Evolution question regarding macro and micro?

Question

Bear with me, I know that micro (which alot of people make fun of) is more of adaption to surroundings, climate, etc. Macro would be from species to species, right? Is this where transitional fossils would show that animal B derived from animal A? The science area is dead at this time. Thanks in advance.

Answer 1

hmm I find it funny but when I went to public school and studied evolution in biology class I do not remember micro and macro evolution.



Oh wait they were invented not that long ago right?

Answer 2

The difference between micro and macro evolution is like the difference between inches and miles. If enough inches add up, there is nothing to stop them from becoming a mile. That's how evolution works: a gradual build up of small changes and adaptations, which, over enough time, cumulate into larger changes which makes related species too different to mate with each other any longer.



You're correct, speciation is the point at which most people agree "micro" turns into "macro"; the thing to understand is that because it is a gradual process, there is no "defining moment" which can precisely be pinpointed as "the moment of speciation". Creationists who misunderstand this concept often point to it as "proof" that "speciation has never happened", and that there are "no transitional fossils" (transitional, in their minds, meaning a fossil of something at its "exact moment of speciation").



The fact is, there have been many observed instances of speication both in the lab and in nature:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html



And there are lots and lots of transitional fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html



There is no mechanism or genetic barrier in place which would prevent "micro" from turning into "macro". They're not two different types of evolution. The terms refer to timespan only.



I hope that helps.

Answer 3

You sound as if you have been studying Creation Science. You are very close to the truth! I would challenge you statement that gives us the 1% figure. In order to arrive at such a number, you would have to know the other 99% - and you called it unknown. Micro-evolution is a fact. You are correct in your examples. I stated a few days ago that there would have been one pair of bears. After the flood, the generations would have migrated, and become black bears, polar bears, grizzly bears, brown bears etc. You might also consider that before the flood that animals, like man, would have had much longer lifespans. Man is recorded to live hundreds of years, with the oldest recorded being over 900. If this were also true of animals, then the remains of a tiger, for example, is going to look much different than the tigers of today. This could explain such fossils that have been labeled as somehow different. Could a saber-tooth tiger simply have been a tiger that lived to be hundreds of years old, and therefore had very different skeletal remains?

Answer 4

Lucid, there's not really such a thing as micro and macroevolution. These are terms invented by creationists to classify something they don't seem to understand.



Evolution is evolution. Every genetic change in an individual has the potential to cause a speciation event.



Adaptation can eventually lead to speciation. It's a continuum, not two separate phenomena. Transitional fossils are simply evidence of evolution.

Answer 5

The difference between the two is comparable to inches and miles. Scale is all the only difference. Even then, how do you decide when micro becomes macro? It's arbitrary, since speciation is a gradual process too. This is one of the many reasons why biologist make no distinction between the two, only creationists do. It's just evolution.



But yes, fossils are one of the best sources for data relating to evolution over large expanses of time. Genetics provides a large amount of evidence too, but it is constrained to what is presently in different organisms genomes.

Answer 6

I'm not a Biologist, but I don't believe there is such a thing as micro and macro evolution except in the mind of deluded creationists.

Answer 7

Okay, writing a serious answer now.



Micro/Macro evolution most commonly refer to a division between what creationists believe happens, as it is easy to observe and difficult to deny ("microevolution"), and major differences they contend have not been demonstrated ("macroevolution")...



Microevolution, in this case, refers to any type of change over time that is viewed as "minor" to the creationist, these changes can vary greatly in magnitude, natural variation within a species, such as the breeds of dogs, can be referred to as microevolution, as can, on occasion, dramatic differences in bacterial life. The deciding factor in classification seems to be the lack of any phenotypic change that would prevent related organisms from being recognized as such.



Macroevolution is, on the other hand, just the opposite, any change that results in organisms not being able to be recognized as being similar to their ancestors. This is often based on several misconceptions about evolution, such as the idea that one form of life "changes into" another, rather than divergence and gradual change.



As mentioned earlier the division, all of this is mostly dependent on what is most recognizable as distinct to the individual. As a result, virtually no divergence in microbial life is seen as significant enough to be counted as "macroevolution", while relatively small changes, like that between the bonobo and the human are counted to be significant. As a rule though, to count as "macroevolution", something much change on the genus level or above.



In reality, there is no such dichotomy, macroevolution is the result of continuous microevolution over time given a new name.

Answer 8

Micro and Macro evolution are not real things. These are terms invented by creationists in a desperate attempt to find middle ground between evolution and creationism. They have, however, failed miserably.

Answer 9

I believe in science and I believe in my Bible. Science has had to update the origin of man from Neanderthal to the African coast. As discoverys are made I'll listen with an open mind.

Until someone who was there could confirm it, the jury is out.

The most acurate, protected, oldest writings of history are the Jewish protection of the first four books of the Bible. That's a science too.

Good question, no good answers.

Evolution from Darwins point of view is something to research your animal B to animal A question, started with an earthworm diesection.

Maybe there is an answer that is a compromise of Nature that we are not aware yet.

Answer 10

There is no clear cutoff between the two, but microevolution is the STUDY OF generation to generation changes, and macroevolution is the STUDY OF long term changes. Changes distinct enough to show form variation in fossils would usually involve enough generations to be macroevolutionary timescales.

Answer 11

Microevolution is adaption. Small changes. Macroevolution would be from one species changing into another. But how do you define species? Some scientists claim to have observed speciation. But oftentimes those "species" can still interbreed. Observing an animal change into something new, like a dog evolving into a bear, has not been observed.



Some think that if microevolution is true, then macroevolution must be true. But they can only use logical arguments, which might be false, to prove this.

Answer 12

No such distinction between macro- and micro-evolution exists. These are terms that creationists have invented to make evolution seem false. Would macro- and micro-gravitation make any sense to you?

Answer 13

this is my specialty! Micro and Macro evolution!

Let me explain it this way.

You can breed two birds with small beaks and keep doing it to until you have a whole breed of small beaked birds. that is Micro evolution.

But if you breed those same small beaked birds until they turned into a whole different species - like a pumpkin or a dog. That would be Macro evolution. And Macro evolution has never once - EVER even in the most sophisticated labs in all the world - ever happened. In fact, you cannot EVER (even in a petri dish) combine the genetics of two different species and have them live - they are so deteriorated genetically that they are deformed and die.

That is why unbelievers try to make us believe that the universe is million and billions of years old - they think it validates their theory.

Answer 14

I actually need to head to bed now but if you want some interesting material that shows the controversy over DNA feel free to e-mail me. As much as the general public is told how DNA proves evolution they are seldom told about the problems it has even among those who are believers in evolutionary theory.

Answer 15

Thank you for your interest in evolution.



Your question demonstrates:



( ) insight and understanding

( ) a common misunderstanding among scientists

( ) a common misunderstanding among high school students

(x) a common misunderstanding among elementry school students

( ) a complete lack of familiarity with science





You have



( ) comitted a logical fallacy

(x) misrepresented the theory of evolution

( ) shown utter disregard for the scientific method

( ) been brainwashed by the institute for creation science

( ) appealed to the supernatural

(x) used spelling and punctuation correctly

( ) disregarded the rules of intelligent debate



of type



( ) straw man

( ) ad hominem attack

( ) non sequiter

( ) proof by assertion

( ) false dichotomy





Answers to this question



( ) will further scientific inquiry

( ) will not change your mind

(x) will involve a drinking game

( ) will beat the proverbial deceased equus caballus



For this question you should be:



( ) Congratulated

(x) Gently corrected

( ) reprimanded

( ) flogged

( ) subjected to some social darwanism

( ) sent a third grade biology textbook

Answer 16

Its like which came first the Tic or the mammal host

Answer 17

They're the same thing, macroevolution is just the accumulated changes of microevolution.

Answer 18

amoebas to men

bacterias to boobs