Macro Evolution?

Question

I know micro evolution is true, we see it every day. But what bothers me is macro evolution. It seems very odd to me that we (all organisms) evolved from a common ancestor. I believe in Creation, as it seems more likely and I am a Christian.

Answer 1

With due respect, you likely suffer from the same problem that many 19th Century biologists had... a profound lack of understanding of the depth of time.

One thing I like to remind my students of is that we can't really even think in terms of *years,* but need to think in terms of *generations* instead. For instance, how many generations of humans have there been since say... George Washington's time? If you assume an average 20 year generation time (an over estimate really), then at 231 years ago, there have been about 11 generations. ...almost nothing. If we go back to the time of Christ (year zero?), then there have been about 100 generations. But if we go back to the origin of modern humans (roughly 150,000 years ago), there have been 7,600 generations, or in other words, 76 times the distance between the origins of Christianity and today. Now that's significant.

I suggest you do some reading on geology and the fossil record. Mike Benton's book about fossils is a good start. As a "Future Biologist," you'll need to understand evolution, including macroevolution, in the context of time. Good luck!

Answer 2

Why does it seem odd that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor? Considering that all of the evidence gathered from comparative anatomy, genetics, and paleontology shows a progression of accumulated changes in each group of organisms, it seems intuitively obvious that we all share a common ancestor.

It's the only thing that actually explains not only the vast diversity of life on Earth, but also, more importantly, why there is so much similarity between organisms as well.

All terrestrial vertebrates have the same essential skeletal anatomy - with a skull composed of similar bony segments, a lower mobile jaw, teeth, four limbs, and a vertebral column. They all possess lungs that draw air through the same passage that leads to the digestive system. They have similar muscular hearts and circulatory systems. They all have livers, kidneys, testes, ovaries, stomachs, intestines and other internal organs in essentially the same arrangement. The gradations between different groups of vertebrates are fine, and sometimes difficult to define precisely.

All of this fits with the theory of evolution and common descent. It does not fit with 'special Creation' - in which there would be no reason why all these organisms should be built on essentially the same 'chassis'.

Beyond the vertebrates, it also explains why all insects have three body sections, six legs, four wings, two antennae, compound eyes, and mouthparts made up of the same labrum, mandibles, maxillae, hypopharynx and labium set up. They all have the same respiratory system of trachea, and haeomocoel circulatory system. Even the beetles, of which there are over 300,000 different living species, all have the same condition of a pair of forewings hardened into elytra, and a life cycle with complete metamorphosis.

Again, this is explained by evolution, but there is no reason for this situation to exist if special Creation is true.

Genetically, all of these organisms use the exact same molecule to encode and pass on their characteristics. The degree to which this complex molecule is different in different organisms closely mirrors their divergence in terms of physical characteristics.

Again, this is explained by evolution, but there's no reason for this situation to exist in special Creation.

So I'm not sure how you can claim that Creation is 'more likely', since there's no evidence at all to support that claim.

Answer 3

Hello future biologist.

Okay, you know that microevolution is true. Great.

Intermediate evolution is true too! A mini-dachshund is not a wolf. Corn is not its teosinte ancestor.

Going longer term here -- look at the fauna on semi-isolated archipelagoes, such as Hawaii or the Galapagos. You'll see forms there that are similar to mainland forms, but different. The similarities are enough so that the best explanation is that they shared a common ancestor, and then diverged, as a result of genetic drift and differing selection pressures on island and mainland.

There is no known mechanism which would prevent microevolution and intermediate evolution from, over a longer period of time, becoming macroevolution.

Answer 4

all little changes coincide to form bigger changes. it it takes 6 weeks for fruitflies to evolve in such a way that they cannot breed with a member of a different tribe,

why is it unlikely that over 65million years a fishes fins got longer, he went to shallow waters and eventually started struggling with his fins in the sand and crawled up the coast.

its exactly the same thing, just because it gets changed more often, the differences get bigger until on doesnt even resemble the other anymore. Secondly fossils seem to tell us this story, species from different era's seem to be similar yet have slight differences. the close the era's are together the less differences.

there might still be big gaps in the puzzle, but there does seem to be a very clear path.

Answer 5

They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But you will need to separate your spiritual development from corporeal evolution.
Micro and macro evolution are the same thing. The only difference is time. Macro is many cumulative micro-evolutionary steps.