Macroevolution = shot in the f00t

[progressthruscience]

Macroevolution is typically defined as evolution above the species level. The inherent problem with this is that "species" don't exist. It is entirely a human concept. The biological species concept defines a species as any population capable or potentially capable of interbreeding. This definition provides functional value, however, it has numerous limitations, such as hybrid species and ring species.

[TheProf1988]

@progressthruscience Yes, and it is used to describe events like speciation, stasis and extinction. I still don't like the word, I don't feel there is justification in making two words for two different types of evolution (because there isn't). It causes more confusion and dissent than it helps.

[progressthruscience]

@TheProf1988

I completely agree.

[TheProf1988]

@progressthruscience The trouble is that there are an equally high number of unreliable sources as there are reliable sources when it comes to evolution. The naive are always in danger of being on the recieving end of the wrong definition.

[TheStrayCross]

If I argue with a creationist I use the word "Macroevolution" (since most of them accept "microevolution") as speciation

yeah I know it's dumb but it makes easier to state that many small changes over time accumulate to large changes (which is something I shouldn't need to explain)

[criskity]

"Macroevolution" is a creationist word that they use to contrast with smaller scales of evolution that they've had to concede is real. It's a moving of the goalposts. I too wish scientists wouldn't use the word.

[lavigne943]

imagine how primitive these ideas will be in 300 yrs!

[TreborNotron]

In your words:

'Macroevolution is synonymous with evolution on a large time scale'

'Phylogeny = the evolutionary history of life on Earth'; that is to say, the largest timescale we can have in this context.

So surely we could define Macroevolution as evolution on a large, undefined time scale and Phylogeny as macroevolution but on the largest time scale?

[werterr3]

but that is the clue... there is no such thing as micro and macro evolution......

[Tapajara]

It is interesting to note that the fossil record directly supports macro-evolution regarding human evolution. Really all of the major steps have been worked out from fossils. That is the part that the creationists reject. It is all the little micro steps that are missing simply because we don't have enough resolution in the fossil record. But it is the missing part that they believe in and the part that is not missing that they fear so they ignore the evidence hoping it will go away.

[TheProf1988]

@Tapajara No, the fossil record supports human *evolution*. What did I say? Just lose the cumbersome term.

[Tapajara]

@TheProf1988 I don't buy your idea that if you stop using the terms micro- and macro- that the ideas will simply go away. I studied in graduate school with evolutionists (from a biologist's point of view) and the ideas are too central to evolutionary thought to abandon them. In 2006 my wife and I joined the SVP and were even in Bristol last year for the meetings. It was a wonderful experience. I don't think scientists should form their ideas around skirting a bunch of self- rightious wacos.

[TheProf1988]

@Tapajara I don't have a biological based education, but speaking from a palaeontological point of view we don't need to make any distinction between macro and micro. We just call it ''evolution''.

And I can't stress how important countering creationism is. It is easy for scientists to block out what is happening in the general public and it is THEIR BIGGEST FLAW. Science DEPENDS on training the next generation, and educators are already scared of teaching evolution at schools in England.

[Tapajara]

@TheProf1988 It is iimportant to face and deal with creationism. Every year the SVP has what they call a "town counsil meeting" on evolution where you can buy or bring your lunch and participate. But it is clear that they have no clue how to deal with it. They assume everyone is interested in finding the truth but that is not so. Hard core creationists are not interested in the truth and that is the problem.

[Tapajara]

@TheProf1988 My mother is a creationist and I was brought up bathed in creationism. I know what makes them tick and I know how to deal with them. In order to gain converts, you must give fence-riders what is important to them. As technology advances and knowledge increases, we simply have to raise the line between the explainable and "God". There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving credit to God for creating the laws of physics and providing the original material for the Big Bang.

[TheProf1988]

@Tapajara You misunderstand my motivations, I don't wish to stop people believing in God.

[Tapajara]

The term "Macro-evolution" should not be so troublesome to you. Systematists admit that all taxonomic levels above the species level are only a nomenclatural convenience. You should see the usefulness of a classification system even if it is subjective above the species level. When a new Family, Order, Class or Phylum comes into being, it is much more than just speciation. This level of change is more "macro" than what would create a new species.

[TheProf1988]

@Tapajara I understand systematics, I just don't see the need to extend the word ''evolution'', it's unnecessary and cumbersome. Plus it allows creationist to assert that there are two type sof evolution, one they accept, one they dont't. We invite them to hold that philosophy by using two terms, using just the one would give them an ultimatum.

[Tapajara]

@TheProf1988 I'm not too worried about the creationists. They are in their death throws. The cat has gotten out of the bag and there's nothing they can do to stop the search for truth (the real truth that is). I am more worried about all the people who totally reject the idea of a creator as a backlash against the creationists' who think (or hoping) they are the only ones who can represent righteousness.

[TheProf1988]

@Tapajara Creationists may have been defeated on YouTube but they are growing elsewhere, they have moved off channels frequented by evolutionists. Even where I study palaeobiology and evolution in England we have creationists actually doing the course, all the time gathering up not only valid criticisms of evolution, but a well rounded education too such that they can expound these criticisms to a gullible audience in the future.

[SPACKlick]

Macroevoluition is evolution at or above the species level, it is a focus on the processes that lead to the seperation of breeding populations.

Microevolution is evolution below the species level, it is a focus on how species adapt to environments.

They are both focused subsets of evolution and are separated because there are several mechanisms which are distinct to each, and yes mostly only distinguished on a matter of scale.

[TheProf1988]

@SPACKlick ''Macroevoluition is evolution at or above the species level'' I'll say the same thing to you that I would to any scientist that tells me this also: that sentance does not make any sense. Macroevolution does not make any sense, it is a term that can only be used with an innacurate understanding of biology. What you mean when you say ''mecroevolution'' is speciation, a word that caters more to what it is describing.

[SPACKlick]

@TheProf1988 There are other processes of macroevolution than speciation, extinction is one. The terms are used within biology to distinguish fields of expertise within biology.

[TheProf1988]

@SPACKlick Again, the word macroevolution is rendered defunct and superfluous by the very word you use: extinction. It is a word that better serves its purpose. Speciation and exinction are both processes of EVOLUTION, the word macro is an irrelevence.

[SPACKlick]

@TheProf1988 The same could be said of any specialty with subsets, but if you study both subsets and the surrounding effects you are studying the major set not specifically either of the subsets.

Studying Macro-evolution requires studying a lot of the same factors as evolution as a whole with more detail on certain specific factors related to the species level effects.

[acepanson]

There is neither macroevolution or microevolution, it is just evolution.

macro/microevolution come from creationist people to deny evolution.

[TheProf1988]

@acepanson I totally agree with your first statement, but unfortunately for us the latter is incorrect. It is the scientists that are still clinging to these useless terms and it just gives creationists more leverage.

[deRoyLight]

Totally with you on this. Reading stuff like consevapedia on Evolution gives me a very creepy feeling.

[Maxdwolf]

I used to be of the belief that macroevolution was a term that creationists had just made up. And I'd certainly heard other "evolutionists" make that claim. So I was a bit surprised when I found out otherwise a couple years back.. I pulled up macroevolution just a couple minutes ago on google. Got several scholarly references and some reliable ones (berkely for example)

[TheProf1988]

Challenge them to explain macroevolution. They can't do it without referencing one of several things we already have a better name for.

If you take the term as it is most commonly used by evolutionists it simply means ''phylogeny'', or evolutionary history. I think that that word explains it a lot better.

If you take it to mean the origin of higher taxa you can simply reference the word ''speciation''.

Thanks for the sub btw :)

[DINDRAGON]

macroevolution + biodiversity =

GOTTA CATCH'EM ALL!!!

xD

[ticobassie]

When I was a kid I asked God some kid-questions ... I never received an answer. I stumped God ... doh!

Christians must be quite desperate to exploit someone pausing to think how best to answer a question as an argument against Evolution.

[jeevesbond]

Shit, just rated this one star by accident. Sorry mate.

Oh, and you spelled 'mum' incorrectly in one of your comments. 'mom' is the American spelling.

/anal

[TheProf1988]

Doh!

[athlete117]

The way these terms are used by creationists can only be to confuse, and you're right when you say quite a large number of people seem to have a different definition of the terms.

[TheProf1988]

yeah. I think creationists use the term in order to accept the changes we can see now but not the changes that we cant for the previous millions of years.

Theres simply no way to go back in tome to view it all, so we have to make do with fossils.

If a creationist ever makes this distinction ask them what is there in DNA that can stop the accumulation of change! they cant answer that (honestly) without admitting that they are wrong.

[athlete117]

The terms don't make sense to me either. I simply don't understand what people mean when they say they accept microevolution and not macroevolution. That does not make sense because it's technically a contradiction. You cannot say I accept change in a species but I don't accept change in a species over millions of years. Does that make sense to you? It never fails to throw me. Try explaining the concepts to a creationist/intelligent design advocate though; it is certainly a task beyond me.

[athlete117]

I should clarify that I've been presented with arguments of this sort before. Linguistically, macro and micro are quite easily defined. They are used erroneously - purely from a literary point of view - frequently. Macro should only refer to a summation of the processes which define evolutionary progress in a wide array of species over significant periods of time. Any reference to microevolution can only refer to minor changes observed in single species. Personally, I call it direct evidence.

[blackadderthe4]

Can we not be seen seen as a future transistional fossil, because we have a coccyx? Therefore we are living proof of evolution!

[TheProf1988]

depends what we evolve into

[DINDRAGON]

Coccyx will be lost in future generations because rubbing against a g-string causes migraines (srsly) . Women with a more pronounced coccyx wear g-strings less often and have lesser reproductive success through sexual selection.

;)

[blackadderthe4]

"Coccyx will be lost in future generations" so does that mean we will be classed as a new, evolutionally, human?

[TheProf1988]

I don't think we will ever update our classification of ourselves. We have probably changed a lot over the past 10000 years but we don't live longer than a few generations.

There is simply no one on the outside to measure it all for us. Only a long lived extraterrestrial could objectively tell us if we have evolved significantly.

[DINDRAGON]

No we do not need external observers. We can study the remnants of 10k old ancestors and make conclusions about how much we have changed, if at all. Alternatively we can study our own DNA according to the lineages of modern humans and make conclusions.

[TheProf1988]

Well, reconstructing phylogeny using DNA is only an inductive reasoning method, it doesn't count as an empirical observation.

[DINDRAGON]

If inductive reasoning was not credible, then according to "innocent until proof of the oppossite" prisons would only have people who were convicted for crimes recorded by scientific equipment under experts' supervision.

[TheProf1988]

Sorry, you misunderstand me.

I know the value of inductive reasoning, especially with reference to phylogeny because it can be cross confirmed with the fossil record and embryology and physiology.

What I was referring to is having the ability to sit and watch our own evolution happening like we can watch bacterial evolution happening in a lab. We can't do that because we don't live long enough.

[SPACKlick]

@TheProf1988

That's not true, paleopathologists, paleosteologists and paleoanthropologists study the bones of long dead humans and compare them to modern humans. They note down any evolutionary trends. The key thing that stops us being re-classified is we are not seperated. We'll probably be re-classified if we ever colonise another planet and don't interbreed often.

[TheProf1988]

@SPACKlick We won't reclassify ourselves because we won't notice any change on a day to day level. We won't even observe any change within our lifetime, not with such a slow breeding rate.

[SPACKlick]

@TheProf1988 No, even if we notice a massive change in ourselves (lets be extreme) such as 4 extra limbs we wouldn't re-classify ourselves. If however we split into two groups, who speciate, then we would re-classify ourselves.

We will re-classify only if we diverge into 2.

[TheProf1988]

@SPACKlick Yeah, but what about anagentic speciation? That is most likely the route we will take given world wide travel. We won't notice it so we won't ever have to reclassify ourselves, but even if we do, at what point do we place the boundary? We can't! We won't even be able to find the boundary even if we have a complete phyletic sequence because evolution is gradualistic.

[SPACKlick]

@TheProf1988 If people from Earth 2 cease being able to breed with people from Earth 1 because of how rarely people go back and forth. we will re-classify as two species.

[TingTang1234567]

Sweet student digs :)

I'm enrolled at Lancaster University for a biological sciences degree, and it's cool to see someone who's doing similar study and interests :)

Also, your break down of information is very good :)

[TheProf1988]

Cheers :)

Actually this is my Moms house (its only rented), I'm back at home for summer. back on september 1st.

[Jargonification]

What micro and macro mean to evolution, to me, at least, was mainly two words that had a meaningful relationship with population genetics. Such that;

Speciation: [1] When accumulated variation precludes cross-reproduction and ends genetic diffusion between populations, it becomes speciation.

[2] a mutation is macro-evolutionary to a population it can't diffuse into.

[3]it's [a mutation] micro-evolutionary to those populations it can diffuse into.

[4]macro-evolution is then dependent on [1]

[Jargonification]

It seems that colloquially macro and micro evolution is applied to single celled organism or any organism viewed under a microscope like protists vs. something like a whale. Many creationists hold out that macro life can't evolve b/c some mysterious as of yet undefined mechanism prevents it despite drift etc. From there they only get more conspiratorial, they need to discount observations which would qualify as macro evolution as it can not pass to a former population due to recent speciation.

[TheProf1988]

again, this is your personal definition and it is much closer to the definition of speciation than to evolution. In this case it is universally accepted to use the word that makes the most sense to describe speciation (i.e; speciation)

[TAz69x]

As I have understood it when generally applied to linguistic contextual basis', macroevolution involves referral to the summed aggregation of microevolution positing a notable functional difference within an organism, and microevolution specifies the minute differentiation through mutation and heredity as applied through truncated generational traversal.

From there, subgroups of nomenclature are used to refer to more notable differentiation between speciation and other scales of diversity.

[TheProf1988]

That is one definition of macroevolution. There are others, however, which is the problem I have with it. We need a universally accepted (90% agreement)way to properly define.

We also already have better descriptive words and phrasiology to refer to the differences in the various lines of phylogenetic descent.

Macroevolution is a wastebasket term that is so ill-defined. More to the point, it is not even worth defining as it has a redundant meaning.

[gregrutz]

You are right, you need macro evolution so you can have micro evolution, You need micro evolution because

1. You can see evolution work. But it's still a germ.

2. You can't get all those animals on the boat.

[Jargonification]

Their page represents a common thread amongst pseudo science proponents, conspiracy theories, religious fundamentalists, and thats the facts of the matter aren't what's important it's the narrative that is stressed. People easily confuse emotion as reason,especially in today age they're almost taught that it's correct to, & so It is style and story, not content or history or reality,which inform their politics and lives.Their site reflects exactly this naive and wrong way at viewing the world.

[TheProf1988]

Yeah, what makes me laugh is that if you purport and argument using logic and reason and explain things unambiguously people can come to the correct conclusion.

They are not interested in people forming a conclusion, they are interested in making sure that everybody comes to THEIR conclusion; thus their biased, one sided and erroneous argument.

same thing with abstinance only sex ed and the ''homosexual agenda'' arguments.

[TheProf1988]

Yes, but still, the distinction is pointless. small and large life forms evolve in the same way.

on a side note, you are from Papua New Guinea? My lecturer has recently been there with a TV crew and a creationist to go looking for the 'Ropen', which is supposed to be a living Pterosaur.

Ever heard about or seen any sightings of it?

[C0nc0rdance]

Then, you also can divide evolution into two basic concepts:

1. Common descent of all organisms on Earth.

2. Mechanisms of genetic change and speciation.

Some people will accept 2, but not 1. But THEY CAN'T TELL YOU WHY! 1 can naturally follow from 2, but it strains our intuitive sense to imagine "deep time" and gradual change over millions of generations of organisms.

Dawkins uses "argument from personal incredulity" and that's very accurate.

[TheProf1988]

Part of me feals guilty that scientists and teachers don't do a lot to help resolve this situation. Evolution (the word) seems to be a mess, it conjures up too much (in the public eye) to even say it.

I am planning a video to break the theory of evolution into its constituant laws for better clarity. e.g; the priciples of natural selection, genetic drift, sexual selection, genetic inheritance, variation under domestication etc

[GUTCHUCKER]

I was under the impression that macroevolution was just evolution over a long time... Big evolution? It doesn't make a lot of sense, I suppose.

I think a lot of scientists like using buzzwords. I know for certain my Biology uses useless words like 'utilise' and crams in plenty of 7-syllable jargon words that can be reduced to three or four letters.

[C0nc0rdance]

Thanks for the response, Prof.

I have two tests for publication: the platypus test (414 publications) and the Godzilla test (10 publications). There are millions of published papers in PubMed, so they serve as a measuring stick for what is more real than Godzilla or more relevant than a platypus.

Macroevolution and microevolution are mentioned in the science literature more than Godzilla, but less than platypus. So they may be real, but they aren't relevant.

[TheProf1988]

I like those tests :p We should employ them officially.