[DrStrangelove]

I, myself, am a microevolutionist. Which would you call yourself?

Moderators- I am sorry, but I have no idea where this thread should go. Move it as you see fit.

[Janiel]

I, myself, am a microevolutionist. Which would you call yourself?

Moderators- I am sorry, but I have no idea where this thread should go. Move it as you see fit.

i've umm, never heard of either, wanna fill me in?

[Consummate Deist]

Microevolution is a species changing slightly to accomodate changes in enviornment, life style, etc. Macroevolution is many thousands of microevolutionary steps over (usually) a long period of time, by a part of a species to become another species. If you believe in microevolution then you believe in macroevolution (wheither you realize it or not!)

[aquatus1]

To an evolutionists, the question is moot. Both words mean the same thing. To a creationists, it means that animals can evolve (due to genetic mutations) to different breeds (or "types", which is their prefered abstract to avoid specificity), but not to different species, which is a word that they utterly refuse to define.

To science, species are generally defined as creatures whom are so genetically incompatible that they cannot sustain reliable reproduction.

The question then, is this, "By what process does creationism explain that no new species will form, when the natural circumstances show that they will? How does creationism limit mutations beyond the level of genetic incompatibility, but not before?"

[Angelofmercy]

Really? There might be some disagreement in the field than, because I learned from two evolutionists that micro evolution are the many mutations over a long long period of time leading to a new species, but macro evolution was the spontaneous formation of a new species...like if a whole bunch of mutations occurred at the same time, a theory that has been mostly discredited...

[aquatus1]

There are always going to be disagreement in the field. This one is purely semantic. Both words are known to evolutionists by definition, but in practice their mechanisms are the same. In other words, microevolution over the long term becomes macroevolution, without any change in properties.

I'm not entirely sure what theory you are referring to, about many mutations occurring, and it being discredited. Could you elaborate?

[Angelofmercy]

Sure, and I will attempt to make it make sense. I don't have the lecture in front of me though so bear with me! *L*

Around the time Darwin put forth his theories on natural selection, there were a lot of other scientists positing similar theories. Remember Darwin was not a geneticist, so they didn't know about nucleic acids and protein structures. He saw species changing over long periods of time into distinct species. (Which we now know occurs via small nucleotide changes in DNA, beneficial or neutral changes are kept to be passed on, negative changes are usual fatal and aren't passed on)

Other scientists of the time didn't believe that species changed slowly over time. They thought the changes happened all at once. Like finches..instead of the different beaks and colors occuring slowly over time, they believed that one finch was born as is and gave rise to all the other different finches. It all happened in one fell swoop, in one hatching as opposed to slowly over many many hatchings, with each hatching being slightly different, hence macro evolution.

I say discreditied, because one we understood the centrol dogma of biology, (DNA ->RNA> Protien) scientists realized that only small changes were happening over time and (in the abscence of mutagenic factors) species were slow to evolve and separate from each other. Does that make any sense? If not I know the lectures are online and I can did through them to try to find a better explanations

[Talon]

Can' answer that poll, since they are the thing just whether your looking at it in the short or long run.

[bathory]

microevolution is liek a species having a mutation that makes it resistant to a disease
macroevolution is one species changing to another or whatever

[aquatus1]

AngelofMercy,

Okay, now I see what you are talking about. Yes, you are right, Darwin's ideas have indeed evolved themselves. Strangely enough, though (and this is where my confusion came from) there is a more modern theory that believes there is a connection between environmental duress and increased genetic mutations affecting phenotypes. In the same way that we find living creatures such as moths changing their physical attributes somewhat dramatically in environments experiencing rapid change, so do we find fossil evidence of radical mutations during the time period of evironmental crisis.

In other words, though the mutations themselves remain random, there may be external triggers which cause mutations to occur at a faster rate then previously thought. It is an interesting theory, and I hadn't heard any evidence to the contrary, so I mistook it for what you were referring to.

[Angelofmercy]

In other words, though the mutations themselves remain random, there may be external triggers which cause mutations to occur at a faster rate then previously thought.  It is an interesting theory, and I hadn't heard any evidence to the contrary, so I mistook it for what you were referring to.

Oh I see, I hadn't heard your theory stated in exactly that way, but I totally think that could be what's happening. Like Adaptation with the moths in london during the industrial revolution. They were white to hide on white trees...london gets all smoggy, trees turn black with soot, not moths are brown kinda deal? Then the smog lessened an they went back to being white? This is a case of a random mutation being so beneficial that any organism without the mutation (white moth on dark tree) gets eaten and only moths with the mutation survive...and because of the external enviroment (smog vs no smog) these mutations would occur faster than if say, a new tree evolved that they wanted to land on..interesting, thanks!

[DrStrangelove]

Macroevolution and microevolution aren't the same thing. Microevolution says species could expirience all the variations within it's genetic code while macroevolution says that animals could evolve into something totally outside it's genetic code.

[aquatus1]

Is there any difference between the mechanics of the two? I would submit that if there are no differences, if both are caused by random mutations in the genetic code, then the two are one and the same, names notwithstanding. If there are differences, then I would still like an answer to my question:

"By what process does creationism explain that no new species will form, when the natural circumstances show that they will? How does creationism limit mutations beyond the level of genetic incompatibility, but not before?"

[saucy]

I believe in microevolution. That has been seen to occur, unlike macroevolution. Microevolution deals with only slight adjustments to a creature's living habits in order to survive a certain climate or perhaps a predator. Macroevolution is just the total change of one species into another into another into another over time. One kind of bee will reproduce with another kind of bee and thus you have three kinds of bees that aren't of the same type, but they are still bees nonetheless. Two bees can't mate and have a nest of flies or wasps or mosquioes or something totally out of the species.

[aquatus1]

"Kind" isn't any sort of classification. You need to define what a species is before you start saying what can and can't be done. The scientific definition of species is: "A set of creatures with the ability to sustain reliable reproduction."

My question still stands:

"By what process does creationism explain that no new species will form, when the natural circumstances show that they will? How does creationism limit mutations beyond the level of genetic incompatibility, but not before?"