I disagree with Nosy that this is the wrong thread to discuss DaVxOr's self-proclaimed extensive knowledge of evolutionary theory. Especially since the Micro-Macro thread is closed due to size limitations.
Basically, Evolution is the change of species over an extremely large period of time. This is caused by a small mutation in the gene of an animal, which is then passed on to its offspring. This change is completely random, and must happen over a number of thousand years depending on the type of mutation.
No, it isn't. Evolution is a quantifiable change in the prevalence of inheritable traits or characteristics in a specific population of organisms over one or more generations. Although mutation is the primary method of generating novel phenotypes, genetic recombination (and occasionally, especially in plants, gene doubling or polyploidy) of existing alleles, genetic drift, and even insertion of retroviral sequences through reverse transcription can also be responsible for this change. It is a stochastic process, and in the main can be considered "random" in the sense that such changes at the genetic level cannot be predicted in advance. However, the principle mechanism of evolution is natural selection = the action of biotic and abiotic environmental factors on the expressed phenotypes. NS operates at the level of the individual organism, and in the main represents factors external to the organism itself. In that sense, these factors are deterministic and hence non-random.
The timeframe needed for this change is dependent on the generation time of the population and the type of genetic change that drives the change in phenotype. In the case of polyploidy in plants, the change can occur in a single generation. Population size also has a significant effect, as mutations or novel traits in large populations tend to become swamped and disappear, whereas such a change in a small population may have a better chance of becoming "fixed" (i.e., spreading throughout the population over time) if it provides a net survival/reproductive advantage. Drift also operates much more rapidly in a small population through purely stochastic means. The size of the mutation is immaterial, as long as the mutant allele can exist for a period of polymorphism with extant alleles in the population until it becomes fixed.
Evolution can be divided into Macro and Micro Evolutions. The two types differ completely, one being a variation of the species, the others a complete species to species transformation.
No it can't, no they don't, and no that's not what the terms mean.
In the first instance, the distinction is wholly arbitrary. In a technical sense, the terms were coined to delimit the patterns obtained from the fossil record from those processes readily observed in living populations. Macroevolution is a description or explanation of the pattern of discontinuity observed when paleontologists examine the record of life over tens of millions of years. It describes the "sudden" (in geological terms) appearance of organisms that appear to represent new lineages at a taxonomic level higher than species (i.e., the "first" representative of a new family or order). However, most of the characteristics of the "new" lineage are ALWAYS traceable to a previous ancestor specimen. Moreover, the discontinuities apparent in the record are justifiably attributable to artifacts of geology and the processes of fossilization. Indeed, numbers of lineages DO show a gradual transition - we have quite a few fossil rich lineages that document the transitions, to the point we can show trilobites, for instance, diversifying over millions of years and ultimately representing four complete taxonomic orders. The point to emphasize here is that
quote:
...all macroevolutionary processes take place in populations and in the genotypes of individuals, and are thus simultaneously microevolutionary processes. (Mayr, E 2001, "What Evolution Is", Basic Books, pg 190)
There is NO fundamental difference between the two terms when used as intended.
The different types of animals have adapted to their surroundings for optimum effectiveness.
Again, incorrect. Different populations adapt to their surroundings to the point they are "good enough", not optimal. If populations were optimally adapted, there would be no record of background extinction, nor would there be any further evolution. As there is no evidence that populations or species are eternal, and are in fact constantly changing in response to environmental factors, an "optimum" adaptation is only theoretical. This is not to say that a given population couldn't achieve something approaching a local optima. However, it is more likely that an optimally adapted population would quickly become extinct due to the ever-changing nature of the biotic and abiotic factors impinging on them.
Macro Evolution, on the other hand, is the theory that one species can become an entirely new species, given even larger amounts of time (billions of years) for even a small change in species. Under Macro Evolution, over years, animals can morph into a more effective species. This is what the theory of evolution is based off of.
This is a strawman version of evolution. As I have pointed out above, populations change gradually over the generations. Given enough generations (and a bit of luck to avoid local, regional, or mass extinction events), populations that develop divergeant characteristics from the parent population can diversify quite easily into new species. These new species, again over a sufficient number of generations, may have diverged to the point that, in reference to the parent population, they no longer can realistically be classified in the same genus. With even more time, the changes accumulate to the point where the daughter lineage may more properly be categorized into a new family or even order (c.f., trilobites). Meanwhile of course, there is nothing to preclude either the parent OR daughter species from splitting again, and again, and again.
Alternatively, the parent or one or more of the daughter species may become extinct. Picture this: species A -> species B -> species C -> D (where "->" equates to a speciation event, or as you would say, microevolution). If all of the A through D species are living contemporaneously, it's relatively easy to see the small scale transitions - a nice line of begats between A and D. However, suppose A and D continue, and B and C become extinct. All of a sudden you have a major (macroevolutionary) discontinuity in the record. A and D are really divergeant, and might be classified in completely novel genera or families. Worse yet, what happens if C lived in a place where fossilization was unlikely, and we never find it? Now we have an even greater apparent discontinuity - a huge gap between A and D with nothing even resembling a transitional to fill it. However, the "macroevolutionary gap" is only apparent - not real.
The theory of evolution basically states that, after the big bang, proteins and amino acids formed. Through these amino acids and proteins (and a shock from lightning), a small single celled organism was formed. This organism multiplied, and over generations of generations of generations, a mutation occurred. Its replications now contained the mutation. Many more mutations occurred, causing eventual plant and non-plant life. Eventually, the mutations grew so variant that multiple species were formed.
This is so totally bizarre, and so totally wrong, I don't even know where to start. You've conflated cosmology with a really wacked abiogenesis strawman with the formation of the first cell (which occured quite a while after the chemical transition to protolife) with a misunderstanding of mutation, speciation, etc. You've even lumped all life into plant - non/plant (ever heard of bacteria? Archaea? etc). You need to either completely re-write this paragraph, expand it (and support it), or admit you don't have the first clue about evolutionary theory - or even biology.
guess that wasn’t explained too well, but I know and understand a lot more of evolution than that. Well, I suppose every one of you is now going to embowel each of my sentences telling me ways or details I was incorrect on or how I misunderstood something. I’m no expert on it, but I do know more about evolution than the average atheists I know, to say the least.
Who needs to quibble over details? You have so many fundamental conceptual errors here that details are irrelevant. You're even less of an expert on the subject than my 12-year-old daughter. And she's a theist.
™ Version 4.2