About Evolution ( 2 Questions )?

Question

A) Is the defining point of when someone describes "macro" evolution the point when it can no longer breed with its root species?

B) Why do people ask about Evolution in R&S so much?

Answer 1

It's more fun to talk about science without scientists around. Like it's more fun to talk about movies without film critics who have seen every movie around.

I don't know about the "macro" thing. It's made up as far as I can tell.

Answer 2

No one has ever shown macro evolution in terms of one species becoming another. Even the few Tigons and Ligers that are born do not breed to create more of the new species.

As far as B goes, I guess evolution has been portrayed as a threat to religious belief for so long that people are beginning to believe it's true and so feel threatened, when actually it's still only a theory.

Answer 3

A. Macroevoluition major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxanomic groups, or evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups. Microevolution on the other hand is evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species, or minor evolutionary change observed over a short period of time.

B. People ask about evolution in R&S so much because there is a very vocal minority of fundamentalist Christians who seem to think that denying evolution has become some sort of article of faith of the Christian religion, or that accepting evolution is somehow a rejection of God or otherwise a sin.

Answer 4

to 9_dalydi:Don't always trust textbooks. They're not above boing influenced by religion and politics.

macro and micro evolution really don't have any meaning. They're terms used by creationists, and they are intentionally vague about them. That way, they can label anything that we observe to be microevolution, and stil make a distinction between macroevolution.

Macroevolution, by a creationist's standards, is changing from one kind to another. Kind is a larger group than species, as we have seen species evolve to the point where they are no longer genetically compatable.

The term kind has never been defined, all they can do is give examples of it. (Cats and dogs are different kinds.) That way, they can expand it large enough to accomidate anything they want.

Answer 5

A) As far as I can tell, there is no real defining point of macro-evolution.
The way people explain it, macroevolution seems to require one of the descendants of an organism to be a different "kind" than the original organism. I still can't figure out exactly what "kind" means. I think genus, but I'm not sure.

B) I do it because it's more fun than asking in Biology. The responses are funnier.


Edit: Macroevolution reminds me of the "heap" problem that inspired a branch of logic called "fuzzy logic":

Two grains of sand obviously don't make a heap. Given any pile of sand, if it is currently not a heap adding one more grain of sand will not make it a heap. So how can I have a heap of sand? (The problem is solvable with fuzzy logic).

Replace 'grains of sand" with "genetic differences", "pile' with "microevolution," and "heap" with "macroevolution;" it's the exact same argument.

Answer 6

A) Don't know, I only heard the terms 'micro' and 'macro' evolution since I got on the Internet and started hearing them from evolution deniers.

B) Because some weak minded religious people are worried that evolution might disprove their religion, so they maintain it didn't happen whenever they can.

Answer 7

A) When two "races" (the term is not applied anymore in science but I cant remember the term used now) cant breed successfully, they have become separate species. I think this could be applied with parent species and current species.
B) because of Protestants, who will deny facts and assume God was a liar before changing their beliefs on how god created the universe.
And drpsholder is stupid. Micro evolution "tadpole to frog"???

Answer 8

A) I've always thought it was, but what do I know? I'm not a biologist. There are inbetweenies who can breed together but who produce infertile offspring, like horse + donkey = mule, sheep + goat = geek (I think that's what it's called) etc..... How do creationists explain these creatures?

B) I don't know. It seems to be an American thing, the obsession with taking the bible absolutely literally which means that anything that isn't in it (telephones, democracy, tomatoes, the British Isles, etc.) is the work of the devil.

Answer 9

The terms Macro and Micro evolution are not made up. The were both used in my daughters science book this last year when they studied Darwin and his theory.

Answer 10

Macroevolution is when two completely different groups of the animal kingdom (for example, reptiles and birds) have the same ancestor. This is illustrated in Darwin's famous Tree of Life drawing in "Origin of Species". And people ask about evolution so much in R&S because the opposing theory is creation/intelligent design, which is a highly religious/spiritual viewpoint.

Answer 11

Macro evolution is when, for example, a dog produces something that isn't a dog. Something outside of their gene pool. There isn't any evidence for this. Cosmic evolution is the birth of the planets. No evidence either, just theory. Chemical evolution, theory there also, solar evolution, the stars and moons, nobody has seen the formation of a star. they witness many of them burn out, but not the formation. Micro evolution, now there is plenty of evidence for this. this is the adaptation to our surroundings. We believe this. The only problem is that they don't specify which evolution that they are talking about.