What are "macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution"?

Question

People seem to be using these terms without really defining them. I thought evolution was just a change in heritable traits of a reproductive population from generation to generation. What distinguishes macro- from micro-?

So what I'm hearing is that these aren't useful terms. Does anyone out there who actually uses them have different point?

Answer 1

Made up words. There is no macro or micro, just evolution.

Answer 2

There is no difference at all on any biological level. The distinction is a purely religious one, and was invented only after the evidence for the ongoing process of evolution became insurmountable.

Initially, creationists defined "micro-evolution" as evolution within a species, and "macro-evolution" as evolution from one species into another. They claimed the first could happen, but the second could not.

However, several speciation events have since been observed, so creationists had to change the definition. So they introduced the idea of "created kinds," and say that "micro-evolution" may create new species, but that "macro-evolution" would require a new "kind." This, they now claim, is impossible. But they never define the word "kind," because every time they attempt to do so, transitional forms in the fossil record have been produced to show that evolution does indeed cross those lines. (Tiktaalik: fish - amphibian. Ambulocetus: land mammal - whale. Archaeopterix: dinosaur - bird. Australopithecus: ape - man.)

This "moving goalposts" technique is a common creationist tactic. As science approaches the criteria that they themselves set, they change the criteria.

In actuality, "micro-" and "macro-evolution" are exactly the same process. The only difference is one of time, which is why there is such a push from some creationists to "prove" the earth is young.

Ultimately, creationists have already lost both battles, because the supporting evidence behind the theory of evolution and the ancient age of the universe is completely sound.

Answer 3

You are correct in saying they are not at all useful. First off, microevolution was coined by the Russian entymologist Filipchenko.

The only group of people using the terminology now are the creationists and ID backers. They define microevolution as "change at or below the species level", and macroevolution as "change at or above the species level". Biologists have words that more precisely define these exact concepts: microevolution = adaptation, macroevolution = speciation.

1) Why do creationists pull these two archaic words out to define something that already has a definition? To confuse and mislead the lay people and send an incorrect message.

2) What is a change at the species level? Is it microevolution or macroevolution? If you use the correct terminology, the issue gets cleared up.

3) Most creationists will say they accept microevolution because it can explain change within a "kind". What is a kind? Of all the creationists speakers I've heard or writers I've seen, none have been able to conclusively and directly define what a "kind" is. Is it a species? A genus? Family? Order? Class? Phylum? Kingdom? Domain? Are house cats and lions the same kind? Lizards and snakes? Mushrooms and yeasts? None can answer those basic biology questions.

4) The only difference between the two terms is their scope. Since just about everyone in the known world accepts the evidence that supporst microevolution, and since it is verifiable that a number of small changes can build up to cause larger-scale changes (given enough time), and since there is no known barrier to large scale changes (that anyone, let alone "creation scientists", have been able to demonstrate), macroevolution is in part demonstrated by microevolution (or, to more correctly use terminology, speciation is, in part, demonstrated by adaptation).

This whole thing, as I tried to imply before, just goes to show how important it is to understand the terminology and the motives behind changing what words mean.

Answer 4

I have a masters degree in philosophy with the major emphasis in study things such as micro and macro evolution. Unfortunately nobody here has explained these properly.

First, the term "micro-evolution" is not an invention of Creationists (people who believe the world was created by God). The term micro-evolution and macro-evolution was coined by Russian Entomologist Yuri Filipchenko in 1927!!

And it is not some ploy or unscientific description. Anyone who claims that only shows they haven't done any research of their own. Here's a great idea: let's stop being biased (either for or against evolution/Christianity) and look at FACTS not opinions.

The facts: micro evolution is a "reductionist" scientific viewpoint. Meaning that you look at things from small parts on the inside and see what changes take place. For instance how does a population go from having blonde hair to brown hair? That is a micro evoultion concept.

Macro evolution is a "holistic" scientific concept meaning that it tries to understand the whole creature on a large scale. A slug evolving into a frog is an example of macro evolution.

Many creationinsts do point out that there is a LOT of scientific evidence for micro-evolution (changes within a species) but not much evidence for macro-evolution (changes from one species to another).

To review:
Micro/Macro terms: coined in 1927

Micro: small changes within a species. Tons of clear cut evidence. Accepted by Christians and atheists.


Macro: changes from one species to another. No clear cut evidence, but circumstantial evidence. Accepted by most atheists but not most Christians.

Answer 5

They are concepts made-up by Creationists to sound educated and rational. They had to stop arguing against evolution completely, because there were too many real examples right in front of their face. They invented a concept that there is variation withing a species (micro-evolution), but new species are not created (macro-evolution). Of course, ring species show how silly that concept is as well.


For example, there birds that live in neighboring populations. Each population different in some ways from its neighbor, but similar enough to be considered the same species. However, when you get several neighborhoods away, the birds are no longer similar enough to be considered the same species. It is a real-life, observable, clear example of how evolution works, yet they still deny it.

Answer 6

Micro are small changes over long periods of time. Macro is a big change all the sudden. Theists often scream loudly that there is no evidence of Macro evolution so that proves evolution does not happen.

Answer 7

It's a distinction coined by creationists when they had to admit that species do undergo some change. In order to keep denying evolution, they came up with this idea. What they essentially are saying is that a species can not morph into another species (macro-evolution), but that changes within a species over time (micro-evolution) is possible.
It does not accord with what the very very vast majority of scientists believe, mainly that species grow apart over time and grow into separate species.

Answer 8

Macro-evolution is the study of evolution at the large scale -- large populations over thousands to millions of generations.

Micro-evolution is the study of the small-scale generation to generation changes.

There is no sharp dividing line between the two. There is some overlap (e.g. single mutations resulting in speciation) and gaps (intermediate time frames).

Either way, they are only scale of study of evolution, not separate entities. Some people pretend they are different entities.

Answer 9

they describe aspects of the same process. obviously macro-evolution addresses how organisms change drastically over time, so much so as to (theoretically) become other species over HUGE amounts of time. micro-evolution addresses smaller changes within a species in a relatively shorter amount of time.
*******
i wasn't aware aware that the terms were an invention of creationists. i recall it being discussed in one of my biology courses in college, and have also seen the terms in mainstream books on evolution.

for me the distinction is artificial, and changes nothing about the factually of the occurrence of evolution on both small and great scales in relation to time and populations.

Answer 10

sophos707 (below me) is right about the origin of the terms.

These days, micro-evolution is usually speaking of subspeciation (variation within a kind), and macro-evolution is usually speaking of transspeciation (change from one kind to another, into a more advanced form). Yes, there a lot of semantics that go on with what is considered a new "species" or what is a "kind." Take a look at this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch2-species.asp

But as AIG says about micro and macro-evolution, "These terms, which focus on 'small' vs. 'large' changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a 'micro' increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite 'macro' changes that involve no new information, e.g., when a control gene is switched on or off."

Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe (and it was actually a creationist named Edward Blyth who first wrote about it in 1835–37, before Darwin). We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But there are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant. As Dr. Ray Bohlin (who has a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology) said, “For essentially every trait, although it usually harbors some variability, there has always been a limit. Whether the organisms or selected traits are roses, dogs, pigeons, horses, cattle, protein content in corn, or the sugar content in beets, selection certainly has an effect. But all selected qualities eventually fizzle out. Chickens don't produce cylindrical eggs. We can't produce a plum the size of a pea or a grapefruit. There are limits to how far we can go.”

The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind. That is why you can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you can’t breed chihuahuas to get to wolves. The new breeds of dogs have much less genetic information and variability.

And the thing is, what are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. The same could be said for Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, fruit flies, and so forth.

They like to point to bacteria, but as Dr. Carl Wieland said, “Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilized in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today.”

They have great variability and adaptability, but they are still dogs and bacteria.

And for those who point to the fossil record, it is actually as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati said, “...evolution predicts innumerable transitional forms, yet all they have are a handful of debatable ones. Yet they are unwilling to admit to the magnitude of the problem.”

And here is an article for ejc11 (below me):
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chapter4.asp