Macroevolution
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually brandished 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.
But should microevolution and macroevolution be considered seperate fields, or is macroevolution simply the compounded effects of microevolution? Is it right to accept that microevolution occurs, but macroevolution doesn't? Is macroevolution proven?
|
9
points
Micro and Macro evolution are terms that biologists don't even use. Believing in "micro" but not "macro" evolution is like believing in inches but not feet. ERVs (genetic markers) prove common ancestry between humans and the other apes, dogs and cats, whales and hippo, and it's all corroborated with the extensive fossil record and mitochondrial DNA. I had never heard of this before. Am I missing something here, or is the arguement that, since scientists can't recreate a process that took millions of years in nature, in a short time in a labratory, then there must be some different kind of evolution, just present over the short term? And that the long term evolution, as in we came from pond scum or something, therefore must be false? I'm constantly amazed at how much brain power creationists can put into completely non-sensical mish mash. It's just evolution, no micro or macro. Side: Evolution
|
