Macro and Micro evolution

[Quiddity]

painted wolf said:
I'm saying that there isn't a significant reason to devide micro and macro. We can see micro and interact with it. There is no reason to assume that macro is different.
Infact there is no difference at all between micro and macro... its all just evolution.
Its like trying to make a difference between what causes gravity on Earth and on the Moon.

Now, I'm certainly no science guru (I'm a wannabe... ) but the red jumped out at me. I always thought macro evolution was far more complex and had much less emperical data we can test today. With fossils being the best we got.

Why would we assume it's the same? I can't help but see a naturalist philosophy being applied here and hopefully there is more then what I am seeing.

 

[McBell]

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.


In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.


In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.

​

Source

From the same page:

 

[Quiddity]

Creationists often assert that "macroevolution" is not proven, even if "microevolution" is, and by this they seem to mean that whatever evolution is observed is microevolution, but the rest is macroevolution. In making these claims they are misusing authentic scientific terms; that is, they have a non-standard definition, which they use to make science appear to be saying something other than it is. Evolution proponents often say that creationists invented the terms. This is false. Both macroevolution and microevolution are legitimate scientific terms, which have a history of changing meanings that, in any case, fail to underpin creationism.​

In science, macro at the beginning of a word just means "big", and micro at the beginning of a word just means "small" (both from the Greek words). For example, "macrofauna" means big animals, observable by the naked eye, while "microfauna" means small animals, which may be observable or may not without a microscope. Something can be "macro" by just being bigger, or there can be a transition that makes it something quite distinct.​

In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch", see Fig. 1) or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted [note 1]). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, are also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to those higher levels. It often also means long-term trends or biases in evolution of higher taxonomic levels.​

Source

Thank you, but how do you think this contributed to the thread?

 

[McBell]

Thank you, but how do you think this contributed to the thread?

It shows what macro-evolution is and isn't.
The little bit from that page included in the post is merely the tip of the iceberg of the information found on the linked page.

 

[Quiddity]

It shows what macro-evolution is and isn't.
The little bit from that page included in the post is merely the tip of the iceberg of the information found on the linked page.

Alright, and how does that relate to my question?

 

[McBell]

It is my thought that before we can even have a meaningful discussion on the topic, with the goal to be the answer to your question, it would be most helpful to start out with everyone having access to what macro-evolution actually is.

Macro-evolution is not an ape changing into a man right before your eyes.
Nor is it a dog becoming a cat.

Yet these two "examples" are presented in almost every single evolution debate thread in existence on the internet.


However, if you feel that my posts in this thread need be deleted, then by all means do so.
You will not hurt my feelings any.

 

[Quiddity]

It is my thought that before we can even have a meaningful discussion on the topic, with the goal to be the answer to your question, it would be most helpful to start out with everyone having access to what macro-evolution actually is.

Macro-evolution is not an ape changing into a man right before your eyes.
Nor is it a dog becoming a cat.

Yet these two "examples" are presented in almost every single evolution debate thread in existence on the internet.


However, if you feel that my posts in this thread need be deleted, then by all means do so.
You will not hurt my feelings any.

No, I think what you provided is great....I'm just trying to get your thoughts on the question I asked.

 

[Mister Emu]

Nor is it a dog becoming a cat.

Yet these two "examples" are presented in almost every single evolution debate thread in existence on the internet.

But it is a "dog" becoming something that is not a "dog"(replace dog with whatever you want to), no?

 

[fantome profane]

But it is a "dog" becoming something that is not a "dog"(replace dog with whatever you want to), no?

Becoming a new species of dog. At this level species can be understood as having enough genetic compatibility to produce fertile offspring. If one population of dogs for example were to develop enough genetic differences from the general population that they could no longer interbreed than they would be considered a new species. At this point since they no longer share a common gene pool, they would continue to evolve independently.

Speciation is usually considered to be macroevolution, although some creationists have a different definition of macroevolution that allows them to even accept the idea of new species and still reject (macro) evolution. The problem is that they will never clearly state what their definition of macroevolution is. (except of course for the creationists who clearly reject the idea of new species, that is clear, and they are clearly wrong).

 

[Mister_T]

The problem is that they will never clearly state what their definition of macroevolution is.

If I remember correctly, micro was variations among species. Macro had to deal with mutations, such as ape to man. That's the only definition for micro and macro I've ever heard. I'm not sure of this other definition that you're talking about.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

painted wolf said:
I'm saying that there isn't a significant reason to devide micro and macro. We can see micro and interact with it. There is no reason to assume that macro is different.

I agree. If one exists, so must the other.

I have some more conservative Christian friends that want to affirm micro evolution but not macro. The division between the two is artificial. Micro evolution is the observable evidence for macro.

 

[Runlikethewind]

Why would we assume it's the same?

There is no reason to assume its not the same. We have observed micro-evolutionary changes in species, we have genetic evidence to support the overall interconnectedness and common ancestry of all life on earth being related in a way, we have the fossil record which shows change over long periods of time. To conclude that many small changes building up over time to result in differentiation between species uses what we know to explain the existence of different species that are related. The point is that scientists don't need to resort to any new kind of processes to explain macro changes so they don't, many small, micro, changes add up to macro changes, it works and it fits the evidence (even if it has not been directly observed and probably can't be since it takes so many thousands or millions of years for the differences to be made obvious). This is not to say that there is not another process involved in macro changes it's just that what we know now works in explaining them. If new evidence pops up that doesn't fit the model then a new process or hypothesis is put forth. This is where the work of Neils Eldrige and Stephen Jay Gould and their theory of punctuated equilibrium come in as an alternative hypothesis, although it still rests on the same basic principles of micro evolution.

I can't help but see a naturalist philosophy being applied here and hopefully there is more then what I am seeing.

I am not sure what you mean by naturalist philosophy, maybe materialistic philosophy or something along that line? In any event I don't go at it from a materialistic or naturalist philosophy. I simply recognize that science is very good at discovering and explaining how the natural world works. As a person of faith I cannot base my belief in God on His filling the gaps of science. Every time science explains a gap in their theories God then has to retreat. So I pulled God out to the inherent limits of science and left Him there. I also recognize that science has an inherent limit to the natural world, science cannot observe or make claims about the supernatural. So if there is a God (and I most certainly believe there is) science cannot observe his influence on the natural world, it will not be seen or observed. As far as the scientist is concerned nature works and there is no need to bring in God to explain why. And I tend to agree that God is not a necessary component in the explaining but I believe He is the necessary component none the less.

I think that nature works because God is the ultimate metaphysical cause. The process of evolution is full of chance and randomness. I see these terms not in an unintelligent, anything can happen, sort of way. I see chance and random events and influences as being exactly what God wanted, and since science cannot detect God's influence they see some thing and call it just a random chance event. Take, for example, the asteroid at the K-T boundary, the one that is said to have killed off the dinosaurs. Science sees this as a random event, asteroids hit the earth all the time it is just a matter of time and another big one is bound to hit the earth again. The impact was just a random event that it hit the world at that particular time in history and not another time or not at all. I say that by way of pure mechanical forces God set in motion from the beginning of the universe that all the forces and timing would be just right so that, that particular asteroid and the earth would occupy the same space at the same time. The impact event was not a random event it was preordained by God from the beginning of time. There is really no way for science and observation to prove or disprove this way of looking at the world and I apply it to all my interpretations of the natural world discovered by science. That is how I came to the conclusion that God's creation is a process and not a one time event in the past. So I think that one can accept all of the discoveries and theories of science without interpreting them in a naturalistic, or materialistic sort of way.

 

[michel]

I am no scientist either; "micro" is the short term version of the "macro" in as much as it applies to this subject, as I understand it.

 

[painted wolf]

Apparently it is ok to go from wolf to dog or dingo or coyote, but it isn't ok to go from Australopithicus to Homo.
Creationists like to clame that there is some sort of mystical barrier that prevents one species from becoming so different from its fellows to become a new genus.
Thus foxes are foxes and will never share an ancestor with dogs. No matter what the evidence shows.

I have yet to see any evidence of the magic wall that keeps "kinds" seperate from one another.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

what is the magic line that keeps these three from being related by a common ancestor?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Macro evolution also entails the development of living cells from protocells, and that is where I think the evidence is loosest.

I could be wrong, though. I'm no evolutionary biologist.

 

[painted wolf]

thats more Abiogenisis... evolution mostly deals with the devolpment of life after it became life.

wa:do

 

[Quiddity]

There is no reason to assume its not the same. We have observed micro-evolutionary changes in species, we have genetic evidence to support the overall interconnectedness and common ancestry of all life on earth being related in a way, we have the fossil record which shows change over long periods of time. To conclude that many small changes building up over time to result in differentiation between species uses what we know to explain the existence of different species that are related. The point is that scientists don't need to resort to any new kind of processes to explain macro changes so they don't, many small, micro, changes add up to macro changes, it works and it fits the evidence (even if it has not been directly observed and probably can't be since it takes so many thousands or millions of years for the differences to be made obvious). This is not to say that there is not another process involved in macro changes it's just that what we know now works in explaining them. If new evidence pops up that doesn't fit the model then a new process or hypothesis is put forth. This is where the work of Neils Eldrige and Stephen Jay Gould and their theory of punctuated equilibrium come in as an alternative hypothesis, although it still rests on the same basic principles of micro evolution.



I am not sure what you mean by naturalist philosophy, maybe materialistic philosophy or something along that line? In any event I don't go at it from a materialistic or naturalist philosophy. I simply recognize that science is very good at discovering and explaining how the natural world works. As a person of faith I cannot base my belief in God on His filling the gaps of science. Every time science explains a gap in their theories God then has to retreat. So I pulled God out to the inherent limits of science and left Him there. I also recognize that science has an inherent limit to the natural world, science cannot observe or make claims about the supernatural. So if there is a God (and I most certainly believe there is) science cannot observe his influence on the natural world, it will not be seen or observed. As far as the scientist is concerned nature works and there is no need to bring in God to explain why. And I tend to agree that God is not a necessary component in the explaining but I believe He is the necessary component none the less.

I think that nature works because God is the ultimate metaphysical cause. The process of evolution is full of chance and randomness. I see these terms not in an unintelligent, anything can happen, sort of way. I see chance and random events and influences as being exactly what God wanted, and since science cannot detect God's influence they see some thing and call it just a random chance event. Take, for example, the asteroid at the K-T boundary, the one that is said to have killed off the dinosaurs. Science sees this as a random event, asteroids hit the earth all the time it is just a matter of time and another big one is bound to hit the earth again. The impact was just a random event that it hit the world at that particular time in history and not another time or not at all. I say that by way of pure mechanical forces God set in motion from the beginning of the universe that all the forces and timing would be just right so that, that particular asteroid and the earth would occupy the same space at the same time. The impact event was not a random event it was preordained by God from the beginning of time. There is really no way for science and observation to prove or disprove this way of looking at the world and I apply it to all my interpretations of the natural world discovered by science. That is how I came to the conclusion that God's creation is a process and not a one time event in the past. So I think that one can accept all of the discoveries and theories of science without interpreting them in a naturalistic, or materialistic sort of way.

I should have been clearer on where I stand. I am not a Young Earth Creationist, hyper-literalist, or anti-evolutionist by any means. Science has been respected by its own merits and it needs not my support to warrant it. Just from what I’ve read thus far, my views are very similar to yours. I actually adopted this view some time back from Ken Miller. The only difference is that not only did I get God out of the inherent limits of science, but I also get any unsubstantiated philosophies out of it. They are very subtle and difficult to catch but science is basically dominated by a materialistic philosophy. So I strictly stick to those theories, laws, etc. that have the most weight to them. So that inherently causes me to be a rebel anytime connections are made where there is no data. Yes, we do have data to point to the fact that micro and macro evolution occur, but we do not have data to leap and say they are the same. It is one thing to have a bird change species because of color or the size of a beak, yet another to say a reptile evolved into an early bird. The complexities and mutations that involve something like that are as mind boggling as God of the gaps. Not that I doubt it’s possible, I just think people’s loyalty to science serves as a disservice to it at times.

Take for example a hypothesis my anthropology professor through out once. She told us that it is very plausible that our early ancestors could have walked up right due to the intense heat of the flat savannah. The heat on their back forced them to stand up. Now this isn’t necessarily a philosophical world view being injected into science but what irked me is that no one even challenged her on it. And this fear of unchallenging has allowed for the materialist philosophy to be the new “God of the gaps”. After all, it is only a select few that truly understand all of its complexities. I hope I made sense...

 

[Runlikethewind]

I should have been clearer on where I stand. I am not a Young Earth Creationist, hyper-literalist, or anti-evolutionist by any means. Science has been respected by its own merits and it needs not my support to warrant it. Just from what I’ve read thus far, my views are very similar to yours. I actually adopted this view some time back from Ken Miller. The only difference is that not only did I get God out of the inherent limits of science, but I also get any unsubstantiated philosophies out of it. They are very subtle and difficult to catch but science is basically dominated by a materialistic philosophy. So I strictly stick to those theories, laws, etc. that have the most weight to them. So that inherently causes me to be a rebel anytime connections are made where there is no data. Yes, we do have data to point to the fact that micro and macro evolution occur, but we do not have data to leap and say they are the same. It is one thing to have a bird change species because of color or the size of a beak, yet another to say a reptile evolved into an early bird. The complexities and mutations that involve something like that are as mind boggling as God of the gaps. Not that I doubt it’s possible, I just think people’s loyalty to science serves as a disservice to it at times.

Take for example a hypothesis my anthropology professor through out once. She told us that it is very plausible that our early ancestors could have walked up right due to the intense heat of the flat savannah. The heat on their back forced them to stand up. Now this isn’t necessarily a philosophical world view being injected into science but what irked me is that no one even challenged her on it. And this fear of unchallenging has allowed for the materialist philosophy to be the new “God of the gaps”. After all, it is only a select few that truly understand all of its complexities. I hope I made sense...

Yes well said and I agree. There is an inherent difficulty in humans to use their preconceived notions in their interpretation of the world. To bring God into ones interpretation of science is generally frowned upon in the scientific community where as to bring in a materialistic philosophy is generally not only accepted but is the norm for the majority of scientists. Neither assumption about reality, theism or materialism, is testable or provable it is an assumption either way, faith being the determining factor in choosing one way or the another (or not choosing to assume at all as in the case of the agnostic). Many scientist will simply assume that there must be a materialistic explanation and will bend over backward to ensure that their explanation has no hint of anything that might possibly even smell like a theistic explanation. The theory of ice age floods (like the Missoula Flood) was not well received in the scientific community at first in part because it sounded too much like Noah and the Biblical flood. Of course there where still questions about the evidence at the time when Bretz introduced his hypothesis but the preconceived materialistic notions of the scientific community played a part in the general apathy toward the theory.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

thats more Abiogenisis... evolution mostly deals with the devolpment of life after it became life.

wa:do

Ah, cool. Thanks! I shall research it some more. I equated this switch from non-life to life with evolution as that was how it was presented in my Bio 2 class.