I have read that most evidence for macroevolution could also be used as evidence for microevolution.?

Question

Since the word "most" was used, what evidence for macroevolution is there that cannot be used as evidence for microevolution?

This is not a question dealing with semantics, faith, or veracity of ancient religious manuscripts, or name calling, so please do not answer in that fashion.

I know there is some debate as to the definitions of these words, but I would like to avoid any large scale discussions on semantics.

Definitions:

Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population.

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. (*Note* many definitions include the "species" level in their description)

Sources:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVADefinition.shtml

This is not meant as a loaded question, I am simply looking for the evidence that does not come under the "most" category so that I can examine it.

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

Let me rephrase it. Most people would agree that microevolution exists. There is plenty of evidence for that. The evidence for microevolution is often presented as evidence for macroevolution. What evidence is there for macroevolution, that would not come under the category of evidence for microevolution?

Thanks for that link swbarnes2, that's what I was looking for.

To evolvedkw: I get way more hits here, and evolution is a common topic in R&S. If I can't get a good answer here, I'll head there next.

Novangelis- There is little doubt that microevolution can result in some forms speciation. I agree with alot that you had to say, but I was more after something like "swbarnes2" link that deals with macroevolution a little higher on the taxa. What do you think of his link? Do you have anything like that for me?

Answer 1

The only plausible scenario where the dynamics of Macroevolution would not be applicable to Microevolution is one where specificity of the population involved would prevent it from being influenced by the general trend as evidenced by Macroevolution.

For this to happen, a species would have had to evolve to a point of specificity so that the impact of environment, more actually an environmental event of such scale as to effect most of the rest of the existent species, would have little bearing. This is open to debate what such an event might be, but it is plausible that such an event may occur, or has occured in world history.

Example: we know that cockroaches have existed unchanged for millions of years. The fact that they have existed unchanged shows that they have been immune to events that have altered other species; i.e., the extinction of the dinosaurs and rise of mammals. This example may be open to debate, but is the clearest example proposing such conditions as related in the question.

Answer 2

There is no clear distinction on when microevolution becomes macroevolution. Some speciation events (e.g. chromosomal fusion) have no change in genetic information content, just distribution. It is only once the two new populations have diverged by loss of common alleles and the development of novel alleles that you would qualify the accumulated changes as macroevolution.

At the other extreme, two or more isolated populations may develop numerous unique alleles without losing the ability to interbreed. In the case of some groups of near-species, it may turns out that population A can breed with B, B with C, C with D, and so on. Despite this, A cannot breed with E, or maybe D. These "ring species" are roughly at the best definition of the micro / macro definition.

For something that has to be macro, you need something that clearly make the two populations distinct. In most cases, it is not likely to be a single massive event such as a diploid plant becoming a tetraploid plant. You are looking for large scale genetic shifts that are a collection of single events that would be considered microevolution on their own. This is because there is no true micro/macro barrier. The key is that the converse is not true. Most evidence for microevolution is not evidence for macroevolution. We can see single steps in isolated populations more easily.

Answer 3

Not sure, and can't find the reference to "most evidence for macroevolution could also... "

But since you're examining the evidence, examine for macro situations and examine for micro, then look at the evidence types and see which are missing between the two.

It is rather backwards to just examine a portion that does not fit a given category.

Answer 4

I believe you have it backwards. We don't need evidence for microevolution, since we see it all around us. Microevolution happens within our life-span. What people have a hard time getting their heads around is that 100,000 years of microevolution can result in a serious piece of macroevolution. Enough little changes and the original product isn't there anymore - you've got something new.

Answer 5

evaluate a famous occasion... evaluate Ring Species... In biology, a hoop species is a related series of neighboring populations, each and every of which could interbreed with heavily sited appropriate populations, yet for which there exist a minimum of two "end" populations in the series, that are too distantly on the subject count of interbreed, nevertheless there's a capacity gene pass between each and every "appropriate" species... Such non-breeding-nevertheless-genetically-connecte... "end" populations could co-exist in an identical region hence ultimate a "ring"... evaluate the fossil trasitional sequences: a million Nautiloids to Ammonoids 2 Cephalopods 3 Evolution of bugs 4 Evolution of spiders 5 Invertebrates to Fish 6 Chondrichthyes 7 Bony Fish 8 Fish to Tetrapods 9 Labyrinthodonts to famous amphibians 10 Amphibians to Amniotes (early reptiles) 11 Turtles 12 From Lizards to Snakes 13 Lizards 14 Pterosaurs 15 Archosaurs to Dinosaurs sixteen Dinosauria 17 Dinosaurs to birds 18 chook Evolution 19 Synapsid ("mammal-like reptiles") to mammals 20 Evolution of mammals 21 Evolution of whales 22 Evolution of sirenians 23 Evolution of the Pinnipeds 24 Evolution of the horse 25 Human evolution

Answer 6

Even using the words macroevolution and microevolution is a sop to ID goons. There is no such thing; there is merely unprefixed evolution in varying degrees.

ID dweebs use the phrases because there are certain aspects of evolution that are so obvious even they can't refute it. They call that 'microevolution'.

Answer 7

Do you mean microevolution is evidence for macroevolution?
Maybe you can post the source you are asking your question from, as that would probably help.

Also, you could ask in biology. The people there have been more than helpful in answering my questions.

Answer 8

Macro-evolution *IS* micro-evolution. It's just spread out over a very, very long time. When you take many, many small changes happening over millions of years, those small changes add up. That's what macro-evolution is.

Answer 9

"This is not a question dealing with semantics, faith, or veracity of ancient religious manuscripts"

So why are you asking it here and not in a science category?


Ha ha, I love Homelands comment, he believes everything in the ancient religious manuscript but you are not supposed to believe everything you read.

Thanks dude, as an Atheist, trust me I don't.

Answer 10

Honestly, ask in the Biology section because I am fairly well versed in evolution and I can't answer your question.