micro/macro evolution

[biology_06er]

Hey there

Just wondering if someone could explain micro/macro evolution to me. From what I gather from the dictionary on this site microevolution is when a species changes by small genetic changes that leads to subspecies...is a subspecie a species that looks somewhat identical to what in evolved from? (could someone please give me a better way of saying this)...also for macroevolution does that result from big genetic changes??

Also..just wondering for those who have majored/majoring in evolution how does it work at your universities....do you guys do undergradute in say biology and then do evolution at post grad. level? I'm from NZ not really sure how it works at my Uni. will find out though

Thanks
biology_06er

[kiekyon]

Basically, macroevolution is about big evolutionary changes, over long time periods, while microevolution is about smaller, more rapid changes.

Macroevolutionary questions are generally considered to start with things like ‘how are new species formed’ and go on to questions like ‘what can we learn about conditions in the past from the history of species diversification’ and ‘how do ecosystems recover from mass extinctions’ and ‘how constant (or not) is the rate at which new species are formed and other species go extinct’, as well as questions about the evolution of certain groups, such as describing how humans have evolved from other apes, and apes from other monkeys.

Microevolution focuses on evolution within species, such as adaptive changes in particular enzymes in particular conditions, so things like the evolution of resistance to drugs in disease-causing bacteria, of resistance to high concentrations of poisonous metals in plants growing on polluted sites, and the identification of individual populations of deer would all have micro-evolutionary bases.

[biology_06er]

Hi there kiekyon

Thanks very much for the explanation-much appreciated

biology_06er

[damien james]

Also both are tied together. In most case, macro need micro.

[canalon]

Also both are tied together. In most case, macro need micro.

So tied together that mostly in evolution paper nobody makes any difference between the 2. It is mostly the kind of distinction made by people who have no choice but to accept the microevolution (too many facts to prove it, impossible for them to deny those facts) but still refuse to accpet the macroevolution, hence the importance of the disjunction. Evolutionnists need not make a difference since this is just a difference of time scale.

[alextemplet]

Isn't macro and micro an artificial distinction created by creationists, so they can call every observed example of evolution "micro" and then say "Now show me macro!"?

[kiekyon]

Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).

[Leben24]

Though one thing I have noticed, esecially among teachers and friends in school, is that macro evolution is starting to go by just evolution. And micro evolution is now going by adaptation.

Just an observation

[Dr.Strangelove]

My understanding is Micro evolution is evolution in one kind for example a dog like a chiwawa eventualy having a german sheperd generations down the line is a form Of micro evolution. Macro evolution would be one spiecies evolving into another, for example a dog evolves into a cat. That is the simplest way I know of to explain it as I understand it.

[AstusAleator]

Micro- is essentially ecology.
Macro is what people are talking about when they get into the origins of current species.

[someguy]

An older disscussion I know, but...

micro eveolution is more appropriately applied when there are mutations or changes to existing DNA or loss of DNA. This can cause changes in traits of the species, but can't change the species.

macro evolution requires the addition of DNA and is usually associated with a species moving up the evolutionary ladder. This has not actually been observed to occur in nature. The Darwin explination of evolution depends upon this process.

Creationists would be wrong to argue against micro eveolution, it is an observable fact and reproducable. Arguing against all evolution is common among fundamentalists who might not understand the differences.

Evolutionists would be wrong to use micro evolution to try to support macro evolution as they require very different processes. This is commonly done by evolutionists who rely on the ignorance of the people they argue against or perhaps are even ignorant of the differences themselves.

[mith]

lol, blind leading the blind....