microevolution and macroevolution 10 points to best answer!! :D?

Question

i'm supposed to write an essay proving how macroevolution is wrong and microevolution is right. but i'm kinda confused on the whole difference thing. can someone plllleaseee help me????? 10 points and 5 stars to best answer!!

ok, i dont really go to school, i'm homeschooled but i'm taking this class from one of the best teachers out there. and i guess since he is a Christian he believes that microevolution is true and macro isn't

Answer 1

Micro- small scale. This is easily proved by the color changes of animals

One example is moths in england. They went from white to match the light colored trees, to black to match the soot covered trees of the industrial revolution.

Macro- large scale- this is the monkeys to man

major changes.


this very difficult to prove since fossilization is random at best and impossible to get all of the necessary steps in the process.


it is not wrong, just difficult to prove right

Answer 2

it's all about time and scale; macroevolution is all about the changes that occur at species level or above the level of species; microevolution refers to the smaller changes, mostly about the frequency of allele, that take place in a species or population.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
Microevolution is changes in the gene pool of a population over time that result in changes to the varieties of individuals in a population. Examples of microevolution include bacteria that have become unaffected by antibiotics, or a change in a species' coloring or size. If the changes are over a very long time and are large enough that the population is no longer able to breed with other populations, it is considered a different species.

Answer 3

Aagh. This is AWFUL.

This question *starts* from a completely wrong definition of the terms 'macroevolution' and 'macroevolution' and goes downhill from there.

Any biologist will tell you that microevolution and macroevolution are simply two different *levels of study* of evolution (not two separate processes). It is *criminal* that someone teaching you Biology would decide that the entire scientific community is (as you put it) "wrong" ... and to teach you false definitions of terms in order to support a religious viewpoint!

Look ... the difference between the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution' *AS USED BY REAL BIOLOGISTS* is NOT that these are two separate processes *in nature*, but rather, two different ways of STUDYING the same process.

It's like the difference between the words 'microbiology' and 'macrobiology' ... nobody believes they are completely separate kinds of life forms ... where you could say that one exists and the other does not.

Or (better) it's like the difference between the terms 'microgrowth' and 'macrogrowth' .

Take something like a redwood tree (which can live for 800 years or longer). Just because we can directly see microgrowth (cells dividing) under a microscope, but we can't directly see macrogrowth (the tree getting measurably taller) in the span of a human lifetime, doesn't mean that microgrowth is "right" but macrogrowth is "wrong."

I.e. it would be silly to think that the two are unrelated ... obviously a lot of 'microgrowth' leads to 'macrogrowth' ... in exactly the same way that a lot of 'microevolution' leads to 'macroevolution'.

There is no dividing line *IN NATURE* between the two. And a dividing line would be absolutely required if someone claims that one is "right" and the other is "wrong."

Your teacher is just wrong, wrong, wrong in his understanding, and *definitions* of these terms *AS USED BY ACTUAL BIOLOGISTS*.

He is NOT a good science teacher ... because he either misunderstands the science ... or is deliberately misrepresenting the science.

But either way, when a teacher is trying to tell you that the consensus of the world's scientists are all "wrong" ... he is teaching you that scientists are all either complete idiots, or all complete liars. Either way he is teaching you the exact *opposite* of science education ... he is teaching complete contempt for the scientific community, for scientists as people and professionals, and the power of the scientific method.

Just awful!

Answer 4

There really is no difference between the two. The only distinction comes from creationists or intelligent design proponents to cover up inconsistencies in their conclusions.

There are two ways you can do this:

1) Quote bad science. Most of the evidence against evolution is either made up, misquoted, or obtained under very poor scientific practices. For example, I think it was Schwietzer and Horner that supposedly found blood cells in a fossilized dinosaur bone. Over time their claims drifted back and forth, without any explanation as to why (scientific conclusions change all the time, but there's always a *reason*). What's worse, they wouldn't let any one else examine their findings. Science thrives on constantly examining and reexamining conclusion. Very little is taken as absolute fact. What their argument boiled down to was "We think X... no wait, we thing Y... wait, wait, we think Z... no, you can't look at our data, you just have to take our word for it." What is more, most of these claims come from people that are not qualified to make such claims. Anyone can speak their mind, but I have a hard time taking the evolutionary conclusions of an electrical engineer seriously, just as I wouldn't want a biologist putting in the wiring in my house.

2) Quote the Bible. For some reason, lots of people seem to think that the Bible is a factual, literal, minute-to-minute account of the creation of the universe, straight from God to our ears. Never mind the fact that the Bible was written in a society that would now be completely alien to us, but it has been translated countless times, each time by someone with a political or social agenda. Furthermore, it is mind-boggling hypocrisy. They would have us believe that the Bible is the True and Immutable word of God when it comes to creation... but wait... slavery is wrong... stoning adulterers and those who work on the Sabbath is wrong. Most of these people would also go to a doctor when they get sick, rather than to their priest.

Also, bear in mind that science is a huuuuuge community, and it is democratic in the truest sense. All ideas are only as valid as the data supporting them, and the theory of evolution is constantly undergoing minor revisions, additions, and clarifications from scientists across all imaginable disciplines, cultures, and viewpoints. I think one of the ID claims is that it is supported by over 400 scientists - this is only a tiny, tiny fraction of science as a whole. I wouldn't use that as an argument, even if I was really hurting for support. It's like Crest decided it's new marketing pitch would be "1 out of 10,000 dentists recommend Crest Toothpaste!"

Whew... that's the end of my rant. But seriously, any real science teacher wouldn't pigeonhole you into writing something like this. A real science teacher would tell you to do research, and come to the conclusion that the data leads you to (which is another difference - real scientists go from data to conclusion, most ID or creation "scientists" start with a conclusion and cherry-pick data that supports it).

I don't think it's possible without A) taking a very skewed and dishonest look at the data B) quoting poor and inaccurate research or C) quoting an ancient religious text.

Answer 5

how one is wrong and the other is right? they are part of the same theory so how does that make sense. macroevolution is looking at evolution on a scale at or above species while microevolution is evolution within species. the only difference between them is time and scale.

Answer 6

look up Behe - he'll have some relevant info and perspective, or just look up in wilkepedia for general info - though wilkepedia isn't really going to take the same stance on Macroevolution.

I would go for the lack of intermediates between Eukaryotes and prokaryotes. Tnis is the weakest point of macroevolution in my veiw, though there are many good examples of macroevolution other places that you might want to ignore....

Lern about evolution - its pretty interesting - most people who are devout evolutionists don't know the first thing about it.....

Answer 7

Microevolution includes small changes within a species that keep it the same species: i.e. one breed of dog has more fur because it lives in a colder climate.

Macroevolution is the changing of one species into another: i.e. apes turning into people.

Answer 8

You can't write an essay proving that macroevolution is wrong.

Instead, write an essay about how your teacher is a worthless dogmatic dried-up prune. That essay would be more convincing and factual than anything you could possibly write about macroevolution being wrong. Then tell your principal about your assignment, and get your teacher fired.

Answer 9

I'm sorry, any scientist who came up with an answer for you would be a liar.

Evolution is evolution. The change in allelle frequency in a population over time.

Even Schmalhausen never said anything about right and wrong, he was all about the extremes.

Answer 10

Anybody who gives an assignment like this is either bright enough to know about Schmalhausen (very unlikely) or not bright enough to be teaching science. Where are you getting your "education", a backwater religious school in the Deep South?