What is The difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

Answer 1

Micro-evolution - Change at or below the species level. For example, variation within dogs, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, etc

Macro-evolution - Change above the species level

Macro-evolution is simply the long term accumulation of micro-evolutionary changes.

The best way to view the difference between the two is to view them as perspectives, views from different distances. Evolution is continuous genetic divergence, leading to an ever branching tree - at least, at the genetic level.

Zoom in closely, and one might see a single branch, stretching out, wavering a bit, or even changing direction, as no branch grows completely straight.

Zoom out a bit, and one might see the place where this branch stems from the parent branch, or the place where a new branch branches of from the branch you'd been following.

Zoom out some more, and the pattern begins to become clearer: branches, stemming from branches, stemming from branches, forming an ever expanding tree.

As these zoom-factors are simply perspectives on the way a tree grows, so micro- and macro-evolution are merely perspectives on the way life develops. Micro-evolution is the zoom-factor that encompasses a single species, with no branching-events in scope. Macro-evolution zooms out a little, so that at least one branching event is visible.

Macro-evolution isnothing but lots and lots of "micro-evolution"!

Such a point of view is simply untenable, and it denotes a complete misunderstanding of the nature of function. Macroevolution, in all its possible meanings, implies the emergence of new complex functions. A function is not the simplistic sum of a great number of "elementary" sub-functions: sub-functions have to be interfaced and coherently integrated to give a smoothly performing whole. In the same way, macroevolution is not the mere sum of elementary microevolutionary events.

A computer program, for instance, is not the sum of simple instructions. Even if it is composed ultimately of simple instructions, the information-processing capacity of the software depends on the special, complex order of those instructions. You will never obtain a complex computer program by randomly assembling elementary instructions or modules of such instructions.

In the same way, macroevolution cannot be a linear, simple or random accumulation of microevolutionary steps.

Microevolution, in all its known examples (antibiotic resistance, and similar) is made of simple variations, which are selectable for the immediate advantage connected to them. But a new functional protein cannot be built by simple selectable variations, no more than a poem can be created by random variations of single letters, or a software written by a sequence of elementary (bit-like) random variations, each of them improving the "function" of the software.

Function simply does not work that way. Function derives from higher levels of order and connection, which cannot emerge from a random accumulation of micro-variations. As the complexity (number of bits) of the functional sequence increases, the search space increases exponentially, rapidly denying any chance of random exploration of the space itself.

Real_Scientists_Do_Not_Use_Terms_Like_Microevolution_or_Macroevolution">Real Scientists Do Not Use Terms Like Microevolution or Macroevolution

The best answer to this claim, which is little more than an urban legend, is to cite relevant cases. First, textbooks:

Campbell's Biology (4th Ed.) states: "macroevolution: Evolutionary change on a grand scale, encompassing the origin of novel designs, evolutionary trends, adaptive radiation, and mass extinction." [By contrast, this book defines "microevolution as "a change in the gene pool of a population over a succession of generations"]

Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology, in the edition used by a senior member at UD for an upper division College course, states, "In Chapters 23 through 25, we will analyze the principles of MACROEVOLUTION, that is, the origin and diversification of higher taxa." (pg. 447, emphasis in original). [Futuyma contrasts "microevolution" -- "slight, short-term evolutionary changes within species."]

In his 1989 McGraw Hill textbook, Macroevolutionary Dynamics, Niles Eldredge admits that "[m]ost families, orders, classes, and phyla appear rather suddenly in the fossil record, often without anatomically intermediate forms smoothly interlinking evolutionarily derived descendant taxa with their presumed ancestors." (pg. 22.) In Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (Steven M. Stanley, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998 version), we read that, "[t]he known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid." (pg. 39)

The scientific journal literature also uses the terms "macroevolution" or "microevolution."

In 1980, Roger Lewin reported in Science on a major meeting at the University of Chicago that sought to reconcile biologists' understandings of evolution with the findings of Paleontology:

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." (Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," Science, Vol. 210:883-887, Nov. 1980.)

Two years earlier, Robert E. Ricklefs had written in an article in Scienceentitled "Paleontologists confronting macroevolution," contending:

"The punctuated equilibrium model has been widely accepted, not because it has a compelling theoretical basis but because it appears to resolve a dilemma. … apart from its intrinsic circularity (one could argue that speciation can occur only when phyletic change is rapid, not vice versa), the model is more ad hoc explanation than theory, and it rests on shaky ground." (Science, Vol. 199:58-60, Jan. 6, 1978.)

So, if such terms are currently in disfavor, that is clearly because they highlight problems with the Modern Evolutionary theory that it is currently impolitic to draw attention to. In the end, the terms are plainly legitimate and meaningful, as they speak to an obvious and real distinction between (a) the population changes that are directly observationally confirmed, "microevolution," and (b) the major proposed body-plan transformation level changes that are not: "macroevolution."

It is a term separating the different levels of evolution in organisms.

Microevolution refers to evolutionary changes in a single population (not necessarily a species)

Macroevolution takes place on a much larger scale, encompassing such events such as speciation, extinction, and horizontal gene transfer.

It's the same as saying microgravity (that an apple will fall to the ground) and macrogravity (that planets orbit the sun)

Micro- and macroevolution, and micro- and macrogravity are serperated by the same thing, scale.

Answer

In the scientific community, it is just evolution.

Micro/macro came about because of religious debate. It became a necessity for Creationists to allow for minor changes such as that which you see from parent to offspring because these changes are undeniable. Thus micro and macro-evolution were born so they can say that micro-evolution is true (changes from parent to child), but macro evolution is not (gradual change and speciation). So, they deny macro and accept micro, despite having observed both many, many times.

The bottomline is that, macro-evolution is just micro-evolution on a longer timeline, and both are simply evolution.

Google search: observed instances of speciation

Answer 2

There is none in the biological community- this is one of the downsides to creationism- the spread of minsinformation.

Think of it this way- microevolution is change within a species, macro is simply micro over time.

MicroTIME would be minutes, MacroTIME would be hours.

"The words "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are relative terms, and have only descriptive meaning; they imply no differences in the underlying causal agencies. "

--Theodosius Dobzhansky, (1951) Genetics and the Origin of Species, Third Edition, Revised, p. 17

To say that macroevolution is microevolution, just over a longer period of time is not exactly accurate. Microevolution refers to mutations in species, which in ALL cases results in a LOSS of information. Darwin himself said that he knew of no cases in which a mutation was remotely advantageous to an organism. In order for Macroevolution to occur, there must be an increase in information in order to develop different traits in different animals. There have been countless examples of microevolution that we have observed in nature, but there have been NO instances of macroevolution. The current observable mutations prove it, and the fossil record, with its absolute lack of transitional fossils also proves it.

Plus, if anyone is familiar with the current progression of evolutionist discoveries, they will notice that scientists are now starting to admit that there are no transitional fossils, and try to explain it by propigating punctuated equilibrium, which affirms the "sudden" appearance of "new" creatures. This goes against all of the previous evolutionary thought, especially the way that they have explained macroevolution. Previously, scientists explained it the way that the last person did, that is, that it is simply microevolution over time, but now they are omitting the graduality aspect of it, thus defeating themselves on all fronts.

So, microevolution is simply gene mutations that result in changes in a particular species, such as different colors of hair, feathers, etc. It is an observable fact in science, and no one disagrees about it. Macroevolution is the theory that, somehow, gene mutations increased the amount of genetic information (which, as discussed before, is not found in nature, and also proved impossible by logical thought), thus creating new kinds of animals, tissue, organs, and cells. This is an unprovable aspect of the evolutionary theory, and much debated in today's scientific forum.

Answer 3

Mircroevolution looks at changes in a population while macroevolution looks at a whole species. A study in microevolution can take over just one generation of the population while in a macroevolution study it will take place in a long period of time.

Answer 4

Without getting into the merits of Darwinism and anti Darwinists. The question deals with the origins of a species branch so to speak. Macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species whereas Microevolution refers to any change below the level of species. Evolution from reptile to bird is one example.