Is macroevolution just an assumption based on microevolution
Subscriptions | sitemap

Is macroevolution just an assumption based on microevolution

[From: Biology] [author: ] [Date: 05-20] [Hit: ]
Is macroevolution just an assumption based on microevolution?I do apologize if I sound ignorant on evolution. Im just wanting to ask questions and get a better understanding of evolution.......

Is macroevolution just an assumption based on microevolution?
I do apologize if I sound ignorant on evolution. I'm just wanting to ask questions and get a better understanding of evolution.

Sherwood Forrester say: It's all just evolution. If you accept so-called "microevolution", then you accept that evolution happens, period, end of statement. And if you reject so-called "macroevolution", then you reject science, period, end of statement.
oikoσ say: No. Evolution is probably the best-verified idea in biology, if not in all of science. Creationists, failing to produce cogent arguments against it, tried to divide it into micro- and macro- evolution. Too bad for them, we have been able to come up with examples of what they call macroevolution within historic times. Google London Underground Mosquito. The Vatican, at least, has pulled itself partly out of the Dark Ages but there are still some Bible Belt ignoramuses who refuse to accept the word of either real biologists with information backing them or the decisions of the US Supreme Court.
Donut Tim say: The terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution” never had a foundation in logic at all. They are merely an attempt to confuse.

Some people’s religion forbids them to accept that evolution is an actual process. But since it is observable, testable and repeatable, they realize that it cannot be denied. The way they get around this problem is to group the process into two classes. Since it can more easily be demonstrated with smaller, more rapidly reproducing life forms (what they labeled as “microevolution”), they choose to ignore the possibility of larger or more slowly reproducing life forms evolving (“macroevolution”).
Cowboy say: of course not
say: Micro-evolution is a term used to describe something adapting to changes in its environment. Usually such changes are only temporary.

Macro-evolution is the claim that one animal can change into another animal - if given enough time.

But what is 'time'?
Once around the sun = one year.
We don't know what time itself is. We feel the effects of it, but we really don't know what it is.

But we know the earth is billions of years old, right?
I mean... after all... we have the evidence of it.... we have the dinosaurs that prove this. All the evidence fits neatly into the worldview that we evolved.

*screeching sounds of breaks*

But hold on a minute!
Let's reason this out together.
Let's take the facts for what they are and keep thinking, shall we?

The word 'dinosaur' came from two Greek words that mean 'terrible lizard'... a word made up in the 1800s to describe reptile fossils.  

Under the forces of EXTREME PRESSURE everything that was engulfed in mud during the world-wide flood turned into stone. 
For about a year and a half silica (mostly) permiated plant and animal tissue. The mud also became stone as it compressed under the weight of billions of tons of water. 
Stone cannot be dated.  

When a fish or an animal dies it rots, turns to dust or gets eaten... it does not turn into a fossil. Every fossil in the world is the result of the flood. Period. 

Before the flood everything lived ten times longer - that's why tusks, antlers, fangs, trees and reptiles grew huge. I used to work with reptiles before I met Jesus.... among many things I learned about them was that they NEVER stop growing as long as they live.  

Pre-flood the air had 50% more oxygen in it. Like a hyperbaric chamber, everything lived longer because of the air quality. We know this because we have air samples from before the flood; extracted from bubbles trapped in fossilized sap (amber).  Adam lived until he was 930. Noah was 600 when he built the Ark (Google Noah's Ark Turkey - a tourist attraction since the 1970's A.D.). 

Believing in lies about evolution makes you guilty of making God out to be a liar. This is spiritual treason.   

You've heard of bacteria 'evolving'? No such thing: simply, the hardier bacteria were never killed off by the antibiotic in the first place. The weaker bacteria were. All that's left is 'resistant' bacteria. They were never subject to antibiotics to begin with. They never 'evolved'. 

PS. If God wants to raise children for Abraham from the stones He can do it. He doesn't need any of us. He can change what is in the blink of an eye.... He doesn't need millenia.
JazSinc say: Nope.
Have a look at shared endogenous retroviruses in animals.
Bloop say: Pretty much. Microevolution is just adaption. It's never been in dispute, really. No matter how much microevolution a species goes through it's still compatible with it's original. A beagle can still breed with a wolf, because it's just an adaption of the same species.
Macroevolution involves rearranging chromosomes. It's a whole different thing altogether.
Corvus Blackthorne say: I will give you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps because I long for intelligent discourse.

Macroevolution is a term invented by creationists. All evolution is accomplished by what you term microevolution, tiny incremental steps.
EddieJ say: If cans of yellow paint migrated in 2 different directions, one group might be subjected to blue influences so that it eventually is green, but there isn't one specific day it became green.

The other group is subjected to red influences so that it eventually becomes orange.

Macroevolution is the mistaken idea that the green paint became orange paint (or visa versa).
David at Your Service say: Yes in a nutshell.

Darwin saw some small changes in finch beak sizes over the course of a few years (i.e. micro evolution), and assumed that meant a bacteria will slowly change into a bat over a billion years (i.e. macro evolution).

That's a called a "gross extrapolation" of limited data, and such rarely if ever works in the real world. It's like assuming that if one can run a mile in ten minutes without stopping, that means they can also run 1,000 miles in 10,000 minutes without stopping. And we YECs are the ones called foolish by athee-evos for not believing in such nonsense; go figure.
Johnson say: The evidence in favor of common descent is overwhelming. Fossils, genetics, morphology, ect all point to the same conclusion.

We have witnessed speciation events. We understand how mutations work. New "information" can be created and this has been witnessed multiple times. There is no magical barrier preventing "macro"evolution.

Note that the term macroevolution originally described change in form as seen in the fossil record. The use employed by creationists is dishonest and inaccurate.

Edit: The entirety of the fossil record is exactly what one would expect if evolution was correct. The order of the geologic column alone speaks volumes. Why are there no bunnies in the Cambrian?

As for genetic evidence, here is a small bit. Humans have 23 (haploid) chromosomes. All other apes have 24. If common descent is true, then at some point both groups had the same amount.

As it turns out, human chromosome 2 is clearly the result of the fusion of two separate chromosomes. Account for this and the karyotype is identical.

For a small, yet dramatic, example of new "information," there is the enzyme nylonase. Since nylon wasn't invented until 1930, it clearly had to be new. We even can tell how it was formed. A gene duplication followed by modification.

Creationists are without fail utterly ignorant of biology.


Edit: The order in the geologic column is more primitive species are deeper. This is simply a matter of one layer on top of another. No dating is involved. You can't wish away this fact.

The no bunnies comment refers to the fact that no vertebrate of any kind has ever been found in the Cambrian. Find a single one and evolution would be disproven.

Similarity does indicate common descent. Not only was this a predictions made by evolution, it makes no sense from a special creation viewpoint. Why would god make interior telomeres? To confuse us?

Not only does all of biology unanimously support evolution, the predictions it makes are accurate and save lives.

It works.

Not only are you wrong, you are trying to tell a biologist one of the most useful and powerful tools in science is a lie. Get an education.
sparrow say: While they are related, it's not just an assumption alone.
There's a fossil record that supports it, too.
Nous say: Creationists use the term "macroevolution" to describe a form of evolution that they reject. They try to deny that one species can evolve into another. This unscientific doctrine is rejected by science, which holds that there is ample evidence for macroevolution.

Superbly preserved fossils of the intermediate, Ventastega have been found which compared with the fish-tetrapods, Tiktaalik and Acanthostega amply demonstrate the change from paired fins to paired limbs!!!

The shape of the Ventastega skull, and the pattern of teeth in its jaws, are neatly intermediate between those of Tiktaalik and Acanthostega.

But we do not need fossils to show intermediate evolution! For that we have the living Platypus!!!

The platypus, classified as a mammal because it produces milk and is covered in a coat of fur, also possesses features of reptiles, birds and their common ancestors, along with some curious attributes of its own. One of only two mammals that lays eggs, the platypus also sports a duck-like bill that holds a sophisticated electrosensory system used to forage for food underwater. Males possess hind leg spurs that can deliver pain-inducing venom to its foes competing for a mate or territory during the breeding season. It is therefore classed as a mosaic and is absolute proof of different species mingling!!!
jpopelish say: Not at all.

There are well documented, but rare cases,
where macro evolution took place,
in a single event.

The origins of nucleated cells,
cells with mitochondria
and cells with plasmids
are good examples.

But the evolution of HeLa cells,
from the approximate reproduction of cells,
within the body of a specific human woman,
is a modern example.


John Popelish
Stacy say: Evolutionism is a false religion dear.
It's one of many religions to Satan.
Reynaldo Weeks say: I don't know what micro and macro evolution are. Can't help you.

keywords: ,Is macroevolution just an assumption based on microevolution
© 2008-2010 science mathematics . Program by zplan cms. Theme by wukong .