MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Ok. The only life that evolved in a sense on the earth is plant life. It was not random, it was divine in origination. And the limits are divine as well. I don't know where that fits into the terms of micro or macro change but I don't think those ideas fit the image I'm describing. I will say it COULD appear as though it was micro and macro to those who are using Science today. ...

Okay, so we start with an archaic blue-green algae, which diverges into more types of algae and eventually you get rooted plants, grasses, trees and flowering plants.

The fossil record shows a gradual progression of evolution of plants in nested hierarchies.

... each according to its kind. ...

What's a kind? Do you mean a clade (wiki)?

quote:

---

A clade (from Ancient Greek: κλάδος, klados, "branch") is a group of organisms that consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single "branch" on the "tree of life".[1]

---

So a parent population forms a clade with all their descendants, each reproducing in the manner of their parent. Is that what you mean?

This involves both MICROevolution and MACROevolution as those terms are used by scientists:

(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

This process is observed everyday, in the lab and in the field. This is also called MICROevolution.

If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population.

(2) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

If anagenesis was all that occurred, then all life would be one species, readily sharing DNA via horizontal transfer (asexual) and interbreeding (sexual) and various combinations. This is not the case, however, because there is a second process that results in multiple species and increases the diversity of life.

(3) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

The reduction or loss of interbreeding (gene flow, sharing of mutations) between the sub-populations results in different evolutionary responses within the separated sub-populations, each then responds independently to their different ecological challenges and opportunities, and this leads to divergence of hereditary traits between the subpopulations and the frequency of their distributions within the sub-populations.

These processes have all been observed today, and thus we know it is a fact that these processes do actually occur in nature.

The formation of diverse descendants and nested hierarchies is what is called MACROevolution in science.

This means that the basic processes of "macroevolution" are observed, known objective facts, and not untested hypothesies, even if major groups of species are not observed forming (which would take many many generations).

(4) The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution. These same processes can be observed in the fossil record, for plants and for animals.

Now I noticed you said nothing about the animals yet, but more curiously to me is that creationism never mentions bacteria.

You and all other animals would not live without bacteria, as they are essential for the digestion of food. A significant portion of your bodyweight is made up of these beneficial bacteria.

Likewise, rooted plants would not live without bacteria that converts mineral nitrogen to fertilizing nitrates.

Yet I find no mention of bacteria in the bible.

13And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

Curious how you correlate that with the deep age of the earth. Seems like a very long day, and a different definition for day than we currently use.

... And what I mean by Science is the kinda stuff you can actually observe in a lab.

Curiously what you mean by science is totally irrelevant. Scientists are the ones who get to define what science is and isn't, and they care more about the ant frasse in antarctica than you under informed opinion.

Science deals with what you can observe by any means anywhere anywhen. The only one you fool with your denial is yourself. I could just as easily say that the only bible I recognize as pertinent is a children's version:

But I somehow imagine that you would not find it sufficient for your argument (you use the King James, yes?)

Ignoring science does not make it go away, trying to redefine it doesn't alter it's validity, calling it by a different name doesn't change the work being done, day after day, by scientists in labs, in the field, in space.

Now you may think I have gone long and explained more details than you expected in response. That is because I treat creationist post as teaching moments for the silent readers of this forum, some struggling with whether or not the beliefs of their parents are valid in today's world, and in relation to the reality observed in the world, the solar system and the far reaches of the universe.

The difference between science and religion is that science provides a consistent explanatory network of information, facts and theories for how things happened. Geneis doesn't.

Enjoy

I say microevolution is evolution that occurs within a genus - which includes speciation (I think I've got that right).
Macroevolution is the evolution of one genus into another genus, and any evolution above the level of genus.

and any evolution above the level of genus.

I don't understand what this means. What is evolving?

Evolution is a side effect of reproduction. Individual organisms reproduce. They belong to a species.

A group of related species may share a genus, but genera do not reproduce or evolve.

I say ...

What you say is irrelevant. What you need to use is what science says, otherwise you are only creating and spreading misinformation and confusion. Learn the science and use the scientific terms as they are defined by the science, not some made up garbage.

...microevolution is evolution that occurs within a genus - which includes speciation (I think I've got that right). ...

Nope you got it very wrong. Microevolution is evolution that occurs within a species, and that is where all evolution occurs:

The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats.

Breeding populations are by the scientific definition of species composed of one species. There can be multiple breeding populations for any given species, but only one species in a breedng population.

Macroevolution is the evolution of one genus into another genus, ...

And still wrong. Macroevolution is the evolution of one (parent) species into another (daughter) species, this occurs in two ways:

(1) The process of lineal change within species is sometimes called phyletic speciation, or anagenesis.

and

(2) The process of divergent speciation, or cladogenesis, involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.

This results in gradual change over time, increased diversity and nested hierarchies.

... and any evolution above the level of genus.

There is no evolution above the level of species:

The Theory of Evolution (ToE), stated in simple terms, is that the process of anagenesis, and the process of cladogenesis, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us.

This theory is tested by experiments and field observations carried out as part of the science of evolution.

If a species is observed to change over generations (anagenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) changes in the expressed hereditary traits (genes, morphology, development), (b) that the changes were either neutral or improved the survival and reproductive success of individuals in response to their ecological challenges and opportunities and (c) that if they improved the fitness of the carriers that it will spread within the breeding population in following generations.

This has been observed.

If a clade is observed to form (cladogenesis), we can predict that it will be due to (a) reproductive isolation between daughter populations and (b) independent evolution (anagenesis) within each daughter population. We can also predict the formation of the clade will fall within a nested hierarchy pattern.

This has been observed.

These predictions can be tested again and again against the fossil record, the genetic record, the historical record, and the everyday record of life we observe in the world all around us. Biologists have been testing this theory for 150 plus years, and thus far they have confirmed that the process of evolution, and the further process of speciation, are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

Enjoy

subbie writes: The answer to this question is the same as the answer to the question, "What does 'kind' mean?"

I'm a Old Earth creationist, and I think the Genesis "kind" refers to, not the original creatures God created, but to the "kinds" that exist now (or more precisely, the "kinds" that existed at the time Genesis was written).

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

But that still isn't a definition of "kind."

Dredge writes: I'm a Old Earth creationist, and I think the Genesis "kind" refers to, not the original creatures God created, but to the "kinds" that exist now (or more precisely, the "kinds" that existed at the time Genesis was written).

What criteria do you use to determine if two species belong to the same kind?

Dredge writes: I think the Genesis "kind" refers to, not the original creatures God created, but to the "kinds" that exist now (or more precisely, the "kinds" that existed at the time Genesis was written).

Genesis uses "kind" much like we do: "What kind of dog is that?" Chihuahuas produce Chihuahuas and German Shepherds produce German Shepherds - but Genesis does not say that kinds can not change. That is something that creationists made up.