novel. It is a combination that was always “in the cards” and could show up more than once in the same game. In the same way, they bombarded fruit flies with radiation for decades trying to produce novel mutations. Instead they found the same ones cropped up again and again. Regarding humans I know we have had the discussion that the 99.8% similarity with chimps refers only to those genes which actively make proteins and which both humans and chimps have. Each group has hundreds of genes found in every member of one group but no members of the other. In addition, I am not limiting the change to DNA mutations. If the instructions on how to put the blocks together changes, that is new information too. I can see a Cadillac and a bar-b-q grill using some of the same bolts and screws. The instructions are new information. But here I am getting drawn back into gene talk again and I wanted to bound the problem here. > [@swamidass](#): > > If red is the range of possibilities it should not be a line. It should be a wide band. Please think of it as such if that will make it more clear. i was almost thinking of measuring sub-atomic particles where it could exist anywhere along the wave and you don’t know where until you measure. > [@swamidass](#): > > and the rate of short term change does extrapolate to the rate of long term change. So I’m not at all sure what this argument is buying you. I am going to have to talk about genetics aren’t I? Unless I can just get you to agree that it mitigates against the “hopeful monster” ideas about evolution based on extrapolations of change based on the reshuffling of existing genes… --- _[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/micro-evolution-vs-macro-evolution-explained-graphically/1334)._