5 ms·

The characteristics/causes they describe are attributes of microevolution, which would have been a more accurate term to use.

splawn 10y ago
"microevolution" and "macroevolution" are words that have been invented by creationists to try to reconcile the fact that evolution is directly observable. Despite the fact that both have the same underlying mechanics (natural selection) and the only difference is time.
- hawkice 10y ago
  I assumed this was the case, but maybe not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution They say it's the technical term for change in allele frequency, which is what OP was talking about.
  - splawn 10y ago
    I stand partially corrected.. from now on I will have to remember to say "co-opted" by creationists rather than "invented" by. However, they are still identical things with the only difference being the amount of time. From your link: "The main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference)."
  - tdb7893 10y ago
    From the article you linked, "Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales"
Oletros 10y ago
Microevolution and macroevolution and different terms for the same thing, evolution.
0xfeba 10y ago
What's the difference between so-called micro and macro evolution?
- toss1941 10y ago
  Micro-evolution is defined as changes (mutation) or loss of DNA. This happens all the time, much to the chagrin of anti-biotic researchers. Macro-evolution is defined as addition to the DNA (new information never before seen on that oranism).
  - splawn 10y ago
    defined by who? the discovery institute? Edit: Looks like some might not like the lack of detail in this comment. So.... In case anyone doesn't know "the discovery institute" is a group of creationists that tried to get creationism taught as science in public schools.[1] And redefining and inventing terminology to serve their purposes without requiring any scientific basis for it is something right out of their playbook. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    Why is mutation necessarily a loss of information, and also what do you think about whole-gene duplication events.
  - 0xfeba 10y ago
    Interesting, I've never heard this definition before. Seems to combine two common creationist claims against evolution: 1) No new information can be created 2) Sure, microevolution, but we've never seen macroevolution Where did you get these definitions? What is your definition of "new information"? New genes? Because that happens all the time. Fox example in humans, Fragile X syndrome causes a gene to be repeated (inserted[1]) too many times. But that's been "seen before" so perhaps it is off topic. In E. Coli and common yeast we've seen new genes added to be able to process different substances as food[2][3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) [2] http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html [3] http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract The common creationist response at this point is that "It's still yeast/bacteria. It's not going to evolve into a cat.", to which our (biologists) response is that it very well could given enough time. And so since "new information" has been demonstrated, and natural selection ("microevolution") accepted by creationists, it's up to creationists to show us what exactly prevents organisms from evolving past human created naming barriers. That is, since we know that gene mutations happen and won't stop happening as long as organisms keep reproducing, what keeps a population from evolving passed the species/genus/family/"kind" barrier? The answer is nothing, except time. Time is why you don't see the bacteria evolve into a cat.

splawn 10y ago

"microevolution" and "macroevolution" are words that have been invented by creationists to try to reconcile the fact that evolution is directly observable. Despite the fact that both have the same underlying mechanics (natural selection) and the only difference is time.

hawkice 10y ago
I assumed this was the case, but maybe not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution They say it's the technical term for change in allele frequency, which is what OP was talking about.
- splawn 10y ago
  I stand partially corrected.. from now on I will have to remember to say "co-opted" by creationists rather than "invented" by. However, they are still identical things with the only difference being the amount of time. From your link: "The main difference between the two processes is that one occurs within a few generations, whilst the other takes place over thousands of years (i.e. a quantitative difference)."
- tdb7893 10y ago
  From the article you linked, "Macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different scales"

Oletros 10y ago

Microevolution and macroevolution and different terms for the same thing, evolution.

0xfeba 10y ago

What's the difference between so-called micro and macro evolution?

toss1941 10y ago
Micro-evolution is defined as changes (mutation) or loss of DNA. This happens all the time, much to the chagrin of anti-biotic researchers. Macro-evolution is defined as addition to the DNA (new information never before seen on that oranism).
- splawn 10y ago
  defined by who? the discovery institute? Edit: Looks like some might not like the lack of detail in this comment. So.... In case anyone doesn't know "the discovery institute" is a group of creationists that tried to get creationism taught as science in public schools.[1] And redefining and inventing terminology to serve their purposes without requiring any scientific basis for it is something right out of their playbook. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  Why is mutation necessarily a loss of information, and also what do you think about whole-gene duplication events.
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  Interesting, I've never heard this definition before. Seems to combine two common creationist claims against evolution: 1) No new information can be created 2) Sure, microevolution, but we've never seen macroevolution Where did you get these definitions? What is your definition of "new information"? New genes? Because that happens all the time. Fox example in humans, Fragile X syndrome causes a gene to be repeated (inserted[1]) too many times. But that's been "seen before" so perhaps it is off topic. In E. Coli and common yeast we've seen new genes added to be able to process different substances as food[2][3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insertion_(genetics) [2] http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/931.full.pdf+html [3] http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract The common creationist response at this point is that "It's still yeast/bacteria. It's not going to evolve into a cat.", to which our (biologists) response is that it very well could given enough time. And so since "new information" has been demonstrated, and natural selection ("microevolution") accepted by creationists, it's up to creationists to show us what exactly prevents organisms from evolving past human created naming barriers. That is, since we know that gene mutations happen and won't stop happening as long as organisms keep reproducing, what keeps a population from evolving passed the species/genus/family/"kind" barrier? The answer is nothing, except time. Time is why you don't see the bacteria evolve into a cat.