Saturday, February 19, 2005

More annoying than creationism

I can find creationists, who typically know little about the Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection, to be quite annoying at times, especially when they make proclamations that "evolution is garbage" or the like. However, what can sometimes be more annoying are those that do see evolution as being the truth but don't know much about it and go about proclaiming how it works to others. One of the most interesting (and annoying) claims that I have heard from this crowd is that macroevolution = microevolution over time, and that both are irrelevant concepts to the Theory of Evolution that were created by creationists in an attempt to discredit evolution. This is not true. Microevolution and macroevolution are distinct concepts agreed upon by biologists.

Microevolution is undeniable to even the most ignorant layperson. It simply involves a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. This happens all the time, especially in small populations. Often, it is a product of selection (whether through human behaviors or not). The most famous example are the peppered moths of England. The vast majority of these moths prior to the English industrial revolution were white in color, which gave them an advantage, because the lichens they often landed on were also white. However, after the industrial revolution, these sensitive lichens began to die off and as a result, peppered moths that were darker tended to survive. Actually, currently there is a trend in the opposite direction as cleaner air standards have been imposed. Thus, the dark moths are disappearing. Microevolution observed.

Macroevolution is a bit trickier to observe, but it has been observed at the basic level, speciation. This case also occurred in England with the advent of the subway and the emergence of a new mosquito species. Culex pipiens is a type of mosquito that preys upon birds to obtain the blood (and thus blood protein) neccessary to raise viable eggs. However, with the advent of the subway, a few C. pipiens individuals strayed into the London underground. Today, there are two separate species, C. pipiens, the normal bird-preying mosquitos, and the underground mammal-preying mosquitos, Culex molestus. These two types are unable to interbreed successfully and are thus separate species. Thus speciation, the simplest part of macroevolution, has occured. More complex elements of macroevolution, which include the transition from dinosaurs to birds, or the transition from a group land-dwelling mammals to whales have good documentation in the fossil record and can be seen through modern-day evidences of homologous structures, and even more recently and convincingly, the genetic codes of organisms have lent support to common ancestry through the similarities and ratios of differences between similar species.

Evolution plays a role in modern society beyond tracking endangered species and charting the history of life on earth. It is used in disease treatments. Evolution plays a part in the development of drug resistances by bacteria and viruses. Contrary to popular belief, however, resistance does not appear in the presence of these drugs, such resistance actually already exists among a very small portion. The frequency of the alleles changes through the selection presented by the drug, which will wipe out those that lack resistance much more quickly than those that are resistant, and may even have no effect on the resistant organisms. This means that we observe microevolution, a type that plagues our medical community.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not to nitpick, but speciation IS microevolution over time. It's a point where there have been so many microevolutionary DNA mutations that the organism can be classified as something else. Either this happens all at once (spontaneous evolution? doubtful.) or over time (many generations) which is far more likely.

Ben Main said...

Well, you are right in that microevolution must happen and of course this takes time, but what I've seen is people acting as if enough microevolution will automatically be speciation. This may or may not be true. There may be quite a bit of microevolutionary change, but no speciation, which doesn't seem to be recognized by some zealots. What really annoys me is acting as if there is no distinction between micro- and macroevolution. Thank you for the clarification.