Mia asked in Science & MathematicsBiology · 4 years ago

Explain macroevolution through an example.?

7 Answers

  • CRR
    Lv 7
    4 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Microevolution and macroevolution are useful broad terms although they don't have exact definitions.

    One way to differentiate them is that microevolution works from within the existing gene pool while macroevolution requires significant new genetic information, new genes. This means that speciation is not necessarily macroevolution.

    So long as it is differentiation, including speciation, within the existing kind it can be considered microevolution.

    For example all the cats from tabby to tiger can be shown to be linked by a chain of crossbreeds, including not only cross species but also cross genera. We can infer that all members of the cat family could well have had a common ancestor, the cat kind.

    This also shows that our classification system into species, genera, etc., is somewhat arbitrary and not a perfect match to biological reality.

    Similarly the badger kind might include American badgers, Eurasian badgers, hog badgers, honey badgers, ferret-badgers, weasels, stoats, ferrets, minks, sables, polecats, martens, fishers, wolverines and otters, although further research might show there is more than one kind in this group. http://creation.com/badger

    So despite what some other posters have said neither HeLa cells or speciation within the badger kind are examples of macroevolution.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    There is a single celled animal, called HeLa,

    that evolved from a particular woman, Henrietta Lacks,

    about 50 years ago.

    Samples of it were captured and raised in a lab,

    before it essentially consumed the woman.

    It has been grown in ton mass quantities,

    since then, and appears to be immortal,

    and currently lives in labs around the world.

    It may have also escaped into the wild.

    DNA testing shows that it is closely related

    to living members of Ms. Lacks' family.

    It is so close to being a human cell

    that it is wonderfully useful for medical research

    and drug testing.

    Its first use was the development of

    the original polio vaccine.

    So you may be alive because of this animal.

    If the evolution of a single celled animal,

    in one step,

    from a human woman,

    macro enough for you.

    Remember that evolution takes place

    anywhere there is reproduction.

    In humans, it can happen

    when a human reproduces another human,

    but it also takes place whenever cells

    within a human

    (or any other multicellular life form)

    reproduce themselves.

    Every cancer is proof that evolution happens

    at the cellular level.

    Very rarely, one of those newly evolved life forms

    escapes the body it evolves inside of.

    I know of several others.



    John Popelish

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    "Macro" vs "micro" evolution isn't really a scientific debate. The general accepted theory is that small incremental change leads to major differences over large periods of time. Nobody is suggesting animals can evolve into plants. Those are two very divergent lines that life has taken.

    As an example, the mudskippers, which still exist today are an example of a fish that can spend some of its time on land. If its descendants spend more time on land, they may eventually "forget" that they were ever sea creatures at all.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    First define exactly what you mean by "macroevolution" and stick to it.

    One thing that can be stated without fear of true contradiction. Those who claim it cannot happen have produced no evidence of a biological mechanism preventing it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 4 years ago

    macroevolution is a nonsense term invented by fools

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Macro Evolution, the generation of new taxa from Common Ancestors

    Let me show you "macro" as seen by a Creationist website. It is wrong, but the point is generation of higher taxa from Common Ancestors is required by both Creationists and Evolutionary Biologists. It IS the way biology works:


    When faced with a logical inconsistency even the Creationists wind-up coming up with their own version (Wrong) of evolution. In the following example from a Creationist website, a pair of badgers from Noah's Ark are the Common Ancestor of 10 SPECIES of badger, plus, 4 GENERA of badger, plus, the entire Mustelidae FAMILY (otters, badgers, weasels, martens, ferrets, minks and wolverines) of related species. YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS STUFF UP!!! They tie themselves in knots saying that a single pair of badgers are the Common Ancestor for 3 (count them) levels of Taxa, BUT…. That is not evolution.


    The logical fallacy they are stuck-with is: There is NOT sufficient space on the Ark to hold "two of every living kind," even if you only count modern species. If you include extinct species the problem is orders of magnitude worse. There plain flat is not enough room. The only solution, short of a miracle not mentioned in the Bible, is for most of the pairs to be Common Ancestors for most of the species, genera, and families we see.====> If the Bible is LITERALLY true, then evolution must be also. There is no way around that simple piece of logic.

    Doubt evolution?

    Who said the following quote?:

    "Noah didn’t need to take pairs of American badgers, Eurasian badgers, hog badgers, honey badgers, ferret-badgers, weasels, stoats, ferrets, minks, sables, polecats, martens, fishers, wolverines, and otters on board the Ark—he only needed two ‘badgers’!"

    FYI: That pair of badgers were, by the quote, the Common Ancestor 10 SPECIES of badger, plus, 4 GENERA of badger, plus, the entire Mustelidae FAMILY of related species. The chromosome counts don't match, the dental counts don't match, so what is that, if NOT "Macroevolution?"



    It comes down to: If even Young Earth Creationist admit that Wolverines and Otters share a Common Ancestor, why do Creationists find it so hard to accept that Humans and Bonobo Chimpanzees share a Common Ancestor?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    "Macroevolution" is a non-scientific word only used by creationists and has no validity whatsoever.

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.