Microevolution: YEA! Macroevolution: BOO!

[Skwim]

To those creationists who accept microevoluion, but obviously not macroevolution.

As the Berkeley.edu (College Of California Berkeley) website on Understanding Evolution explains.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

Mutation
A change in a DNA sequence, usually occurring because of errors in replication or repair. Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. Changes in the composition of a genome due to recombination alone are not considered mutations since recombination alone just changes which genes are united in the same genome but does not alter the sequence of those genes.

Migration
The movement of individuals between populations.

Genetic drift
Random changes in the gene frequencies of a population from generation to generation. This happens as a result of sampling error — some genotypes just happen to reproduce more than other genotypes, not because they are "better," but just because they got lucky. This process causes gene frequencies in a population to drift around over time. Some genes may even "drift out" of a population (i.e., just by chance, some gene may reach a frequency of zero). In general, genetic drift has the effect of decreasing genetic variation within a population.

Natural selection
Differential survival or reproduction of different genotypes in a population leading to changes in the gene frequencies of a population. The conditions required for the operation of evolution by natural selection include variation, a system of heredity, differential reproduction, and time.
source

​

"Scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science describe microevolution as small scale change within species, and macroevolution as the formation of new species, but otherwise not being different from microevolution. In macroevolution, an accumulation of microevolutionary changes leads to speciation"
source

​

Question: Why can't the evolutionary processes inherent in microevolution eventually transcend the boundaries of a single species? Why can't microevolution continue to the point where the resulting organism fails to resemble its parental species so much so that it might be considered a subspecies? AND THEN CONTINUE TO EVOLVE to the point where the organism can no longer be considered to be the same species? Just what is stopping the process of microevolution from continuing to this point?

.

​

 

[Rational Agnostic]

To those creationists who accept microevoluion, but obviously not macroevolution.

As the Berkeley.edu (College Of California Berkeley) website on Understanding Evolution explains.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:

Mutation
A change in a DNA sequence, usually occurring because of errors in replication or repair. Mutation is the ultimate source of genetic variation. Changes in the composition of a genome due to recombination alone are not considered mutations since recombination alone just changes which genes are united in the same genome but does not alter the sequence of those genes.

Migration
The movement of individuals between populations.

Genetic drift
Random changes in the gene frequencies of a population from generation to generation. This happens as a result of sampling error — some genotypes just happen to reproduce more than other genotypes, not because they are "better," but just because they got lucky. This process causes gene frequencies in a population to drift around over time. Some genes may even "drift out" of a population (i.e., just by chance, some gene may reach a frequency of zero). In general, genetic drift has the effect of decreasing genetic variation within a population.

Natural selection
Differential survival or reproduction of different genotypes in a population leading to changes in the gene frequencies of a population. The conditions required for the operation of evolution by natural selection include variation, a system of heredity, differential reproduction, and time.
source

​

"Scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science describe microevolution as small scale change within species, and macroevolution as the formation of new species, but otherwise not being different from microevolution. In macroevolution, an accumulation of microevolutionary changes leads to speciation"
source

​

Question: Why can't the evolutionary processes inherent in microevolution eventually transcend the boundaries of a single species? Why can't microevolution continue to the point where the resulting organism fails to resemble its parental species so much so that it might be considered a subspecies? AND THEN CONTINUE to evolve to the point where the organism can no longer be considered to be the same species? Just what is stopping the process of microevolution from continuing to this point?

.

​

Most of them respond by erroneously asserting that the earth is not old enough for the process of "micro-evolution" to become macro.

 

[Mohsen]

To those creationists who accept microevoluion, but obviously not macroevolution.

Subboor Ahmad refuses to entertain problematic terminology such as Micro and Macro evolution, and he is a Creationist. In his debate with atheist, Aron Ra, he clearly made an issue out of these what you term Micro and Macro Evolution; further he explained how many evolutionary biologists take issue with the very same terminology!

Here is the full debate:

Peace

 

[sun rise]

Subboor Ahmad refuses to entertain problematic terminology such as Micro and Macro evolution, and he is a Creationist. In his debate with atheist, Aron Ra, he clearly made an issue out of these what you term Micro and Macro Evolution; further he explained how many evolutionary biologists take issue with the very same terminology!

Here is the full debate:

Peace

I'm uninterested in semantic arguments about terminology. I don't find such things informative. Evolution in the small and large is real. Attempts to deny that are to me like telling God that He did not know what He was doing when He created the laws of the universe which includes the operation of evolution over uncounted millennia.

 

[Mohsen]

I'm uninterested in semantic arguments about terminology. I don't find such things informative. Evolution in the small and large is real. Attempts to deny that are to me like telling God that He did not know what He was doing when He created the laws of the universe which includes the operation of evolution over uncounted millennia.

You're straw manning me. I never said anything about denial of evolution!!

Peace

 

[ChristineM]

Macroevolution is simply lots of microevolution.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Why can't the evolutionary processes inherent in microevolution eventually transcend the boundaries of a single species?

It does.

Why can't microevolution continue to the point where the resulting organism fails to resemble its parental species so much so that it might be considered a subspecies?

It does.

AND THEN CONTINUE to evolve to the point where the organism can no longer be considered to be the same species?

This is called a "speciation event". We have witnessed it in our lifetimes, if one cares to research.

Just what is stopping the process of microevolution from continuing to this point?

Nothing.

 

[Polymath257]

Accepting microevolution but denying macroevolution is like accepting that a few pennies can make 10 cents, but denying that a million pennies can make $10,000.

 

[DavidFirth]

I do not accept the biased opinions of secular institutions as absolute truth. Next.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not accept the biased opinions of secular institutions as absolute truth. Next.

So look at the evidence and present a testable interpretation that is different. be prepared to support it with evidence and defend it against contrary evidence.

 

[Willamena]

I do not accept the biased opinions of secular institutions as absolute truth. Next.

Isn't that biased?

 

[sun rise]

You're straw manning me. I never said anything about denial of evolution!!

Peace

Based on your inclusion of a debate "Is Darwinian evolution a fact" in the earlier post I assumed you did not accept evolution even though you did not explicitly write that. It appears that my preconception of how most Muslims view evolution was inaccurate per Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

I do not accept the biased opinions of secular institutions as absolute truth. Next.

So you prefer the biased opinions of religious institutions, the difference being, one is tested and fact-based, the other, based on an anthology of ancient writings by various people and editors who didn't know the first thing about how the world works.

 

[Mohsen]

Based on your inclusion of a debate "Is Darwinian evolution a fact" in the earlier post I assumed you did not accept evolution even though you did not explicitly write that. It appears that my preconception of how most Muslims view evolution was inaccurate per Islamic views on evolution - Wikipedia

I believe it could very well have occurred inside of the animal kingdoms but do not believe it happened with us, humans !! Hope this helps.

Peace

 

[DavidFirth]

So you prefer the biased opinions of religious institutions, the difference being, one is tested and fact-based, the other, based on an anthology of ancient writings by various people and editors who didn't know the first thing about how the world works.

No, sir. I prefer the word of God. God is Holy, all-knowing and never wrong. Kind of blows your institutional argument out of the water.

 

[DavidFirth]

Isn't that biased?

Yes, of course it is. Don't bother telling me how scientists are unbiased people. That's rubbish.

 

[DavidFirth]

So look at the evidence and present a testable interpretation that is different. be prepared to support it with evidence and defend it against contrary evidence.

What, so I can play guessing games with you? No, thanks. Your scientists have been wrong before and will be wrong again so they're wrong now as well. I'll hear God, who is never wrong about anything.

 

[Looncall]

What, so I can play guessing games with you? No, thanks. Your scientists have been wrong before and will be wrong again so they're wrong now as well. I'll hear God, who is never wrong about anything.

How nice for you. Do you realize that you have removed yourself from the conversation, that you have nothing useful or interesting to say on this topic?

 

[Polymath257]

What, so I can play guessing games with you? No, thanks. Your scientists have been wrong before and will be wrong again so they're wrong now as well. I'll hear God, who is never wrong about anything.

No, so you can actually do science and see what is true.

 

[Revoltingest]

What, so I can play guessing games with you? No, thanks. Your scientists have been wrong before and will be wrong again so they're wrong now as well. I'll hear God, who is never wrong about anything.

Exactly!
I'm not positive that your eloquent defense of science was entirely intentional,
but it's most cromulent nonetheless, ie, that science is often wrong, but that
religion "ist nicht einmal falsch.". Bravo!