“ 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.
Wow, I was responding to Ashwin who said something about Creationists.
They should get an equal seat at the table. They accept speciation and reject macroevolution. I would bet they are the reason the two concepts exist. And I have provided references that support my claim. You have not
I can no longer reply today- evograd’s Princeton reference does not say that speciation is macroevolution
Blockquote Evolution “above the species level” could encompass speciation
Not necessarily.
Blockquote the origin of species and major new features (e.g., novel traits or even new body plans)
AND- words do have meanings and you clearly do not understand them
BlockquoteThe sentence reads like this:
Macroevolution = large-scale evolutionary change, ranging from X and Y to Z.
No, it reads like the origin of species it is talking about refers to major new features.
Look Creationists reject macroevolution and accept speciation.
I know. You brought up creationist definition of the words, as though they should get an equal seat at the table. @Ashwin_s didn’t ask you to give us the creationist definitions of these words, he did so himself, and pointed about that these are different to how they are defined in the scientific literature.
For example. In different sections of The Princeton Guide to Evolution, “Macroevolution” is defined as:
“large-scale evolutionary change, ranging from the origin of species and major new features (e.g., novel traits or even new body plans) to long-term evolutionary trends.”
“Evolution occurring over very long periods of time or across more than one species, in contrast with the short-term microevolutionary changes in populations from one generation to the next.”
Yes, it does. Evolution “above the species level” could encompass speciation, since by definition the evolution a new species would be “above the species level”. If you want it spelled out even more clearly, look again at the first definition I listed:
large-scale evolutionary change, ranging from the origin of species and major new features (e.g., novel traits or even new body plans) to long-term evolutionary trends.
I don’t know how you could possibly read it that way. “major new features” would be an absurd way to describe the “origin of species”. I think you’re being deliberately obtuse.
Creationists reject “the evolution of new structual features and organs” while accepting speciation. There’s a difference.
I also just noticed that the definition of macroevolution you posted earlier (from a creationist source) even kind of includes speciation in its definition of macroevolution:
resulting in entirely new species
The only issue is that seem to define “entirely new species” as something different to “new species”, as speciation (the origin of new species) does not require “entirely new structural features and organs”.
Unlike you I have actually corresponded with Creationist’s organizations. They reject macroevolution and accept speciation. The phrase “entirely new species” means just that. Finches evolving from finches is not an “entirely new species”. Tetrapods evolving from fish would fit the bill.
I provided Jerry Coyne as a reference. He is an evolutionary biologist and a retired professor from the U of Chicago. He said what he did because our species concept is ambiguous at best.
You can keep repeating that all you want, but if they’re using their own special definition of “macroevolution”, which is precisely what we’re arguing about, why should they expect anyone else to use?
Maybe you don’t know what a species is then. A species of finch that didn’t exist before is a new species. That’s all speciation is. Moving the goalposts to “entirely new species” (meaning large-scale morphological change) just muddies the water.
Use the terms as science uses them, and come up with your own words to describe precisely what it is you reject. Otherwise, you’ll keep going around saying “I reject macroevolution” and getting replies of “you deny speciation?” You see, what I’m suggesting would also make life much easier for you, because you would let people know precisely what it is you disagree with.
Doesn’t matter if he is Christian or not. In the church of evolution, Dr. Jerry Coyne is one of the senior bishops. Right up there seated at the right hand of Richard Dawkins. (And Neil Shuban sits on the left hand seat in order to keep his pet Taktaalik calm.
They aren’t using their own definition. I know what a species is. There isn’t anything in what I posted to suggest otherwise.
It is you who doesn’t understand the definition of macroevolution. Not one definition says that speciation, as in one population of finch becoming different species of finch, is macro.
Jerry Coyne represents evolutionary science. Perhaps your argument is with him.
