What is the supposed difference between Macro- and Micro- Evolution?

Question

This Christian told me to explain evolution, before interrupting me, and telling me to frame it according to his personal schism of Micro- and Macro- evolution. Does such a thing as a division between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution really exist? I always thought that was just Creationist nonsense peddled so that they don't sound completely out of touch with reality (Microevolution totally exist) while still holding on to their completely out of touch with reality beliefs (Macroevolution doesn't exist).

Answer 1

Here's what micro-evolution is. A species can change over time through changes in allele frequency. These changes therefore allow a species to evolve but never change "kind" as they put it.

Macro-evolution is these changes piling up, coupled with mutations, which causes one species to turn into another.

Essentially, it's a weak way to rationalize our findings, while holding on for dear life in believing that evolution is false. Basically, a species can change, but not TOO much. The amount it can change isn't ever defined though because it's an arbitrary boundary that doesn't actually exist.

If you believe in micro-evolution, you have to believe in macro-evolution because micro-evolution has no true boundary onto where it becomes macro-evolution. For example a hypothetical species of frog exists. Let's say this frog has 22 chromosomes. In a speciation event, 10 frogs are born around the same time that have 4 sets of chromosomes instead of 2 like the standard frog. These frogs can only reproduce with other frogs that have 4 sets. A new species is born. An event like this has been confirmed to have happened in several plant and animal species. So we know something like this is possible. Now, what do we call this? Is this micro or macro evolution? To cling to the belief of creationism, we'd call it micro-evolution, despite the fact that a new species is formed, which creates the paradoxical conclusion, if you subscribe to the belief that micro and macro-evolution are different things and that the latter is false, that it is both micro- and macro-evolution took place. Even though macro-evolution and micro-evolution are two different things, and macro-evolution doesn't exist. A person that believes in evolution though, has no issue with this scenario. So essentially, there is no real difference between the two, and yes, they are words invented to make creationists happy because with this belief they can disregard half, instead of all of the evidence.

Answer 2

There is absolutely no difference. Only Creationists use the terms. Using their terms, micro is the mechanism that drives macro.



POPULATIONS isolate either by physical barriers or some form of selection, usually sexual (female birds select mates based on dances, song, etc.). Mutation (micro) is random. Different members of the population are slightly different. Mutation has been shown to occur at a regular rate. If mutation happens in the gametes, those mutations pass to the following generations and may or may not get selected. If they get selected, they pile-up in population, but because the population has isolated into 2 or more populations, different mutations are piling=up in the 2 populations and the populations are drifting apart genetically. Eventually, the 2 populations are so different genetically they are no longer the same species (macro).



Google "Ring Species" for an example of how this works.

Answer 3

It's an attempt to accept that evolution is real while still rejecting it as a cause of any significant change.



The claim is that micro evolution is small changes to a species and macro evolution is one species becoming another species. You were right to reject it as a false distinction. If that person is willing to hear your explanation of evolution go ahead and provide it, but you don't have to make it conform to their invented definitions.



edit: Note that you've gotten 3 (so far) definitions of micro v. macro and they're different. That doesn't mean 2 of us are wrong, it means the people who invented the words didn't understand what they were describing.

Answer 4

The centering on macro-evolution as a target is done because "micro-evolution" occurs in human life time frames and can be observed directly, so cannot be denied with a straight face. "macro-evolution" is just an arbitrary term that means "things that must happen over a larger time period than we can observe directly". This allows a denial of those events and processes, because they are not observed DIRECTLY. No one has ever seen them happen therefore they do not happen or exist (an odd attitude given that most people with that opinion believe in "god", which is the ultimate unobservable).



Science does refer to things in terms of macro and micro scales, because reality covers the gamut of one to the other. In practical application, though, they are simply subsets of a continuum, divided solely and arbitrarily due to scale and nothing else. The terms are not divisions, dichotomies, as a creationist would have you believe. They are simply different sizes of the same thing. The division is not a real one; it is one of convenience.



The very assertion that scale matters is a demonstration of failure to understand the concept.

Answer 5

That is the reason why discussing evolution with creationists is a pointless exercise. Using the internationally accepted scientific method, creationists cannot prove that evolution is wrong. Of course they find this extremely frustratiing. To work around this they change the rules to suit themselves. That's why they think that they can demonstrate evolution is false, because they think they can change the methodology and come up with their own conclusions. They like the dichotomy of micro- and macro-evolution and claim they accept micro-evolution. In their narrow little minds they believe accepting thus demonstrates they they're not completely bigotted against evolution (which of course they are). They deny macroevolution exists because there is no evidence for it. Now, let's be very clear: there is evidence for macroevolution unless you completely disregard the scientific method and accept creationsist warped way of doing things. Creationists claim they have a scientific alternative which I think is very disingenuous for a religion that claims lying is wrong.

Answer 6

"Does such a thing as a division between "micro-" and "macro-" evolution really exist?" - it has for a very long time.



micro evolution is a proven observation, it happens. it's the change within a kind of animal. It's called adaptation Examples: black bear, panda bear, Grizzly bear and polar bear



macro evolution is part of the theory of Darwinian evolution which basically says that one kind of animal can become a whole different kind of animal Examples: monkey to man, fish to reptile, dinosaur to bird ...

Answer 7

As creationists use the terms, "microevolution" is the amount of evolution that is so clearly observed and obviously happens that even they can't pretend it doesn't exist any more. "Macroevolution" is the level of evolution that takes too long to directly observe. Since it requires brainpower to deduce its existence from observations, they can still pretend it doesn't exist. The dividing line between the two is kept undefined and fluid, so that they can move it around as science provides more and more evidence. They just keep putting the line juuuust farther than what has been directly observed.

Answer 8

Basically, micro-evolution is the evolution of genetic variants, and macro-evolution is the change in a species overtime.

Answer 9

macro is kind of the long-term evolutionary changes, such as genes, while micro is small evolutionary changes such as an allele. It has nothing to do with creationism. And it's not really a division, it's more like classification

Answer 10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DXs3B9uEuI Evolution is lie. In other words they had no evidence for evolution so they tried to name normal changes like hair color "micro-evolution" if you think that change means a ape can become a man or a fish can become a lizard then you are not being realistic. Get a kjversion Bible and believe.

Answer 11

Apparently they agree that DNA and species change. That is apparently too obvious to deny. The logic of their argument is that change in DNA can't lead to new species. It is completely illogical. The fact that closer related animals have sequences of DNA that are much closer to more closely related species makes the ideas completely debunked as much as anything can be. That is why it is nothing more than propaganda from activists that are trying to insert religion into science. They admit that changes in DNA happens but deny that increased differences makes new species. There is zero logic in that argument.

Answer 12

It is "splitting hairs" really, It is people who define species anyway. So, it is basically the same thing to different degrees. And yes, biological evolution is an observed fact, the theory is an attempt to explain it.

Answer 13

I'm afraid you came across someone who has tried to challenge you rather than inspire you. Whenever I have or do discuss the goodness of God I use everyday language and treat all with dignity and respect.

Answer 14

Yes, I believe there is a difference, but why religious persons are hostile to scientific fact that in NO-WAY inherently threatens their faith is beyond me.

Answer 15

The terms were invented by evolutionists and remain in use today. E.g. see http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01



The terms are not precisely defined and there tends to be some overlap at the species level with different definitions, so you can pick and chose your definition to suit your point of view.



One way of differentiating them is to say that microevolution corresponds to "a change in allele frequency in a population over time" while macroevolution is the addition of new genetic information and material to the genome. With these definitions you can see that speciation could be either micro or macroevolution depending on what causes it.



But what about a loss of genetic information? A change in allele frequency could include the case of it dropping to zero, the total loss of an allele, and once that happens it will not be restored by microevolution. We also know that organisms can sometimes lose genes. Lenski found this in his long term E Coli experiment. Such complete loss of genes does not fit comfortable in the usual definitions of micro or macroevolution and perhaps could more correctly described as devolution.



You can also see that you can have an endless succession of microevolutionary changes and they will never accumulate to a macroevolutionary change. No amount of change in allele frequency will ever produce a new gene. However a mutation could produce a new allele without producing a new gene; moving into the grey area.



So the question of what prevents microevolution events from accumulating to produce macroevolution is a nonsense. It's like asking how many poker hands you have to draw from a standard deck before a new (fifth) suit appears; it will never happen.



[edit] I suspect it would be bad for your health to lay down a hand of 5 aces of different suits (Spades, clubs, diamonds, hearts, and trumpets?), so that would not be a beneficial mutation.



Among the 22 comments received to date are several references to gene duplication. Since this is beyond the scope of the question asked I will leave that subject to another time.



[edit]

Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Two Mistakes

Friday, May 29, 2015 - 16:33, Kirk Durston

http://p2c.com/students/blogs/kirk-durston/2015/05/microevolution-vs-macroevolution-two-mistakes



"... let me propose the following definitions, which I will continue to use:



Microevolution: genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information.



Macroevolution: genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information.



Both statistical significance and functional information are already defined in the literature. We also have a method to measure evolutionary change in terms of functional information, so we are ready to move on, avoiding the two mistakes discussed above."



"Macroevolution is very different from microevolution. The reason there are so many countless observations of variation/microevolution is that it requires no statistically significant levels of novel genetic information; it is trivially easy to achieve. "

Answer 16

Although "microevolution" and "macroevolution" were terms advanced by two biologists (micro by a botanist in 1909) and macro by an entomologist in 1927 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution), the original definitions bear little resemblance to the the way mainly Creationists use the term today. The terms have never been common among evolutionary biologists. But because of repeated use of the words by non-scientists and fundamentalists, the terms have "stuck".



If you look at the Wiki Article it states that:

Microevolution over time may lead to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.[2] Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales.[2][3][4]



But Creationists attempt to restrict microevolution to changes of allele frequency of populations over time (the base definition of evolution) but reject those same processes by talking about evolution of higher groups of organisms. Time never enters their thoughts and many of them are young earth creationists who believe the world is only thousands of years old. One has to pile belief on belief to maintain the "company line".



Creationists can't tell you what prevents evolution from forming new species and over time new genera, new families, new orders, etc. They have two problems. First, is the notion that all species were produced on a few days during Genesis Week only a few thousand years ago..... but yet we see new species arising over time in the very long fossil record... and Second is the problem of getting all those species to fit on their mythical "Noah's Ark", and then a worldwide flood, and then dispersal and new species formation. Their solution is to defend at all times the notion of their "kind"... a term that has no meaning in biology and can't be defined or defended by Creationists. Thus only a few "kinds" could produce related species within the kind (although how that is done is problematic for them), and only a few "kinds" on "Noah's Ark" could then repopulate the earth with many species. In fact, CRR our resident creationist has used kinds to describe evolutionary processes or use references to kinds from his pseudoscience Creationist websites... and at various times has equated kinds to species, genera, family, and even orders (since there were two orders of dinosaurs).



Thus Creationist argue evolution occurs within "kinds" and nothing more... that ignores transitional fossils, and the lack of the expected explosion of speciation after their "flood" only a few thousand years ago. There is no evidence for that either in the geological record or the record of human population growth or in the observations of the genetic diversity of species today.



Here's a classic example where Creationists fall over their own logic... a essay that CRR pointed to in one of his comments.... that the "badger kind" on the "Ark"... that is 2 individuals, produced 10 species and 4 genera of mammals on most continents of the world in only the "4,500" years since the "supposed flood". http://creation.com/badger This is from a Creationist website. So if your friend claims "macroevolution" hasn't been demonstrated.... then ask him where all those "badger" species came from... what mechanism did it?



On the other hand, here are some science papers that address the main worry of Creationists, that macroevolution MEANS descent through common ancestry... something they try hard to deny.

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1fEvidenceSpeciation.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/sp.evid.html



added @ CRR. CRR is our resident YEC Creationist, although he tends to disguise that. He has added a "reference" to his answer. Whenever CRR quotes or references something, we always look at the website and "about us"... this is what his source says "The sole basis of our beliefs is the Bible, God’s inerrant written Word,....". CRR has no business on a science board given his inability to separate his religious dogma from a scientific discussion.

Answer 17

Reproductive isolation and time.

Answer 18

They are spelt differently.

Answer 19

Idk.