If macro evolution, and micro evolution were the same thing, wouldn't they have different prefixes?

Question

Since all of a sudden I am too dumb to realize that they are the same on different scales, please tell me how you can say they are the same. Go ahead, please, oh please, oh please, oh please...

Should I post this in Biology section too? I bet it will be interesting to contrast answers...

No answers yet? You guys must still be googling...

Answer 1

Micro evolution is evolution that we can actually see taking place like in bacteria, diseases...whatever. Any change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift constitutes as evolution. Macro evolution requires fossil evidence, carbon-dating...whatever. You can go to any university in America and ask a professor for more info.

Answer 2

No. If they were the same, the prefix would be the same. But they do not mean the same , so they have different prefixes.

They are not the same on different scales, no way.
Micro- is small changes within a kind or specie-like a finch with a long beak and a finch with a short beak-like Darwin observed.
Macro- is change from one specie to another- like a dinosaur turning into a finch-this has never been observed nor do we have any evidence in the fossil record of it. Macro- is what researchers look for, but to date it has not been found.

Answer 3

There is no such thing as micro evolution. It is merely variation in species. There are parameters that define the differentiation possible in a species. We have tall people, and we have short people, but there has never been a man who was 25 feet tall. Evolutionists like to refer to this variation within species as "microevolution", as this somehow validates the idea of macroevolution.

Nothing evolves. Actually, we are devolving. We are weaker than our forebearers. We are more prone to disease, while at the same time, science can treat more of these diseases.
Yes it's true, we are degenerating. If you make a copy of a copy, and continue this process, you beging to get a degradation. That is what is happening to the human race. Mutations are devolving us, not evolving us.

Mutation is virtually always harmful. Science knows this from observations. Millions of fruit flies have been exposed to radiation. Harmful mutations deveolped. No fly evolved into a honey bee, or any other insect. Many of the flies that were able to survive, were unable to reproduce. This demonstrates the impossibility of evolution.

Answer 4

Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are not the same thing.

You see micro-evolution happens, Macro- is bull crap.

See micro should be called variations, because it alters nothing, it is like they have a deck of cards. all this does is shuffle of the deck of cards, no new ones and no new deck. You have the same dna all they do is shuffle it around, like the virus it is not becoming stronger, but weaker often losing its dna when shuffling not evolution variation....

Listen to this:

You'll want to really grab a hold of what variation is (and I'll bet you already know this). The world is replete with examples of variation within a species. Most all people think variation IS evolution. No way.
For example: a zebra and a horse are probably related. This shows how much genetic variation is in the coding for the "equine" kind. Do you remember the photos I held up -of the different types of dogs ? A baby Chihuahua and a St. Bernard. We see huge variation, but the same kind of animal. They are both still dogs. One dog has lost a bunch of genes, while the other has retained more.

NOTE: this is key; You can't gain genetic code. You can only lose it. This is huge! repeat this to yourself .
Always always always remember that evolution involves:
1) one kind changing into a different kind -which would involve NEW genetic material (doesn't happen)
2) and this involves the ADDITION of genes and proteins.
Neither of which has ever been seen, studied, or witnessed. Case closed.

A horse has never changed into a non-horse, or into a cow or lama, or anything else for that matter. A virus can certainly change and rearrange the genetic code it already has and become something a bit different, but a virus will never produce new proteins turning it into a worm, bacteria, or in enough time...a cat.

I like to think of it this way...like every kind is given a deck of cards. When God first made viruses...the virus had all the genetic material it needed -like a full deck of cards. Over time, the virus lost a card here and there and reshuffled them. This is why we see different viruses. This is how it is with every kind on earth (including us humans). We all started in the garden with the full deck. Adam and Eve had the full deck. Once they "fell" in the garden and the curse took effect, the genes we all inherited got messed with. Some people got more of the dark skin gene, while others got a very pale skin gene. Some animals got thick fur and others couldn't grow a winter coat and died. This is called Survival of the Fittest and (surprisingly) has NOTHING to do with evolution like everyone thinks. You see our gene pools are actually getting weaker and weaker which proves the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The stronger of every kind survives, but we still don't see them change into different kinds.

Butterflies and moths change wing color, flies change eye color, fish develop different patterns. All of this is natural variation within a species. "Show me the evolution". The virus is still a virus. It probably LOST some gene code making it a different flu/cold. But our 2nd Law of Thermodynamics stands true: matter is breaking down to simpler forms at the time and NOT gaining genetic material. This, is what everyone thinks. They think our world is gaining in complexity and these viruses will one day be super human viruses and wipe out our planet.

Shanon Thachter

They are not the same thing at all.....

Answer 5

No all of the creationists are doing is taking part in be conscious video games with the help of fiddling with the definitions. I nonetheless do no longer comprehend what's meant with the help of linking the words transitional and species. while it grew to become into first used it grew to become into in connection with feathered dinosaur fossil because of fact they linked different genera. Now it form of feels like the creationists are attempting to make it propose species crossing border lines between species. it is an of course stupid concept. How can a separate species no longer be a separate species. in the event that they're asking approximately hybrids then the international is stuffed with examples. kinds and races of species abound. while they hit the element that they do no longer breed mutually anymore then that's a clean species with the help of definition. are you able to call a Quince a transitional species between apples and pears. Quince can fertilize apples, pears can fertilize quince. yet quince in basic terms produce seed in spite of if that's a quince quince mating. definite macro-evolution is genuine, definite that's wide-unfold. All you will possibly desire to do is look in a seed catalog. we've extremely some companion and little ones species that have diverged adequate from the discern inventory to no longer have the flexibility to reproduce decrease back to it and others that diverged adequate that when the discern inventory died out they might no longer be crossed to recuperate it. this could be a consumer-friendly concern for orchard operators. in basic terms specific varieties of apple fertilize one yet another. each so often the only genuine reason they're separate species is they flower at different situations. Sorry that this submit is so late.

Answer 6

One is the accumulation of the other. "Microevolution" means "small changes". "Macroevolution" means "large changes". Large changes that occur through a single major mutation are usually fatal. But it doesn't take a professional scientist to recognize that large changes can also result from the gradual accumulation of small changes.

Draw a picture of an animal, any animal. A bird, insect, fish, whatever. Make a couple of small changes to the picture - a few extra scales, a few less feathers, slightly larger feet. It is obviously still the same animal. Now make a couple of thousand small changes to the picture. Then try to convince any rational person that it is still a picture of the same animal it was before you started making the changes.
.

Answer 7

Micro evolution, via natural selection, are changes in allele frequencies in a gene pool. It makes small, usually unnoticeable, changes. Over time, those changes make a difference and can result in changes within a species and eventually, given enough time and enough accumulated changes, can create entirely new species (maco evolution).

*edit* Desperado, below, has ZERO knowledge on Evolution. Don't listen to his rubbish. He's speaking out of ignorance.

Creation is also wrong. (And with a name like 'creation' you'd expect that.)

I recommend these two which refute what Creation said with scientific evidence:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=I14KTshLUkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9u50wKDb_4

Answer 8

They are the same thing - evolution. Someone just tried to put prefixes on them to try and alter the basic meaning. But really both prefixes should be tossed out and just use plain old evolution.

Answer 9

They are the same thing. Change is change. Lots of little changes over time lead to new species.

The prefixes are made up. You will never see them in a Biology book.

Answer 10

Wrong category moron, this is RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY!

Astrophysics and Physics.

You intelligent enough to understand the analogy?