At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
What is the difference between Micro evolution and Macro evolution?
Macro evolution is one producing a different kind (eg. a horse having a baby cat) never been seen anywere including the fossil record
Micro evolution is a variation of a kind like you see in specilized breeding you breed 2 different dogs you will get a different dog. dogs that are moved to a colder climate will develope thicker fur this is seen in all speices of animals
While Duke is correct in answering yoru question about the differences between the 2, he's omitted important evidence about macro-evolution.
On the contrary, we have enough evidence for macro-evolution from the fossil record to show intermidiate evolutionary steps between:
Fish and Amphibians
Amphibians and early Reptiles
Reptiles and Mammals Diapsids and Birds
Land mammals and Whales
Early horses and modern Horses
Non-human apes and modern Humans
Macroevolution is the formation of new species. A horse giving birth to a cat is not macroevolution. The formal definition of macroevolution is "the evolutionary process by which species and higher groupings (taxa, like genera or families) originate, change, and go extinct." So the evolution of horses from much smaller animals, which is well documented in the fossil record, is one example of macroevolution. Capuchin gives some other examples. There are thousands of examples like this in the fossil record. Of course, a lot of them are little known species of marine snails and things like that. Not very glamorous. But they are there.
Microevolution is simply changes in gene frequencies within a population. So if a population of fruit flies goes from 20% white eyes to 80% white eyes, that would be microevolution. Or if a new mutation arose in a population of humans that gave them speckeled eyes (say) and gradually increased so that 22% of people carried the new mutation, that would be microevolution.
Microevolution is little changes. Macroevolution is big changes, new species or new genera or families of organisms.
Scientists don't normally use the terms macro and micro evolution, evolution is evolution in our eyes.
Religions have split up evolution into macro and micro, because macro goes against their teachings, whereas micro does not.
yes macro goes against religion and actual logic, I just don't understand how anyone can accept it. And of course the real problem with macro is where did the stuff come from that was not alive and then became alive.
That into itself is the falacy of the macro evolution ideas is that something not alive could become alive and then form into cats and dogs, and fish and man,
Scientists don't normally use the terms macro and micro evolution, evolution is evolution in our eyes. Religions have split up evolution into macro and micro, because macro goes against their teachings, whereas micro does not.
Capuchin, with all respect and I very much like all your answers, generally, I have to disagree with this one. I have several college level textbooks on evolution on my shelves and some have whole chapters on "Macroevolution." They all at least have a definition in the glossary and equate it with speciation. The distinction between macro and micro evolutuion comes from evolutionary biologists, not from outsided the field. The anti-evolutionists frequently misdefine the words or use the distinction for their own purposes, but the distinction is real, not imaginary. The definition of macroevolution I posted earlier comes from a college biology textbook. Scientists do use the terms macroevolution and microevolution.
HOWEVER, it may be that scientists are beginning to avoid the terms, since creationists accept genetics and microevolution generally, but not speciation or other kinds of macroevolution. Accepting microevolution is a concession by creationists. In my opinion it is something to be celebrated.
Cheers,
Just Asking
I'm wondering what the difference between the logic that I use that says that evolution is plausible and observable, and this "actual logic" that Fr_Chuck possesses.
Linear Mode
