J
Jamie L
Guest
...microevolution and macroevolution? List at least one way they are alike and one way they are different.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The theories of evolution are debated in society. Compare the definitions of...
N
novangelis
Guest
Macroevolution and microevolution are both studies of evolution at large and small scales respectively. They are alike just as inches and miles -- one consists of an accumulation of the other. There is just one theory of evolution and is can be studied in different ways.
There are several scientific definitions, none in widespread usage, in different areas of study. In cladistics, macroevolution defines a clade, a group of organisms with a common ancestor -- that is above the species level. In anatomic fields, it refers to changes in gross morphology. In paleontology, it refers to evolution on the geologic time scale and can refer to mass extinction events.
Creationists use the term frequently, but they do not use any of these definitions. If they claim to use the first, they redefine species as vaguely between order and family to conflate it with the second. They will also use a variant of the third which is "more than has been observed, directly".
There are several scientific definitions, none in widespread usage, in different areas of study. In cladistics, macroevolution defines a clade, a group of organisms with a common ancestor -- that is above the species level. In anatomic fields, it refers to changes in gross morphology. In paleontology, it refers to evolution on the geologic time scale and can refer to mass extinction events.
Creationists use the term frequently, but they do not use any of these definitions. If they claim to use the first, they redefine species as vaguely between order and family to conflate it with the second. They will also use a variant of the third which is "more than has been observed, directly".
K
Katie
Guest
Do your own homework.
Does your teacher know you're cheating on Answers????
Does your teacher know you're cheating on Answers????
G
Grin Reeper
Guest
big and little
T
Todd
Guest
Microevolution is the specific level, where a new species is created from an old one through the various methods.
Macroevolution is how evolution looks like on the grand scale. Macroevolution is shown by Phylogenetic charts.
These two terms are not really used in science much, but are sometimes used to differentiate the scale of evolution being discussed. They are all too often used by creationists to separate the observed adaptations of organisms from the grand scale of evolution. However, they are both, for all intensive purposes, the same, with time scale being the only real difference. To put it simply, if enough "microevolutions" happen, "macroevolution" will happen.
Macroevolution is how evolution looks like on the grand scale. Macroevolution is shown by Phylogenetic charts.
These two terms are not really used in science much, but are sometimes used to differentiate the scale of evolution being discussed. They are all too often used by creationists to separate the observed adaptations of organisms from the grand scale of evolution. However, they are both, for all intensive purposes, the same, with time scale being the only real difference. To put it simply, if enough "microevolutions" happen, "macroevolution" will happen.
S
secretsauce
Guest
First, lets look at how those prefixes micro- and macro- are used in other concepts and other fields. The terms microevolution and macroevolution *as used by scientists* are like terms like microbiology vs. macrobiology ... or microgrowth vs. macrogrowth ... or microeconomics vs. macroeconomics. In other words, these are just terms of convenience used by people in these fields for describing different *LEVELS OF OBSERVATION* ... the level at which we *observe* certain objects of study. The difference between micro- and macro- is NOT that they are different phenomena that are disconnected somehow.
For example the word microgrowth refers to the kinds of *observations* we see of cells dividing in a living thing, such as a tree ... while macrogrowth refers to the *observations* of how the tree develops in its lifetime from seed to seedling to mature tree ... the structure of the branches, the fact that the tree gets taller.
In exactly the same way, microevolution refers to the kinds of *observations* we see about how species change at the subspecies level ... the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift. And macroevolution refers to the *observations we see about how species *branch* into multiple species within a genus ... how multiple genera branch into families, orders, classes, phyla, etc.
So the simple definition is that microevolution concentrates on what is happening as the species level or below, and macroevolution concentrates on what is happening at the species level or above ... including the act of speciation itself.
The reason this affects the debate on evolution "in society", is that anti-evolution literature (Creationist books and web sites), completely MISINTERPRET this difference between microevolution and macroevolution as *different processes in nature*, rather than just different types of *observations* about nature. Creationists will insist that they accept that 'microevolution' occurs, but that macroevolution is "not directly observable", and in fact there is no way that microevolution could lead to macroevolution.
This would be like saying that you accept that 'microgrowth' of a tree occurs (you can directly observe cells dividing under a microscope), that macrogrowth of a tree is "not directly observable" (you can stand in front of a tree for hours and not see *ANY* macrogrowth), and in fact there is no way that microgrowth of a tree could lead to macrogrowth (no way that cells dividing could lead to the tree getting taller)!
--- {edit} ---
I should point out that my original answer started with a soapbox objection to the *PREMISE* of the question itself. Why are biology teachers asking ridiculous questions like this!!! Notice the bizarre construction ... it starts with the premise that there are multiple "theories", and that these are debated "in society" (not science), and then asks you to compare *scientific* definitions. Since when do we put "scientific definitions" up for debate "in society"? Or when does a debate "in society" become reason to reconsider their obscure terms as used *by scientists*? Scientific definitions are used and debated *in the scientific community*, not "in society."
Sorry about my soapbox, but it is the *PREMISE* of this question that I find troubling! It is the premise that as long as some religious groups continue to make noise "in society", that *THAT* is the reason to keep debating these topics in a science class. Science is done *BY SCIENTISTS*, not by religious groups determined to undermine science education by (in their words) "teaching the controversy."
For example the word microgrowth refers to the kinds of *observations* we see of cells dividing in a living thing, such as a tree ... while macrogrowth refers to the *observations* of how the tree develops in its lifetime from seed to seedling to mature tree ... the structure of the branches, the fact that the tree gets taller.
In exactly the same way, microevolution refers to the kinds of *observations* we see about how species change at the subspecies level ... the mechanisms of natural selection and genetic drift. And macroevolution refers to the *observations we see about how species *branch* into multiple species within a genus ... how multiple genera branch into families, orders, classes, phyla, etc.
So the simple definition is that microevolution concentrates on what is happening as the species level or below, and macroevolution concentrates on what is happening at the species level or above ... including the act of speciation itself.
The reason this affects the debate on evolution "in society", is that anti-evolution literature (Creationist books and web sites), completely MISINTERPRET this difference between microevolution and macroevolution as *different processes in nature*, rather than just different types of *observations* about nature. Creationists will insist that they accept that 'microevolution' occurs, but that macroevolution is "not directly observable", and in fact there is no way that microevolution could lead to macroevolution.
This would be like saying that you accept that 'microgrowth' of a tree occurs (you can directly observe cells dividing under a microscope), that macrogrowth of a tree is "not directly observable" (you can stand in front of a tree for hours and not see *ANY* macrogrowth), and in fact there is no way that microgrowth of a tree could lead to macrogrowth (no way that cells dividing could lead to the tree getting taller)!
--- {edit} ---
I should point out that my original answer started with a soapbox objection to the *PREMISE* of the question itself. Why are biology teachers asking ridiculous questions like this!!! Notice the bizarre construction ... it starts with the premise that there are multiple "theories", and that these are debated "in society" (not science), and then asks you to compare *scientific* definitions. Since when do we put "scientific definitions" up for debate "in society"? Or when does a debate "in society" become reason to reconsider their obscure terms as used *by scientists*? Scientific definitions are used and debated *in the scientific community*, not "in society."
Sorry about my soapbox, but it is the *PREMISE* of this question that I find troubling! It is the premise that as long as some religious groups continue to make noise "in society", that *THAT* is the reason to keep debating these topics in a science class. Science is done *BY SCIENTISTS*, not by religious groups determined to undermine science education by (in their words) "teaching the controversy."
N
NeoNerd
Guest
Neither are scientific terms. Micro-evolution is simply evolution on a short time-scale. Macro-evolution is evolution on a long time-scale.