In another discussion, I was asked to provide documentation for my statement that some evolutionary theorists questioned the view that macroevolution was merely the addition of many rounds of microevolution.
Here is the essence of the exchange, drawn from three posts:
“Macroevolution is microevolution plus microevolution plus microevolution plus plenty time.”
“… [that] has been disputed by trained evolutionary theorists. Some believe that other mechanisms are in play.”
“This is false. Every evolutionary biologists accepts that mutations, natural selection, genetic drift and others all operate on a grand scale. Cite evidence to show otherwise.”
(*Note: I had not claimed that any evolutionary biologist said that mutations, natural selection, drift etc. ceased to operate on the grand scale, but only that some evolutionary biologists said that there were, or at least might be, additional mechanisms required for the major changes observed in macroevolution.)
Now, I move to the evidence I was asked for. Please note – I say this because certain people here regularly misrepresent what I’m claiming – I’m not claiming as a certainty that macroevolution isn’t just repeated rounds of microevolution. I’m merely claiming that some evolutionary theorists have expressed opposition to, or doubt about, that claim. So if I can prove that some evolutionary theorists have done this, I have met the burden of proof, and shown that Michael Okoko has wrongly oversimplified the range of views held in the field.
I will for the time being settle for just three examples:
“If species sorting is real, then the processes operating on the level of species (macroevolutionary
processes) are not necessarily the same as those operating on the level of individuals and populations
(microevolutionary processes). In other words, macroevolution may not just be microevolution scaled
“Punctuated Equilibrium At Twenty: A Paleontological Perspective,” The Skeptic, vol. 1, no. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 38-47.
“For all its fundamental merits, Modern Synthesis is a rather dogmatic and woefully incomplete theory… Modern Synthesis makes a huge leap of faith by extending the mechanisms and patterns established for microevolution to macroevolutionary processes…”
The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution (FT Press, 2012), pp. 18-9.
Erwin and Valentine:
“One important concern has been whether the microevolutionary patterns commonly studied in modern organisms by evolutionary biologists are sufficient to understand and explain the events of the Cambrian or whether evolutionary theory needs to be expanded to include a more diverse set of macroevolutionary processes. We strongly hold to the latter position.”
The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity (Roberts & Company Publishers, 2013) , p. 10.
Note the range of dates here, covering 21 years. This shows that reservations about the “macro is just repeated rounds of micro” claim have been not just a short-term fad, but a recurring theme in the literature.
Again, the question is not whether Michael Okoko’s original claim about micro- and macroevolution is wrong. The question is whether Mr. Okoko’s further claim that all evolutionary biologists agree with him is wrong. It appears to be the case that his further claim is wrong, whether his first claim is true or not.
Mr. Okoko, do you agree that these evolutionary theorists appear to have a view different from your own?