Let's be clear about what we are talking about; so-called macro evolution, wherein it us claimed one type of plant or animal evolves into another type, such a fish to amphibian.
"The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the
evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution").
[16] While this claim is maintained on the vagueness of the undefined, unscientific term "kind", evolution of life forms beyond the species level (i.e. "macroevolution" by the scientific definition) has been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.
[17] In
creation science, creationists accepted speciation as occurring within a "created kind" or "baramin", but objected to what they called "third level-macroevolution" of a new
genus or higher rank in
taxonomy. Generally, there is ambiguity as to where they draw a line on "species", "created kinds", etc. and what events and lineages fall within the rubric of microevolution or macroevolution.
[18] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the
scientific community.
Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.
[6][19] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.
[6][20] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of
Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.
[21] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the
scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e.
common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "
fact of evolution".
[22][23]
Describing the fundamental similarity between Macro and Microevolution in his authoritative textbook "Evolutionary Biology," biologist
Douglas Futuyma writes,
“ One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species. Opponents of this point of view believed that "macroevolution" is qualitatively different from "microevolution" within species, and is based on a totally different kind of genetic and developmental patterning... Genetic studies of species differences have decisively disproved [this] claim.
Differences between species in morphology, behavior, and the processes that underlie reproductive isolation all
have the same genetic properties as variation within species: they occupy consistent chromosomal positions, they may be polygenic or based on few genes, they may display additive, dominant, or epistatic effects, and they can in some instances be traced to specifiable differences in proteins or DNA nucleotide sequences.
The degree of reproductive isolation between populations, whether prezygotic or postzygotic,
varies from little or none to complete. Thus,
reproductive isolation, like the divergence of any other character, evolves in most cases by the gradual substitution of alleles in populations. ”
— Douglas Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology" (1998), pp.477-8
[4]
Nicholas Matzke and
Paul R. Gross have accused
creationists of using
"strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.
[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by the vast majority of
[24] scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics dismiss any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".
[1]"
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
