Evolution's Mechanism

Thanks Pro.I. Preface & DefinitionsThe working definition of macro-evolution I am using is "Evolution above the species level". I will set my ambitions a little higher to show that the mechanistic evidences to provide support for virtually all the diversity of biology we observe.II. Predictions of Macro EvolutionTo support a hypothesis you must test its predictions, preferably its more unexpected and surprising predictions. It is important to note that evolution predicts a 'tree' rather than a 'ladder' i.e. it does not predict dogs becoming cats, or birds becoming mammals etc. Either way similarly large changes are expected to be possible via. natural processes. Therefore we can make the following predictions:1. There must be a mechanism which allows for large changes to occur2. There must be a mechanism for changes to be 'remembered'The complete absence of either of these would make evolution impossible, absent these we would either have nothing but clones, or changes that do not persist beyond a single generation.Furthermore, we can say a few more things about a process that would allow large changes to occur (such as those required for macro-evolution).3. There must be a mechanism for the ‘progression’ of these changesIt’s no good having a change and that being the end of it, we need multiple changes to occur for macro evolution to work, as such we need a mechanism which results in the accumulation of these changes. Further we need a source of these changes.4. There must be a mechanism which sources these changes Lastly, it is extremely unlikely for large changes that we see to occur via. random chance, hence there must be a directing mechanism which ‘guides’ the changes that occur. Or else we would end up with mammals with useless whale fins, birds with gills, etc, which clearly we do not observe. Hence the fifth prediction.5. There must be a mechanism which ‘guides’ changes that occurThe failure of any of these five predictions would falsify macro-evolution, hence finding them will positively “support the hypothesis of macro-evolutionary changes”, as required of the debate resolution.III. Verification of Predictions of Macro-Evolution#1 & 2 are addressed immediately with the discovery of the genome, which is a molecule which controls virtually all the macroscopic features that appear in an animal. Furthermore, any changes in this molecule has substantial consequences on what an animal born with it would look like. This is clearly affirmed by cloning science, where the genetic material of one animal into an egg cell will yield an identical clone of the original source animal, with the same macroscopic features.[1,2] Cross-species cloning using the somatic cells of an egg of one species, and a nucleus of another yields the same results, with the genetic material entirely dictating the macroscopic features that develop. Genetic modification etc. are clear examples of changes within the genome causing manifest changes. [1]Also, the genome replicates by copying itself which provides a mechanism for the progression of any changes in the genome, a spliced genome will progress itself with those changes in tact, much like editing a word document and saving it allows for the progression of the story you are writing. You do not need to re-write a new story every time you open the document, you continue where you left off. This affirms #3 as required.[3]#4 is also affirmed by the discovery of natural mechanisms which introduce changes, which unsurprisingly are of the category of mutations, although there are others (such as retroviruses etc.). There are several types of mutations, the most significant ones I have listed below.[4,5]1. Deletion2. Insertion3. Copying4. Frameshift5. DuplicationAll these changes can add or remove genetic material to the genome, and can cause small or large effects due to transcription effects. Dramatic effects can occur from frame shift mutations, for example.[6] One dramatic example of this may have occurred in the evolution of nylonase, where a fraeeshift rendered a new sequence of >100 amino acids (!) which yielded essentially a completely different protein. [7]So we have an entity which if changed, would potentially give the changes required for evolution to occur. However for changes to actively occur we would need a mechanism which generates changes within the genome, sans any mechanism for changes to occur the hypothesis of macroevolution would be impossible. Therefore the presence of such a mechanism would support it.We of course have such a mechanism, several in fact, which are various forms of mutations in the genome. There are many sources of mutations, which are as listed:To affirm #5, something more dramatic is required, which is of course affirmed by natural selection. All life reproduces, which is by far the single most important feature of life, and there are very few processes that come close to mimicking it. One process known is called autocatalysis, which is a special type of chemical reaction which generates increasing quantities of the catalyst with each cycle, which is comparable to life reproducing.[7]Both these systems exhibit exponential growth mechanics, where 4 units would reproduce faster than 2 units, and 8 units would reproduce faster than 4 units and so on if each unit has an intrinsic replication rate. By this reasoning, any population would exponentially grow until the entire Earth was flooded with life.… This of course does not happen in reality, as there are limitation factors which prevents the growth from continuing. But there are excellent reasons to believe this is the case. Tale human growth for instance, which upon industrialization (which lead to increased food availability) gave an exponential growth. Or take the growth of bacteria, which begins with 1 cell, and divides successively into 2,4,8 cells and so on.[8] Eventually limitations which curb the runaway replication such as:1. Food2. Nutrients3. Water4. Environmental Changes5. Competition Life-form examples which cope better with these limitations will ‘run-away’ for longer, and give more reproduction examples. Two species with all things equal except one can survive off of minimal water will reproduce at exactly the same rates, however when a hydration limitation occurs the species that requires less water is going to continue reproducing at a higher rate than the species that requires more water. This ‘replication bias’ give what we call natural selection (below). There are many examples in the literature of such adaptions at play. The Lenski experiment for example produced bacteria which could feed off of citrate (copes better with #1), and quickly the new bacteria took over the entire culture, outcompeting the bacteria that could not feed off of citrate.[10,11] The environment essentially biases which species reproduce, and therefore which species form the population in general. What we have here is a mechanism which causes the gene pool to become ‘plastic to the environment’, where species with well-adapted traits being biased by natural selection, and species with poorly-adapted traits being out-competed and eventually eliminated. This fulfils #5, in proving the directing and ‘guiding force’ for macro-evolution to occur.All these processes, predicted & necessitated by macro-evolution have been discovered and verified to exist and as such provide support the hypothesis as required by the resolution. IV. ConclusionI have presented nothing surprising, or new, but I do hope I have presented the evidence in a manner which positively supports the hypothesis of macro-evolution.V. References1. http://goo.gl...2. http://goo.gl...3. http://goo.gl...4. http://goo.gl...5. http://goo.gl...6. http://goo.gl...7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://goo.gl...9. http://goo.gl...10. http://goo.gl...11. http://goo.gl...