Would microevolution + microevolution + microevolution = macroevolution?

Question

If not, please explain.

Answer 1

If you think that macroevolution and microevolution are two different things, you don't understand what a "species" is.

Once you've changed a population of organisms so that they have different characteristics (which is of course what "microevolution" does), you don't ALSO have to change what "species" they are. You're already all the way there.

If you believe in microevolution, you believe in evolution. The whole "species" thing is just about what we call the results.

And the person above is simply wrong about there being no evidence for it. I suspect that like most people* who say this kind of thing, she thinks that evolution claims that individual organisms change (rather than populations across generations), or that evolution claims that dogs change into cows, or something like that.

If she could go back maybe 1.5 million years and see our ancestors, I suspect she'd get the point better. They'd be different enough that you might be tempted to say that they're a different species altogether. If you went another 1.5 million years before that, many scientists would agree with you. At what point do the changes make "a different species"? The answer is in our choice of labels, not in some essential nature of the organisms we're looking at.

* For example, "Booth", below, who not only falsely believes that evolution changes individuals, but apparently that simply growing up is evolution.

Answer 2

Yes. Common sense dictates that if things evolve at all, then over a sufficiently long time they will become so different that it no longer makes sense to call them the same thing. At that point they are new species.
.

Answer 3

i think of surely the "concern" is with vast speciation(sp?) in my opinion my view is "Guided evolution" the place God used evolution with the aid of fact the conventional approach for turning out to be the selection of existence interior the international. yet tweaked and helped it alongside on some spots, now that may no longer scientifically provable or something, yet surely that's the way for me, to get around the reality that some factors of evolution requiring unreasonably no longer likely, suitable coincidences to artwork because it has. in case you had to pin down a medical "smash factor" the place advent-ish perspectives have an argument with... IMO it might probable be interior the component of "subphylum" .. the place it branches from "each little thing with a spnial twine" to beasts vs fish, ect... i think of in case you're taking genesis in a inteperetive metaphorical way, it surely DOES wade by way of a chain of huge bang, formation of the cosmos, and progression of existence, by utilising utilising evolution. and one among those steps as listed is the distinctive separation between sea existence and land-based existence. in case you do no longer take "days" actually, then this flows mutually very complimentarily. some would desire to have the ability to look after the belief of the human kind being stepped forward from apes. however the belief of people and fish having a worry-unfastened ancestor seems far extra bizzare. I do appriciate that in case you look at it step by utilising step over the form than no particular substitute seems that irrational, its extra that the collective substitute provides as much as too lots(imo) unlikelyness.

Answer 4

Lol. No it wold still be microevolution.You are still adding small parts together that do not add up to the whole much less Macroevolution.

Answer 5

0+0+0=?
macroevolution is a true answer.

Answer 6

Pretty much yes. Several small steps to make large changes.

Answer 7

i agree.

these silly xtians dont know logic if you shot them at point blank

Answer 8

no- there are many many many specioes of dog, but they are still ALL dogs-
there a hundreds of thousands of variations of human characteristics, but not one of them makes a human not human. There is absolutely no evidence of any one species evolving into a different species.

Answer 9

microcosm=macrocosm, it is not overly complex