Micro and Macro Evolution- What is the Real Difference
Evolutionists first- From Talk Origins:
Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa.In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
From Jerry Coyne:
“MACROEVOLUTION: ‘Major’ evolutionary change, usually thought of as large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type. The change from our primate ancestor to modern humans, or from early reptiles to birds, would be considered macroevolution.
“MICROEVOLUTION: ‘Minor’ evolutionary change, such as the change in size or color of a species. One example is the evolution of different skin colors or hair types among human populations; another is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.”- Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution Is True. 2009. Oxford University Press, Glossary, pp. 268-269.
What do creationists say?:
evolution, biological n.
1) “microevolution”—the name used by many evolutionists to describe genetic variation, the empirically observed phenomenon in which exisiting potential variations within the gene pool of a population of organisms are manifested or suppressed among members of that population over a series of generations. Often simplistically (and erroneously) invoked as “proof” of “macro evolution” 2) macroevolution—the theory/belief that biological population changes take (and have taken) place (typically via mutations and natural selection) on a large enough scale to produce entirely new structural features and organs, resulting in entirely new species, genera, families, orders, classes, and phyla within the biological world, by generating the requisite (new) genetic information. Many evolutionists have used “macro-evolution” and “Neo-Darwinism” as synonymous for the past 150 years.
Some evos will say that micro is changes within the species, ie at or below the species level and macro is changes above the species. But that is too vague, besides YECs accept speciation so by that definition YECs would accept macroevolution.
Got that? Macroevolution is the evolution of new body plans requiring new body parts.
The point? EvoTards claim that macro-evolution is just more micro-evolution. IOW micro-evolutionary events add up to equal macro-evolution.
But is that claim supported by the evidence?
Let's look. With micro-evolution we get variation in beaks in finches. Variation in beaks cannot be added up to get something other than a bird, nor something other than a finch. No new body plans. No new body parts.
Well how about anti-biotic resistance? Another no:
Evolutionists frequently point to the development of antibiotic resistance by bacteria as a demonstration of evolutionary change. However, molecular analysis of the genetic events that lead to antibiotic resistance do not support this common assumption. Many bacteria become resistant by acquiring genes from plasmids or transposons via horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal transfer, though, does not account for the origin of resistance genes, only their spread among bacteria. Mutations, on the other hand, can potentially account for the origin of antibiotic resistance within the bacterial world, but involve mutational processes that are contrary to the predictions of evolution. Instead, such mutations consistently reduce or eliminate the function of transport proteins or porins, protein binding affinities, enzyme activities, the proton motive force, or regulatory control systems. While such mutations can be regarded as “beneficial,” in that they increase the survival rate of bacteria in the presence of the antibiotic, they involve mutational processes that do not provide a genetic mechanism for common “descent with modification.” Also, some “relative fitness” cost is often associated with such mutations, although reversion mutations may eventually recover most, if not all, of this cost for some bacteria. A true biological cost does occur, however, in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems or functions. Such loss of cellular activity cannot legitimately be offered as a genetic means of demonstrating evolution.
Got that? No matter how many mutations occur bacteria give rise to bacteria. Even with endosymbiosis all you get is bacteria with mitochondria or chloroplasts, which does not make it a eukaryote.
Lenski? 50,000+ generations and no new protein complexes.
Modifying existing structures- well just what in an invertebrate can be modified as to give rise to vertebrates?
Single-cell anemia is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution.
Change in eye color is another micro-evolutionary event that isn't going to lead to macro-evolution.
The point being is there isn't anything in micro-evolutionary events that anyone can extrapolate to a macro-evolutionary event meaning evotards are liars. But we already knew that.
However I am sure evotards can IMAGINE micro-evolutionary event adding up to a macro-evolutionary event. And as long as they can IMAGINE it they think it is science.