Is Macroevolution a misnomer?

[Btodd]

Hearing ID'ers make arguments against evolution, it is often stated that they acknowledge microevolution (described as evolutionary changes within a species), but that 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution'.

Is Macroevolution even a meaningful term? They acknowledge the numerous changes within a species over long periods of time, yet they deny that any change ever leads to a new species. Isn't it really a question of where you draw the line, so to speak?

Eventually, only after numerous tiny changes do you have something so vastly different that it's a new species, so wouldn't it be impossible to even state that there is such a thing as Macroevolution, since it merely appears to be a term used to corral all of the Microevolution that has taken place?

So really, there ISN'T any 'big leap' in itself that could be considered Macroevolution, thereby making the argument a smokescreen. Further, since these changes are FAR outside the span of a lifetime, then the 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution' would also be an illogical statement.

Am I on the right track here?


Btodd

 

[elcapitan]

Hearing ID'ers make arguments against evolution, it is often stated that they acknowledge microevolution (described as evolutionary changes within a species), but that 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution'.

Is Macroevolution even a meaningful term? They acknowledge the numerous changes within a species over long periods of time, yet they deny that any change ever leads to a new species. Isn't it really a question of where you draw the line, so to speak?

Eventually, only after numerous tiny changes do you have something so vastly different that it's a new species, so wouldn't it be impossible to even state that there is such a thing as Macroevolution, since it merely appears to be a term used to corral all of the Microevolution that has taken place?

So really, there ISN'T any 'big leap' in itself that could be considered Macroevolution, thereby making the argument a smokescreen. Further, since these changes are FAR outside the span of a lifetime, then the 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution' would also be an illogical statement.

Am I on the right track here?


Btodd

Yes, you are on the right track. "Macroevolution" is just the accumulation of small changes from "microevolution". The "line" between micro and macroevolution is imaginary and arbitrary.

If, as ID proponents say, microevolution occurs but not macroevolution, there would have to be a biological pathway to prevent macroevolution. No such pathway exists, because, as said earlier, macroevolution is just the result of microevolution over a larger time period.

 

[Mincus]

I seem to remember mentioning in a previous thread (semi-sarcastically) that there was a "magical force" preventing the "species" change. AV1611VET seemed to agree with that. So, to some there is a limit to the number of changes although where the line is drawn, I myself couldn't say. To me it is obvious that "macro" and "micro" evolution are simply different stages of the same process.

EDITED TO ADD: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=26999130&postcount=54
Post in question.

 

[Nathan45]

Basically this is the creationist's way of retreating to what they perceive as steadier ground...

Natural Selection is so blindingly obvious that creationists don't even bother denying it anymore, they just deny its scope. Obviously (in general) the animals fit to survive survive, and the ones unfit to survive don't survive, so all you need is a mechanism for inserting randomness and recording some changes from generation to generation ( read: Genetic Code ) and that's natural selection.

So now we have this imaginary distinction between "Micro" and "Macro" Evolution, so that they admit that God DID use evolution to influence his creations, but only between "Kinds". Whatever....

The distinction is completely imaginary, of course, and speciation in most cases takes thousands or millions of years.

( contrary to popular creationists interpretation, species don't suddenly "Become" other species, it's all gradual... basically, what usually happens is that two or more populations of the same species are isolated from each other, and genetic drift and takes them into totally different directions, eventually they get so different from each other they could be called different species. So its not like a "human" ever mated with an "ape", instead you have a large population of human like, ape like creatures all evolving into humans together, one step at a time. )

But of course "macroevolution" or "Kinds" as stated by creationists has no real definition, because that would allow scientists to actually design tests to prove that changes can occur.

Seriously though, if something like a wolf can turn into a chihuahua or a wiener dog in 10,000-20,000 years due to our artificial meandering, I think natural selection would be able to do quite a lot more given a few billion years to work with.

But I predict the next step in this, the creationists are going to finally admit that macroevolution could occur and common descent is plausible, but they'll say it didn't actually happen because the earth is 6000 years old.

Then all we'll be debating is (pre)history, with a bunch of scientists showing the creationists a bunch of fossils, geology and other useful evidence, and the creationists still pointing scientists to that old book of theirs.

 

[arunma]

The word "macroevolution" appeared many times in my undergraduate biology textbook, the same textbook that criticized creationism. So no, I would think that biologists do not consider it a meaningless term.

 

[MoonLancer]

thats because scientists came up with the word, but the word itself does not imply a barrier between the two. Just as lots of small things make up a big thing so to does micro add up to macro.

Its Christians who used the words to imply a wedge between the two however.

 

[Allegory]

God prevents any species from changing more than 5 things.

 

[JamesDaJust]

Hearing ID'ers make arguments against evolution, it is often stated that they acknowledge microevolution (described as evolutionary changes within a species), but that 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution'.

Yeah thats right ID'ers know better...

Is Macroevolution even a meaningful term?

Only 4 non Id'ers.

They acknowledge the numerous changes within a species over long periods of time,

Numerous, Yeah sure.

yet they deny that any change ever leads to a new species.

You mean like Da monkey and Da man??

Isn't it really a question of where you draw the line, so to speak?

Yep! Also definitions of evolution, change, species, numerous and leads.

Eventually, only after numerous tiny changes do you have something so vastly different that it's a new species,

Opinion realated..

so wouldn't it be impossible to even state that there is such a thing as Macroevolution,

Yes, in my opinion.

since it merely appears to be a term used to corral all of the Microevolution that has taken place?

None sorry. No evidence.

Further, since these changes are FAR outside the span of a lifetime, then the 'no one has ever witnessed macroevolution' would also be an illogical statement.

Nope, we can look at the fossil record and say it's false.

Am I on the right track here?

Yes, you have discovered the problems of not excepting your Fathers word.

I like you,
JamesDaJust
</IMG></IMG></IMG>

 

[Btodd]

Numeerous, Yeah sure </IMG></IMG></IMG>

You make it hard to take you seriously with the numerous spelling errors, one-liner replies and tourette's-ish use of emoticons.

But you seem to be implying that not only do you not believe in Macroevolution, but microevolution as well?

Is that correct? You don't think life evolves, even within species?


Btodd

 

[gamespotter10]

we actually have seen macroevolution. take for example the culex molestus. the culex molestus actually evolved from the culex pipeins. there are a few examples. take for example canids. all canids are decendants of wolves. there are many different species of canids. there are different generas of canids. this is macroevolution which humans have unwittingly driven

 

[JamesDaJust]

You make it hard to take you seriously with the numerous spelling errors, one-liner replies and tourette's-ish use of emoticons.

But you seem to be implying that not only do you not believe in Macroevolution, but microevolution as well?

Is that correct? You don't think life evolves, even within species?


Btodd

Hi Bob.
I don't believe in macroevolution correct.
There are numerous examples of micro evolution.
Bye the way you have me interpreting and old fave. definition of evolution.
</IMG>

JamesDaJust believes in Goddidit.

 

[JamesDaJust]

we actually have seen macroevolution. take for example the culex molestus. the culex molestus actually evolved from the culex pipeins. there are a few examples. take for example canids. all canids are decendants of wolves. there are many different species of canids. there are different generas of canids. this is macroevolution which humans have unwittingly driven

NOPE! Just mankind and natural gene manipulation.

[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]

 

[JamesDaJust]

Basically this is the creationist's way of retreating to what they perceive as steadier ground...

Natural Selection is so blindingly obvious that creationists don't even bother denying it anymore, they just deny its scope. Obviously (in general) the animals fit to survive survive, and the ones unfit to survive don't survive, so all you need is a mechanism for inserting randomness and recording some changes from generation to generation ( read: Genetic Code ) and that's natural selection.

So now we have this imaginary distinction between "Micro" and "Macro" Evolution, so that they admit that God DID use evolution to influence his creations, but only between "Kinds". Whatever....

The distinction is completely imaginary, of course, and speciation in most cases takes thousands or millions of years.

( contrary to popular creationists interpretation, species don't suddenly "Become" other species, it's all gradual... basically, what usually happens is that two or more populations of the same species are isolated from each other, and genetic drift and takes them into totally different directions, eventually they get so different from each other they could be called different species. So its not like a "human" ever mated with an "ape", instead you have a large population of human like, ape like creatures all evolving into humans together, one step at a time. )

But of course "macroevolution" or "Kinds" as stated by creationists has no real definition, because that would allow scientists to actually design tests to prove that changes can occur.

Seriously though, if something like a wolf can turn into a chihuahua or a wiener dog in 10,000-20,000 years due to our artificial meandering, I think natural selection would be able to do quite a lot more given a few billion years to work with.

But I predict the next step in this, the creationists are going to finally admit that macroevolution could occur and common descent is plausible, but they'll say it didn't actually happen because the earth is 6000 years old.

Then all we'll be debating is (pre)history, with a bunch of scientists showing the creationists a bunch of fossils, geology and other useful evidence, and the creationists still pointing scientists to that old book of theirs.

Only truth in what you said is

"admit that God DID"

 

[MoonLancer]

so it was god that made the wiener dog? thats not something i would like on my resume.

 

[Loudmouth]

As arunma mentioned, macroevolution is an important term within biology and evolution. Macroevolution is defined as change at or above the level of species. This means that the process of speciation is, by definition, macroevolution. Biologists have observed speciation in the lab and in the wild so macroevolution has been observed. Microevolution is change below the level of species. It is incorrect to state (by omission) that macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolution. It leaves out the important mechanism of speciation.

It is also important to note that the only objective taxonomic division in biology is the at the species level. All other taxonomic divisions (eg Family, Order, Genus) are human constructs that are somewhat arbitrary. This is why biologists are quickly moving to cladistics which better describes the organization of species.

When you see a creationist state that macroevolution or "created kinds" occur at the taxonomic divisions above the level of species you can be assured they are talking out of their . . . well, they aren't talking out of their mouths.

 

[Split Rock]

Nope, we can look at the fossil record and say it's false.

Can you then explain why the fossil record shows us that entire ecosystems in the past were different than what we see today?

Can you explain why we cannot find a single living species in the fossil record?

 

[elcapitan]

NOPE! Just mankind and natural gene manipulation.

Yes, natural gene manipulation, i.e. evolution.

From a biological viewpoint of the evolving organism it doesn't matter whether nature or man changed the environment; the organisms will evolve anyway.

 

[cerad]

1+1+1=3 => Micro Evolution
1+1+1+1+1=5 => Macro Evolution
1+1+1+1+1=3 => Creationism

 

[WhiteMageGirl]

1+1+1=3 => Micro Evolution
1+1+1+1+1=5 => Macro Evolution
1+1+1+1+1=3 => Creationism

Actually the correct answer is goddidit, because creationists don't deal in real answers.

 

[FishFace]

Actually the correct answer is goddidit, because creationists don't deal in real answers.

If they don't deal in real answers then would it not be something like:

1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = i

?