Macro and Micro Evolution

quote:

---

Messenjah, my question is:
What then is macro evolution?

---

Ill try to answer this question with this definition macro-evolution: the upward progression in complexity from bacteria to man. A few links below might help the understanding of the difference, Both state that new taxnomic groups may arise but their is a definition between the two that must first be understood.In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - LifeSciences.html
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Life SciencesThank you
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

quote:

---

Your site simply asserts the same thing you asserted, Sonic.

---

Which is?

quote:

---

Could you tell us where micro evolution leaves off and macro starts perhaps?

---

Ill answer this with a question: Why dont you tell me were the two forms of evolution connect without asserting?

quote:

---

Could you tell us what stops a number of "micro changes" becoming big enough to be called "macro"?

---

Could you tell me how micro-evolution steps, could have lead up to a macro-evolutionary change?

quote:

---

Could you give us some examples of the most extreme cases of change that are still "micro"?

---

Sure, take two species of dogs, and mate them, this could create a new species. "My sight" already explained this understanding, so I am not sure why you need a defintion.

quote:

---

Could you give us some examples of the smallest changes that are still "macro"?

---

No, because I dont believe their have been any which are classified as macro changes.

quote:

---

BTW, I think you are new, in which case, welcome aboard. Just don't expect a free ride. If you think you have something to say be prepared to defend it. If you're not then you will be ignored (at best). Good luck!

---

Thank you. well met.Sonic

quote:

---

I don't think there are two separate forms of of evolution so I don't have to show any connection. I certainly can't suggest any connection between these two, apparently very separate things (according to you), if I'm not sure what you mean by them.
We both agree that micro evolution occurs. I think it is all micro evolution repeated over and over. You don't. So you tell me where the deviding line is. If you introduce new terms (e.g., "kind") you will have to define them. Perhaps you could use this thread for that or open your own.

---

The terms which I am representing are not new but I will move forth with such a conclusion and provide a defintion. The difference between Micro and Macro-evolution are that Micro-evolution can only lead up to a horizontal change, such as a new type of dog with the same amount of limbs and same formation, or a new color in humans, perhaps take the example of black becoming white, it involves black to brown to white as we see today (note: that their are inbetween shades from black to brown and from brown to white). Macro-evolution would present that Bacterian became Man at some point, (i.e. a vertical change) which is much more then a small change(i.e. horizontal change) which would be macro-evolution. I present that change is limited to Micro-evolution according to all obervations and say that nothing supports macro-evolution not even the fossil record because the fossil record does not show the same intermediate changes as we see today in the skin color of man.Thank you
Sonic

There are mechinisms which disprove that idea such as the mechinisms Quiz mentiond.Thank you
Sonic

The difference between vertical and horizontal is a good enough destinction to say that it is theoretical to say macroevolution occured. The idea between the two differences is that natural selection explains that the dominate species will win and as such this permits a change but only a change in species present and allows mutation to a degree, and which wont allow mutation to progress in a positive way. And as such you cannot say that microevolution eventually leads into macroevolution.Thank You
Sonic

I never said that macro-evolution didn't occur, I simply said that the evidence does not suggest such a occurance.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

I already have read that page and that is were I get my understanding of evolution.Thank You
Sonic

I can see that I confused you on my standpoint. I cant say without a doubt that macro did occur, but the way I feel about macroevolution is that it didn't occur, but that is based on evidence. Could macro have occured, maybe and maybe not. I am more inclined to think that it didn't. I hope that helps.Thank you
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

I am well aware of everything you just suggested and just because I disagree with you does not mean I dont understand evolution, It just means I disagree, Yeah that is possible.Now yes, I want to discuss these ideas at a personal level, that is why I am here, to debate, to learn, that should be why you are here also. But apparently you know everything from the way you present your self, You seem to jump the gun and come to odd-ball conclusions, which I really dont understand ever, such as, where in the world did you get that I dont want to discuss these topics at a personal level?.Thank you
Sonic

Clear up complexity? Maybe you could explain what you mean by clearing it up, I think that idea should be obviouse for one such as your self.Thank You
Sonic

Moving on too, what are you confused about, wise one?Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

quote:

---

You could back up to my post 63, 67 and 70 and answer the questions I have there perhaps. Thanks.

---

Maybe this will answer all of those questions in one sweep as the only question I can really find is one which you dont understand the distinction between micro and macro.

quote:

---

I see how I worded that poorly and you misunderstood. What I mean is what is the smallest gap between two living species would you consider to be across a 'macro' change boundary? From you dog example, I would presume that the difference between a fox and a dog would be 'macro' and uncrossable by evolution of the 'micro' type.

---

This understanding posted by you is correct, and in order for a fox to become a dog or vice versa you would need about 25-35 or more intermediates for the fossil record to suggest evolution of this catagory. You would also need the DNA record to support the idea for it to become factual, which we dont have today.Dont try and tell me no you would not, I say you would because, if you look at the skin color ratio today, it is obviouse to say that eather white or black was first, I believe the theory is that black was first and lead to white, but if you were to look at the people today you would find over 30-40 complexions between black and brown and the same for brown to white. with this principle in mind, I would expect to find the same information in the fossil record concering fossils but we dont we just find black brown then white for example, sure brown would be a intermediate fossil and sure we may only have 1% of the fossil record but that would suggest 1% of that 1% would be intermediate fossils atleast, but we are lucky if we have .1% of 1% intermediates. Which means that those .1% claimed intermediates are not intermediates. In otherwords the fossil record does not support evolution to the magnitude of macro-evolution. Then we have the dna record which reports a huge difference between man and ape and whatever else. To many differences to say that macro-evolution occured, Macroevolution is theoretical and a guess at best. (note: this conclusion of mine does not say that macro-evolution didn't occur it just exemplifies that I dont agree with it.)Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-22-2003]

Interesting. The type of evolution which is explained in that article is still micro-evolution(i.e. breading of different species).Thank You
Sonic

No, what I was saying is that if DOGS were to continue to bread inside their own species and become a fox, that would be macro-evolution and that I dont agree with.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]

The fossil record does not support such an idea and neather does dna. Please read post 94, it explains better what I mean.Thank You
Sonic[This message has been edited by Sonic, 11-23-2003]