For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[SLP]

Many creationists (and sadly, some biologists) seem to believe that 'macroevolution' is substantively different from 'microevolution.'

Short answer - it isn't, it is just many rounds of microevolution resulting in speciation.

Creationist propaganda site "CreationWiki" states:

Macroevolution is a purely theoretical biological process thought to produce relatively large (macro) evolutionary change within biological organisms. The term is used in contrast to minor (microevolution) changes, and is most commonly defined as "evolution above the species level".​

Not surprising that such people would lie to their target flock. Surprising that so many take it at face value.

From a reliable source, we see that 'macroevolution' is:

"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species."​

- "Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed." 1998, p. 477. D. Futuyma.

That is, macroevolution is produced via multiple rounds of speciation. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.

Macroevolution is NOT 'an event' that needs to be 're-created.' It is an observed pattern.

 

[pitabread]

IMHO, the biggest issue is really one of conceptualization. Humans generally suck at conceptualizing long periods of time and consequently suck at conceptualizing how changes over long periods of time can occur.

It's easy to imagine evolution on a generation-to-generation basis. It's a lot more difficult to wrap one's head around hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of years.

This is why I think many creationists see "macroevolution" as being a distinct process from "microevolution". This coupled with the way people tend to draw rigid categorical lines between things, it becomes doubly difficult to conceptualize how something can transition from one thing to another. For example, how a species could evolve over time to go from terrestrial to aquatic (or vise-versa).

There also tends to be a conceptual gap in understanding evolution as a recursive process (e.g. the outputs from one generation become the inputs for the next). Evolution is constantly iterating on what came before it.

Consequently, I think many creationists see these sorts of transitions as single steps as opposed to a (relatively speaking) more gradual process involving many individual species transitioning over a period of time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

IMHO, the biggest issue is really one of conceptualization. Humans generally suck at conceptualizing long periods of time and consequently suck at conceptualizing how changes over long periods of time can occur.

It's easy to imagine evolution on a generation-to-generation basis. It's a lot more difficult to wrap one's head around hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of years.

This is why I think many creationists see "macroevolution" as being a distinct process from "microevolution". This coupled with the way people tend to draw rigid categorical lines between things, it becomes doubly difficult to conceptualize how something can transition from one thing to another. For example, how a species could evolve over time to go from terrestrial to aquatic (or vise-versa).

There also tends to be a conceptual gap in understanding evolution as a recursive process (e.g. the outputs from one generation become the inputs for the next). Evolution is constantly iterating on what came before it.

Consequently, I think many creationists see these sorts of transitions as single steps as opposed to a (relatively speaking) more gradual process involving many individual species transitioning over a period of time.

Yes, and this is often compounded by the tendency to see evolution in terms of individuals rather than populations.

 

[SLP]

Yes, and this is often compounded by the tendency to see evolution in terms of individuals rather than populations.

That too. Hence the 'morphing'...

 

[SLP]

IMHO, the biggest issue is really one of conceptualization. Humans generally suck at conceptualizing long periods of time and consequently suck at conceptualizing how changes over long periods of time can occur.

It's easy to imagine evolution on a generation-to-generation basis. It's a lot more difficult to wrap one's head around hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of years.

This is why I think many creationists see "macroevolution" as being a distinct process from "microevolution". This coupled with the way people tend to draw rigid categorical lines between things, it becomes doubly difficult to conceptualize how something can transition from one thing to another. For example, how a species could evolve over time to go from terrestrial to aquatic (or vise-versa).

There also tends to be a conceptual gap in understanding evolution as a recursive process (e.g. the outputs from one generation become the inputs for the next). Evolution is constantly iterating on what came before it.

Consequently, I think many creationists see these sorts of transitions as single steps as opposed to a (relatively speaking) more gradual process involving many individual species transitioning over a period of time.

Good points.
As I am feeling generous this morning (got my grades in on time!), there were (and still are) a few evolutionary biologists, such as Goldschmidt (of 'Hopeful monster' fame) who propose 'macromutations' as a means of producing 'speciation' in one big jump. I am unaware of any actual examples or even proposed examples of this in nature, which is likely why Goldschmidt's proposal (in the 1950s, if memory serves) fell by the way side. Others issues would be the problem of mating and the inherent population genetics issues of a 'macromutation/hopeful monster' scenario - mating can still occur when the differences accumulated are subtle, generation to generation, but finding a mate after having experienced a macromutation... not likely.

Regardless, it is unfortunate that many creationists are simply unwilling/unable to update their knowledge base when necessary.

 

[pgp_protector]

IMHO, the biggest issue is really one of conceptualization. Humans generally suck at conceptualizing long periods of time and consequently suck at conceptualizing how changes over long periods of time can occur.

It's easy to imagine evolution on a generation-to-generation basis. It's a lot more difficult to wrap one's head around hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of years.

This is why I think many creationists see "macroevolution" as being a distinct process from "microevolution". This coupled with the way people tend to draw rigid categorical lines between things, it becomes doubly difficult to conceptualize how something can transition from one thing to another. For example, how a species could evolve over time to go from terrestrial to aquatic (or vise-versa).

There also tends to be a conceptual gap in understanding evolution as a recursive process (e.g. the outputs from one generation become the inputs for the next). Evolution is constantly iterating on what came before it.

Consequently, I think many creationists see these sorts of transitions as single steps as opposed to a (relatively speaking) more gradual process involving many individual species transitioning over a period of time.

Humans also have a hard time with large scales.
Even just the actual scale of the earth / moon distance & size throws people off at times.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... there were (and still are) a few evolutionary biologists, such as Goldschmidt (of 'Hopeful monster' fame) who propose 'macromutations' as a means of producing 'speciation' in one big jump. I am unaware of any actual examples or even proposed examples of this in nature, which is likely why Goldschmidt's proposal (in the 1950s, if memory serves) fell by the way side. Others issues would be the problem of mating and the inherent population genetics issues of a 'macromutation/hopeful monster' scenario - mating can still occur when the differences accumulated are subtle, generation to generation, but finding a mate after having experienced a macromutation... not likely.

Would the parthenogenic marbled crayfish count?

 

[SLP]

Would the parthenogenic marbled crayfish count?

Well, I suppose that would skirt the usual norms

 

[pitabread]

Humans also have a hard time with large scales.
Even just the actual scale of the earth / moon distance & size throws people off at times.View attachment 265011

This is very true. Seeing our solar system in VR for the first time blew my mind with just how huge it is.

And the size of our sun is terrifying.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And the size of our sun is terrifying.

Compare it to VY Canis Majoris - which, in place of the sun, would fill space to beyond the orbit of Saturn...

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

Humans also have a hard time with large scales.
Even just the actual scale of the earth / moon distance & size throws people off at times.View attachment 265011

This is the one that gets me every time. The video is of traveling at the speed of light from the surface of the sun to Jupiter in real-time.

 

[xianghua]

on. Or put another way, macroevolution is a pattern created by multiple rounds of speciation.

so according to that logic- variations of dogs (speciations)+time = non dog. but its more logical to conclude that variations of dogs+time= a variation of dog.

 

[Speedwell]

so according to that logic- variations of dogs (speciations)+time = non dog. but its more logical to conclude that variations of dogs+time= a variation of dog.

That's correct. Even if a line of dogs evolved their forelimbs into wings and became flying bat-like creatures, they would still be canines. They would never be bats. Even if a line of dogs evolved to be fully aquatic and looked and behaved like dolphins, they would still be canines. They would never be dolphins.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

so according to that logic- variations of dogs (speciations)+time = non dog. but its more logical to conclude that variations of dogs+time= a variation of dog.

Nope. Dogs will always give rise to varieties of dog, and will never give rise to non-dogs. It would be a miracle if that ever happened.

Descendants will always be what they are descended from.

The ancestors of dogs may have been technically non-dogs, but naming something by what it isn't is silly, and you run into even sillier naming issues, wherein the 'non-dogs' give rise to dogs, which would technically make dogs a variety of 'non-dogs.' It's just a bad naming convention.

Better to call the ancestor of the dog what it is - a canine - and that makes things clearer. Canines gave rise to variety of canines, one variety is called dog. Dogs give rise to a variety of dogs, one of which is called poodle.

Not all dogs are poodles, but all poodles are dogs. Not all canines are dogs, but all dogs are canines. (All poodles are also canines).

 

[pitabread]

That's correct. Even if a line of dogs evolved their forelimbs into wings and became flying bat-like creatures, they would still be canines. They would never be bats. Even if a line of dogs evolved to be fully aquatic and looked and behaved like dolphins, they would still be canines. They would never be dolphins.

This answer while correct (from a systematics perspective) is going to lead to a complete misunderstanding for anyone not familiar with biology and evolution.

I predict that this is going to turn into a mess of a follow up discussion.

 

[Speedwell]

This answer while correct (from a systematics perspective) is going to lead to a complete misunderstanding for anyone not familiar with biology and evolution.

I predict that this is going to turn into a mess of a follow up discussion.

That's good--I was hoping to confuse Xianghua, at least.

 

[xianghua]

Nope. Dogs will always give rise to varieties of dog

i actually never said otherwise. note that i added "time".

Descendantswill always be what they are descended from.

so mammals are still reptiles? a dolphn is still a fish?

 

[Speedwell]

i actually never said otherwise. note that i added "time".



so mammals are still reptiles? a dolphn is still a fish?

That question cannot be answered unless you frame it in terms of taxonomic categories. Using loosely defined popular terms for modern creatures instead only promotes confusion.

 

[Lobster Johnson]

i actually never said otherwise.

You did in the part of the comment I bolded, wherein you claimed that it was the logical outcome of what SLP had posted. That was incorrect - both in terms of the sentence itself and that it was the outcome of what SLP said.

note that i added "time".

Doesn't matter. As Speedwell pointed out, even after millions or hundreds of millions of years, if dogs evolved into weird bat-creatures or dolphin-like animals, they'll still be dogs. No matter how much time has passed, you can never escape your ancestry.

so mammals are still reptiles? a dolphn is still a fish?

Yes, for a given value of 'reptile' and 'fish.'

 

[SLP]

so according to that logic- variations of dogs (speciations)+time = non dog. but its more logical to conclude that variations of dogs+time= a variation of dog.

Who asked you?