Macro Evolution Verses Micro Evolution

As always I continue to look at the topic of evolution and recently came to the conclusion I can believe in Micro Evolution because it is the next level of adaptation.

Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies that occur over time within a population. This change is due to four different processes: mutation, selection (natural and artificial), gene flow, and genetic drift.

An example of this is the Beefalo a mix between a domestic cow and a wild bison, have a look MALE BEEFALO
And some can even reproduce

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

The huge jump of macro is not something we see happening or solidly proven with fossils 100%, In fact I think any fossil support is just micro that might not have been able to keep breeding with success.

Any other ATS people that believe in micro but not macro evolution ?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

There is no difference between the two.

So to answer your question, no.

I do not believe in micro but not macro.

They are one and the same.

Micro adds up to macro.

There is nothing to separate, evolution is evolution.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
Any other ATS people that believe in micro but not macro evolution ?

That would be a pretty silly belief, considering that they're one and the same. The only difference is the length of time involved.

What does the beefalo have to do with evolution? It's a hybrid...

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

An example of this is the Beefalo a mix between a domestic cow and a wild bison, have a look MALE BEEFALO

That is NOT an example of evolution of any kind, whether macro or micro. If it is an example of anything, it is an example of sexual reproduction between two INDIVIDUALS.

Have a look at the definition you quoted. It specifically says that evolution is something that occurs in POPULATIONS. NOT INDIVIDUALS. This is an extremely important point - one which would be valuable for you to study and understand.

You accept the process but deny the result. Various species and anatomical features have been traced conclusively back in time through a succession of fossils. There are still ignorant media outlets who talk about a human 'missing link" when we know from whence we came through a succession of hominid species. There's no huge jump of macroevolution, only changes over a long period of time. Please don't pretend plants and animals popped into existence.
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
As always I continue to look at the topic of evolution and recently came to the conclusion I can believe in Micro Evolution because it is the next level of adaptation.

'Believe' being the key word.

Evolution does not require belief to be true. Evidence is overwhelming and scientist have sometimes hard time to select what part of life tree (sub group/category) some animal/plant belong to, because often they can fit into more then one category.



So, why do you think evolution does not hold an answer to question of diversity of life??

For the last time....BIRDS. how can you research the subject and not see birds as being macro evolution. They were once reptiles, cold blooded animals, now they are not. Jeez. Feels like every bloody day we need to point out the obvious simple explanations and examples. Dorment genes reactivated in chicken embryos helped them grow scales and teeth, providing PROOF. Arrrrhhhhhhhhhhhh the frustration.

ATS need to implement a "write in crayon" function so people can be able to understand the simple.

You know, if you start an argument based on a strawman fallacy (that there is a definable difference between micro and macro evolution), your entire argument is going to be flawed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I respect you posts but in recent weeks you have become obsessed with the word "fallacy". You post it in threads where the OP'S are already confused and you know they won't understand your point. I'd say cut down a lil....

No offense intended. Just an observation.

a reply to: rossacus

Fallacies are the crux of logical debate. If you want to present a valid argument, you must strive to minimize your fallacies. Making grave and obvious fallacies like the OP did in the OP is unacceptable. Also, I've always been hot on fallacies. This isn't anything new to me. See?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

As others have said there is no difference here other than the time-scale we are looking at. If we zoom out to look at the big picture all those microevolutionary changes lead to macroevolutionary ones on that big picture.

And the best part is we're not dealing with just one line of evidence, there are multiple lines of evidence that prove evolution takes place.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33
Here we go again.

Blue Jay, you should know better by now as I personally have explained it to you numerous times, and so have countless others. There is no difference whatsoever between micro and macro evolution except the amount of time. The mechanisms are identical. You are redefining the term "adaptation" and hence using a straw man to justify your stance. Also why didn't you source your external quotes? I'm guessing you didn't pull those from any type of science website.

There is no huge jump of anything. There is no micro/macro evolution. There is only evolution. Either you accept it as science or you blindly deny it due to faith. "Macro evolution" is merely the accumulation of numerous "micro evolutionary" changes. I'm not sure why you are still fighting this basic fact of science.

You don't observe micro or macro evolution. You observe evolution. To suggest otherwise is blatantly dishonest.

If you've got some kind of reason why small changes cannot add up to big changes, let's hear it. If not you are just wasting everyone's time again, acting like you know more than scientists about a field of science most of them have studied for decades.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I respect you posts but in recent weeks you have become obsessed with the word "fallacy". You post it in threads where the OP'S are already confused and you know they won't understand your point. I'd say cut down a lil....

No offense intended. Just an observation.

It's kind of difficult to not point out blatant logical fallacies, and the OP knows better as he's been called out dozens if not hundreds of times for it. They shouldn't use them in the first place, so if anything you should be annoyed by the fact that so many of these evolution deniers rely on them to justify their stance. It's pathetic and blatantly dishonest.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Since you wanted to use Wikipedia to define micro- and macroevolution, I'll continue to do the same to explain why the "versus" in your title is meaningless:

This change happens over a relatively short (in evolutionary terms) amount of time compared to the changes termed 'macroevolution' which is where greater differences in the population occur.

-- from the Microevolution entry.

Microevolution over time leads to speciation or the appearance of novel structure, sometimes classified as macroevolution.

-- from the Microevolution entry.

Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales.

-- from both the Microevolution and Macroevolution entries.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Haha. Fair play to your sir.

a reply to: Barcs
Point being you know they don't understand the concept, nor are they ever willing to accept it once highlighted. Just a waste of energy that's all.
Logic isn't welcome in threads like these, so you have to stoop "finger painting" type arguements so they can understand

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

They are the same process. The two terms are used only for taxonomic purposes; however, the terms have been hijacked. If they were separate processes you could not get hybrid species due to there being a barrier between any two species that will only allow the to reproduce within thief own species.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Barcs
Point being you know they don't understand the concept, nor are they ever willing to accept it once highlighted. Just a waste of energy that's all.
Logic isn't welcome in threads like these, so you have to stoop "finger painting" type arguements so they can understand

You are definitely correct on that. I usually give folks the benefit of the doubt at first. I usually do break it down for them and explain as basically as I can where the misunderstandings lie. The problem is they usually ignore that, and continue to spout the same nonsensical rhetoric. The OP is a frequent offender, so instead of wasting energy re-explaining what has already been explained to him, I just go straight to the fallacies. I just can't stand intellectual dishonesty.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
*snip*

Any other ATS people that believe in micro but not macro evolution ?

Absolutely! The term "evolution" is a problem for many, and some toss out the obvious things to avoid it, while others assume too much because of the obvious things. Chances within a species are observable, and thus provable. Changes to some totally different one are not.

Just for Barcs

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?

Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?

Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.

A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.

So these are your own people saying "NO" to it, now who is being intellectually dishonest ?