• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Macro and Micro evolution

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friends,
Understand this:
Auguments will go on and on BUT never the finalword said nor anthing prooved.
The root of this is the mind and its nature.
Each religion has been shouting from the rooftops to become aware of this very MINd. Trasedent the mind and you are one with IT.
LOve & rgds
 

lunamoth

Will to love
The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the length of time over which a population of animals have evolved, resulting in lesser (micro) or greater (macro) genetic changes. As others have pointed out, Painted Wolf, GC, RLTW, once a number of significant genetics changes have accumulated the organisms will perhaps no longer look as much like the progenitor species and they will no longer be able to produce fertile offspring with the progenitor species, or other descendent species if the progenitor species has already become extinct (because again, a very long period of time and most likely also environmental changes have taken pleace over the period of 'macroevolution').

Note also that it is populations of animals/organisms which evolve. It's not like a single ancestral species suddenly gives birth to a new species.

Like Runlikethewind, I don't believe in a God of the gaps. As the gaps get smaller, so does one's god. Nevertheless, I trust that God created it all, and it is good.
 

McBell

Unbound
No, I think what you provided is great....I'm just trying to get your thoughts on the question I asked. :)
If you review the chart I presented in my first post it looks to me that the only real difference in the various stages of evolution is merely what is undergoing the change.

Sure if you were to nit pick it you can list all kinds of differences, but these differences seem to me to be nothing more than irrelevant details.

At least, irrelevant details when it comes to the question posed in the OP.
 
Victor said:
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.

Victor-

I sympathize with your commitment to being open to questioning scientific theories. I think that's absolutely the right idea. There are many controversial theories out there, like string theory in physics. But I think our uncertainty about the validity of a theory should be a function of how much evidence there is for the theory, how well it accounts for the observed facts, how rigorously tested has it been, etc. By that standard, the theory of evolution is on no less shaky ground than thermodynamics or Newton's theory of gravity.

I think the problem is that you are not taking into account the incredible diversity of animals, both living and in the fossil record. For example, by "birds" I assume you mean animals classified as the class called Aves, and by "reptiles" I assume you mean animals in the class Sauropsida.

Let's get one thing straight: you already agree that all birds could share a common ancestor, right? Well, that in itself is some pretty impressive evolution right there, if by birds you include emus, penguins, pelicans, owls, flamingos, parrots, chickens, and so on; you've got flying, flightless, running, and swimming "birds", and lots of combinations of those (e.g. penguins are great swimmers, but ducks can both swim and fly). Even among the flyers, you've just an incredible array of adaptations. Same thing with reptiles: you've got a stunning amount of diversity there as well, with all manner of crocodiles, snakes, lizards, turtles, and tortoises.

Consider a few examples from feathered dinosaurs: was Microraptor a "bird"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microraptor
Like its close relative Cryptovolans (possibly a junior synonym of Microraptor), Microraptor had two sets of wings, on both its fore- and hind legs (close studies of the Berlin specimen of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx show that it too, had flight feathers on its hind legs, albeit shortened). The long feathers on the legs of Microraptor were true flight feathers as seen in modern birds, with asymetrical vanes on the arm, leg, and tail feathers. As in bird wings, Microraptor had both primary (anchored to the hand) and secondary (anchored to the arm) flight feathers. This standard wing pattern was mirrored on the hind legs, with flight feathers anchored to the upper foot bones as well as the upper and lower leg. It had been proposed by Chinese scientists that the animal glided, and probably lived in trees, pointing to the fact that wings anchored to the feet of Microraptor would have hindered their ability to run on the ground, and suggest that all primitive dromaeosaurids may have been arboreal.[3]
Sankar Chatterjee determined in 2005 that, in order for the creature to glide or fly, the wings must have been split-level (like a biplane) and not overlayed (like a dragonfly), and that the latter posture would have been anatomically impossible. Using this biplane model, Chatterjee was able to calculate possible methods of gliding, and determined that Microraptor most likely employed a phugoid style of gliding--launching itself from a perch, the animal would have swooped downward in a deep 'U' shaped curve and then lifted again to land on another tree. The feathers not directly employed in the biplane wing structure, like those on the tibia and the tail, could have been used to control drag and alter the flight path, trajectory, etc. The orientation of the hind wings would also have helped the animal control its gliding flight. Chatterjee also used computer algorithms that test animal flight capacity to test whether or not Microraptor was capable of true, powered flight, in addition to passive gliding. The resulting data showed that Microraptor did have the requirements to sustain level powered flight, so it is theoretically possible that the animal flew on occasion in addition to gliding.[

What about Beipiaosaurus ?

I seriously encourage you and anyone else to follow these links, look at some photos and artists' rendering, and read what the experts have found upon close, analytical comparison of modern birds and these many other species. Then judge for yourself. But just realize that words like "bird" are really referring to a list of traits....the fact is that there are all manner of combinations of animals, past and present, that have some of those traits but not others, means that there really is no fundamental barrier between a "bird" or, say, a "reptile".


There are many more similarities between birds and these bird-like things that just happen to appear in the fossil record shortly before mordern birds .... ;) ... but you'll have to read and judge for yourself the similarities in skeleton, lungs, heart, sleeping posture, brooding, gizzards.... there's also molecular evidence, for example
It has been found that modern-day birds are closely related to older dinosaurs at the molecular level. Scientists have analyzed protein from a 68 million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex bone (a femur). The seven collagen types obtained from the bone fragments, compared to collagen data from living birds (specifically, a chicken), reveal that older theropods and birds are closely related.

Here's a cool drawing of the Archeopteryx find: http://www.daily-tangents.com/Aves/Archaeop/#berlin77

A Talk Origins article that summarizes tons of evidence for "macro" evolution, including the bird-reptile connection: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex1

You be the judge! :eek:
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
......You be the judge! :eek:
I agree. It's no secret my Science/evolution knowledge is wanting (I try :cover: ).....but that's exactly the point I was trying to make. It appears to me that some advocates of evolution just take the infallible word's of some in the scientific community.
 
I agree. It's no secret my Science/evolution knowledge is wanting (I try :cover: ).....but that's exactly the point I was trying to make. It appears to me that some advocates of evolution just take the infallible word's of some in the scientific community.
Yes, I am sure we both agree that we shouldn't take the infallibility of the words of the scientific community, just as we shouldn't take the infallibility of the words of ANY community of people.

*The Catholic Church!* *cough, cough cough!* :p
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Yes, I am sure we both agree that we shouldn't take the infallibility of the words of the scientific community, just as we shouldn't take the infallibility of the words of ANY community of people.

*The Catholic Church!* *cough, cough cough!* :p
Some would argue that when it comes to religious beliefs, they should be treated differently from other claims to knowledge about the world. Religious beliefs are as complicated as relationships and to ask of it what you ask of Science is inhuman. ;)
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
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...:D ) 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.
Macro is population level change... we can observe it. It's just as empirical as micro... and really is just micro on a larger scale... That of the species.

Again, it's a common mistake to make.

Sorry I missed this thread earlier. :cover:

wa:do
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Micro only requires animal reproduction. Macro requires magic or millions of years of animal reproduction, which ever comes first.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Micro only requires animal reproduction. Macro requires magic or millions of years of animal reproduction, which ever comes first.
No... macro does not require millions of years. :facepalm:

Under the right conditions a new species can develop very quickly... such as the London Underground Mosquito. In the case of plants they can speciate in a single generation, usually due to a polyploidy mutation.

wa:do
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Macro is population level change... we can observe it. It's just as empirical as micro... and really is just micro on a larger scale... That of the species.

Again, it's a common mistake to make.

Sorry I missed this thread earlier. :cover:

wa:do

PW,......but you know this isn't the type of macro that is normally objected to. Most people (I imagine) think of reptile to bird or something along those lines. I'm fairly certain I would have seen a news report on something like this.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
PW,......but you know this isn't the type of macro that is normally objected to. Most people (I imagine) think of reptile to bird or something along those lines. I'm fairly certain I would have seen a news report on something like this.
Even this kind of iconic deep time evolution isn't simply based on fossils. Though to be honest, the fossil record on the dinosaur-bird transition is wonderfully extensive.
Genetics and other lines of evidence are all used as well. :cool:

When people object to macroevolution I tend to find, it's because they don't actually know what it is... they confuse speciation with micrevolution... and then try to claim macroevolution is dogs giving birth to cats. They are attacking an assumption/parody of what macro/evolution in general is.

wa:do
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Even this kind of iconic deep time evolution isn't simply based on fossils. Though to be honest, the fossil record on the dinosaur-bird transition is wonderfully extensive.
Genetics and other lines of evidence are all used as well. :cool:

When people object to macroevolution I tend to find, it's because they don't actually know what it is... they confuse speciation with micrevolution... and then try to claim macroevolution is dogs giving birth to cats. They are attacking an assumption/parody of what macro/evolution in general is.

wa:do

I can't defend what I don't hold....:cool:

I tend to think more of Hominidae and when it first walked up right in the savanah. I kid you not, I literally laughed when the professor in my anthropology class told me one of the hypothesis that was put forward as to while they may have started to walk upright. Because of the heat on their backs............Granted, this is a hypotheis and nothing more but it just really gave me a peak into what is and isn't put forward.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A mechanical engineer's view of evolution:
Micro: A little bit of change
Macro: A whole lotta change
I don't see the usefulness of the distinction.
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I can't defend what I don't hold....:cool:
I've been lucky enough to see several of the dino-bird fossils (some originals and some casts) and they are truly amazing.

I tend to think more of Hominidae and when it first walked up right in the savanah. I kid you not, I literally laughed when the professor in my anthropology class told me one of the hypothesis that was put forward as to while they may have started to walk upright. Because of the heat on their backs............Granted, this is a hypotheis and nothing more but it just really gave me a peak into what is and isn't put forward.
LoL
Lots of ideas get kicked around... it gives us places to start doing experiments and places to look for evidence.

Generally, when you hear a simplistic explanation like that you should laugh, or at least be skeptical... evolution is rarely a simplistic process and there is almost never a single reason behind things.

We have shown that being upright does help us keep cool, we have less surface area directly exposed to the sun and more exposed to air currents... but we were upright before the savanna. If anything, it's one of many minor things that gave us an advantage when the forests started to shrink.

wa:do
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
A mechanical engineer's view of evolution:
Micro: A little bit of change
Macro: A whole lotta change
I don't see the usefulness of the distinction.
Especially since the macro is almost never done as a single large change, but the build up of lots of micro ones.

wa:do
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
A mechanical engineer's view of evolution:
Micro: A little bit of change
Macro: A whole lotta change
I don't see the usefulness of the distinction.
Because hypothesis can be wrong. There is still alot of unanswered questions and exerting the same amount of confidence in is a bit foolish IMO. Take for example what I said about apes in the savanah and the hypothesis that was brought forth. As far as I can recall, we still don't know the answer to that (atleast nothing with solid evidence). Yet we can have the silliest of hypothesis presented. Granted, this doesn't do anything to invalidate evolution per se, but I wouldn't consider it the same.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Especially since the macro is almost never done as a single large change, but the build up of lots of micro ones.
wa:do
Yeah.....that.
It's a little like saying 5+5=10 is micro-addition, but 5,000,000,000+5,000,000,000=10,000,000,000 is macro-addition.
At what point do "micro" numbers become "macro"?

Because hypothesis can be wrong. There is still alot of unanswered questions and exerting the same amount of confidence in is a bit foolish IMO. Take for example what I said about apes in the savanah and the hypothesis that was brought forth. As far as I can recall, we still don't know the answer to that (atleast nothing with solid evidence). Yet we can have the silliest of hypothesis presented. Granted, this doesn't do anything to invalidate evolution per se, but I wouldn't consider it the same.
Certainly, hypotheses can be wrong. Most are.
I just don't see a reason to introduce an evolutionary 'barrier' between small & big changes.
It doesn't introduce explanatory or predictive value.
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
A mechanical engineer's view of evolution:
Micro: A little bit of change
Macro: A whole lotta change
I don't see the usefulness of the distinction.

Because these "mutations",
cause bad deviations
There's simply no way
The mutation will stay
and cause drastically different creations

Though what we may see,
Is "evolution" quite wee,
That makes micro changes,
And it all sorts of Ranges,
Like new kinds of Chimpanzee

Like The "Tiger" and "Bull" shark,
The differences aren't stark,
Parents good in athletics,
Pass it on with Epigenetics,
And we learn right all along was Lamarck.
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Because hypothesis can be wrong. There is still alot of unanswered questions and exerting the same amount of confidence in is a bit foolish IMO. Take for example what I said about apes in the savanah and the hypothesis that was brought forth. As far as I can recall, we still don't know the answer to that (atleast nothing with solid evidence). Yet we can have the silliest of hypothesis presented. Granted, this doesn't do anything to invalidate evolution per se, but I wouldn't consider it the same.
Saying how it happened says little about the difference between micro and macro evolution. What micro vs macro says is that some guy in the savanah that walks on all fours isn't going to magically have a kid that walks upright. It would take several generations of micro changes to be able to see that a macro change occurred.
 
Top