Micro and macro evolution are the same thing what's the problem?

Question

It is simply a case of the magnitude of changes that occur. Changes in Allele frequencies are the principle upon which evolution is based.

To Martin S. I think that the fossil record shows exactly that i.e. speciation. One has to keep in mind that this is either a very slow gradual process or that it occurs very rarely as illustrated by the punctuated model of evolution.

Answer 1

No, they are not the same things. Micro evolution results from the interaction of the elemental forces of evolution like mutation, variation, natural selection, to produce small changes in the population.
Macro evolution results in the the production of new adaptive types through the process of population fragmentation.

Answer 2

Not so.
Micro-evolution is just Selection. Change through rearrangement/selection of preexisting genetic information. For example lions and tigers have a common ancestor, and can interbreed (producing tions and ligers) but lions and tigers have less genetic information than their common ancestor.
However they are both cats, and no amount of selection will result in new features. Micro evolution is typically a downhill process - genetic information is retained or lost, but never gained.

Macro-evolution claims that given enough time small micro-evolutionary changes can add up to big changes. That's a bit like saying that if I spend a ound every day I'll eventually become a millionaire. Natural selection cannot explain the origin of genetic information. It cannot explain how the genetic informaton for wings arose from creatures without wings. Mammals do not have the genetic infomration for wings that birds have.

The use of the terms micro and macro evolution is misleading, and is often used to try to cover the vast chasm between Naturual Selection which we see happening and is a scientific fact, and the conjecture of neo-Darwinian (molecules-to-man) evolution which is a philosophical idea, with little, if any, observational evidence.

Check out AiG if you want more info - including many technical articles.

Answer 3

In micro evolution a species stays the same species. An amoeba doesn't turn into a fish that turns into a frog that turns into a mouse that turns into a monkey that becomes a man. That's crazy to think that.

On the other hand, all you have to do is look at the wide varieties of dogs or cattle to see that selective breeding can cause very distinct differences within a species. If you combine selective breeding with environmental factors doing the selecting, then micro evolution makes sense.

But random mutations can't add all of the complex information and perform the radical genetic changes that would be needed to turn even very similar animals into one another. It defies the odds of probability as well as scientific observation. Mutations are either harmful or benign in almost all instances. If the change is too radical they are always harmful. You don't find species mutating into super versions of a previous species and you certainly don't see a whole new species of animal coming from a prior one.

Answer 4

Whilst it is generally held that change occurs over time and usually to fill a vacant niche, recent speculation has postulated that is some species it has occurred when they have been reduced to very small numbers and are threatened with extinction.

Since mankind now strives to preserve habitats the lack of change will surely restrict much further evolution?

Answer 5

No I'm afraid they are not the same thing. That's why they have different names!

Answer 6

.... yes.

CHEEEEEESE!!!