What is this "Macro Evolution" crap?

Question

Since when was the term "macro-evolution" considered valid? Sounds like the anti-evolutionists perceive modern evolutionary theory as a parody of pokemon. I'm sorry, fundies, but the world doesn't go from charmander, to charmeleon, to charizard.

There is no "micro" or "macro" evolution. There is evolution. Dictionary.com defines evolution as "any process of formation or growth; development." Genetic evolution is the process of one species adapting and growing according to environmental stimulus and natural selection. What you are thinking of, when you think of the laughable term, "macro-evolution," is call speciation. Speciation is defined as "the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other." So, by saying you believe in "micro-evolution," you're really just saying you believe in evolution.

Now speciation is perhaps a topic we can debate. So let's play. Tell me why it is that two separate colonies of a species evolving in radically differing environments(let's say Amazon jungle and Alaskan tundra), would NOT be capable of evolving into two separate species?

"Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution are terms you will find in collegiate Science books."

Show me.

**sigh** Okay, a couple things.

First of all, SOURCES, people! You come in here spouting all kinds of number and statistics as facts with no sources! At least I posted dictionary references!

Second of all, we did NOT need to invent the macro and mico terms to deviate between the two. We already had the terms "Evolution" and "Speciation." Anti-evolutionists needed to come up with new terms once they realized that biological adaptation through natural selection was really occuring. All of a sudden everything they were spouting about evolution not occuring was wrong, scientifically, and if they didn't come up with new terms to spin their arguments with, they would have lost all validity. Now, instead of it being, "Evolution is false and scientifically untrue!" It's "Oh, I believe in micro-evolution, just not macro-evolution. My Cringer still isn't a Battlecat." Nice reference on that one, btw! =)

To andymcj66:

Richard Dawkins is a pompous bag of hot air. I do not agree with many of his views and scientific stances.

Answer 1

You answered your own question in the first line. It's crap.

Answer 2

The formation of new species can't be proved that is why scientists have now broken evolution into two terms. Micro-evolution is nothing more than adaptation within a species, which everyone knew to be a real occurrence. Macro-evolution is used because "speciation" cannot and will not ever be proved true. It's not even a theory, it's a hypothesis. No proof whatsover.

God created life to continue. We adapt to our surroundings. It's intelligent design.

May God Bless you.

Answer 3

Are you talking to the “fundi” Evolutionist, or the “fundi” Darwinists? Because both churches come from the same religion…. But the bigger question is your religions lack of transitional species (Darwin said we there would be so many, we‘d be tripping over them. When all we ever got were fake and frauds) , the lame excuses for your misunderstanding of so-called “vestigial” organs, the lack of a grasp you have on the type of changes it would take to transition form sludge to man. And the lack of a transitional eye (and the lack of your being able to explain how it just appeared with it’s millions of receptors) blows your quote, unquote theory, out of the water.
You are correct in one thing, There is no "micro" or "macro" evolution. There is no evolution at all, in the false sense you try to paint it. In stead of Evolution and Speciation, you would be better served using the word “Speculation” in the Assumptive “science” you practice.

Answer 4

I may have taken your rant wrong, but it appears that you are saying that it's the anti-evolutionists who use the micro and macro evolution terms. Yet, I have seen those who support Evolution use those terms as well. I even had one explain that Macro-Evolution is when there are a bunch of small changes within one species (a lot of Micro = Macro) is basically how it was explained to me... well, to Yahoo Answers in general.

Maybe if it was corrected within the group that supports it, the anti-evolutionists would stop using it as well.

Answer 5

You still haven't answered the question of how "macro-evolution" can work. We are not talking about speciation - we are talking about a one-celled organism "evolving" into more "advanced" life-forms. Macroevolution says that birds became reptiles, etc. This is not seen in the fossil record and has never occured in a labratory or through aritificial breeding.

Microevolution says that a species will adapt to its surroundings. Ex: Darwin's finches - although their beaks changed due to either dry or wet conditions, they were still finches! This is not proof that given enough time and luck these finches will turn into a lizard. That is macroevolution.

Answer 6

"Macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" are acceptable scientific terms. Macro-evolutionary science studies speciation and the development of organisms over long periods of time. Micro-evolutionary science studies adaptations in a single species over a short period of time, typically only a few generations.

The chief differences between the two schools are the specialties required to study them. Macroevolution requires a much more intense focus on paleontology, forensic anthropology, and geology. Obviously, both disciplines rely heavily on genetics and organic chemistry.

Both studies, of course, are consistent with general evolutionary theories and with one another.

Answer 7

Macroevolution is a real term (it's also on dictionary.com btw!) and there are people who genuinely believe in it (ex: Darwinists). Macroevolution is the belief that all life forms have descended from a common ancestor-the first one celled creature- and all of this happened by natural processes without any intelligent intervention.

Microevolution is like bacteria that evolves to survive antibiotics.

Microevolution has been observed; but it cannot be used as evidence for macroevolution, which has never been observed.

6 reasons why natural selection can't do the job:
1. Genetic limits
2. Cyclical Change
3. Irreducible Complexity
4. Nonviability of Transitional Forms
5. Molecular Isolation
6. Fossil Record

Jumping Joy and Mark777 have it right!

Answer 8

We know it's only evolution but you need to use these terms in order that the uninformed can grasp the concepts. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are valid terms describing different aspects of biological evolution.


Edit-Richard Dawkins often discusses the features of both micro and macro evolution and they are terms that he uses in several of his books "The extended phenotype. The long reach of the gene" for example so do you know something that the world's main spokesman on evolution isn't aware of?

Answer 9

The simplest cases of change in a lifeform over time deal with microbes. Humans know through study that some species have changed enough to now be considered a different species. This is more than just changes in antibiotic response or nutritional needs. These changes are associated with changes in DNA coding.

Answer 10

It may interest you to know also...it is easily determined that 99.99% of all mutatons are NOT beneficial to a species.....but are always harmful and detrimental to the development...a serious flaw in the assumed mechanism of evolution theory.

The assumption that mutations takes place too SLOW to observe is equally defective to anyone with even half a brain. Evoltuionist often hide behind this fallacy because they are unable to come up with any evidence since it certainly is not in the fossil record.

Evolutionist are always looking for a way to convince themselves of foolish things in spite of evidence to the contrary.

They invent all sorts of things as they go along.....everytime something doesn't work out right they invent another theory to keep it current with the latest discovers which keep invalidating their last assumption....it is really laughable

Answer 11

The DNA code has not been changed. Certain characteristics have been changed, but no "new species" will develop.
I believe that all dogs come from a common dog. Just not that apes and humans (two different species) came from a (non existent still) common ancestor.