Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing!

I often see the argument that microevolution is real, but macroevolution is not real. What people don’t understand is that these two things are not two separate processes, they’re the same process. If one is real, both are real. Macroevolution isn’t some completely different mystery process where a dog gives birth to a cat suddenly.

Microevolution is small, instantaneous changes in genetics. A gene mutates and dog may be born slightly smaller, or with a different ear shape. It’s pretty straight forward and even the most ardent anti-evolutionists today have to accept that yes, it does happen. But just a few short years ago anti-evolutionists didn’t even accept (or understand) that this was evolution. Today the understanding among the general public is so great that it cannot be denied even by those who were denying it not all that long ago.

Macroevolution is not a different process. It’s not a process at all. Macroevolution is just the sum of all of those tiny changes over long periods of time. Macroevolution is not some other thing happening. It’s nothing more than simple addition. It’s the math you do to sum up all the different micro-changes made over a period of time. That’s it. It’s microevolution done millions, even trillions of times.

It was not that long ago that anti-evolutionists were arguing that the whole thing was made up. Now they say that the thing’s “kind” can’t change. A dog may be smaller or bigger, have a shorter or longer shout, etc., but it’s still a dog. How do you know it’s a “dog”? Is a wolf a dog? Let’s try a little harder question. Is a lion a cat? Does it look like Mittens to you? Are “lion” and “cat” 2 different “kinds”? What about a bobcat? That certainly looks a bit like Mittens. Is that a different “kind”? If they can breed and produce offspring are they the same “kind”? If they look very similar but cannot breed are they different “kinds” or the same? What about plant “kinds”? If I were to ask what “kind” broccoli was, or cauliflower, or kale, or a head of cabbage, would they all be the same “kind”? Would they be the same “kind” as the wild mustard plant? Because a few thousand years ago they all were the wild mustard plant, changed significantly through selective breeding over thousands of years, some over just a few hundred years. This is a matter of historical record, not an evolutionary conspiracy. These questions actually can’t be answered because the word “kind” is taken from the Bible, which is about as useful as a scientific reference as razor wire is as toilet paper.

And therein lies the problem. These beliefs live in the shadows of ignorance and desire. The desire to believe in a fantastical after-death meet up with all your dead loved ones is pretty powerful. And this makes the anti-evolutionist all too willing to wallow in ignorance. They don’t want to know the truth. They want their beliefs to be confirmed. And there are many out there who are eager to purposely spread lies and disinformation. Most anti-evolutionists don’t realize that macroevolution is not a separate thing. Most don’t even understand what evolution is, or even have a very basic idea of how science works. They throw around terms like, “It’s just a theory!” unironically, completely unaware that if you were to translate that sentence to say the exact same thing, except without referencing science, the closest translation, in complete laymen’s terms, would be “It’s just a fact!” Scientific “theory” is roughly the equivalent of laymen’s “fact” except scientists are more willing to accept that they may be wrong than laymen generally are.

I agree, fundamentally they are both “evolution” .

Micro-evolution happens at micro level, such as a slight deviations in the chromosomal sequence over time without affecting the entire DNA sequencing.

Macro-evolution happens at a larger scale, such as the joining of two chromosomes to form a single larger chromosome, drastically affecting the chromosome sequencingsuch as in humans, and is the historic moment where humans split off from the older hominid species.

i.e. ancestor hominids experienced a series of micro evolution resulting in the modern variety of great apes but maintaining 24 pr of chromosomes, whereas a single macro evolutionary mutation in an ancestor hominid fusing 2 chromosomes into one single larger chromosome produced humans.

The human chromosome #2 is a fusion of two separate chromosomes in our hominid ancestor. Thus resulting in a macro evolution of 23 pr chromosomes in human DNA , where all other modern apes still have 24 pr chromosomes in their DNA.

Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes

All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.




evolution = cumulative change over time
Does that make sense?

p.s. I also agree with the viewpoint that long term micro-evolution results in eventual macro-evolution as compared to the original ancestor.

Lest we forget that 95% of all prior species and subspecies are now extinct. Almost all modern animals are unrecognizable as compared to their ancestors.

In Creationist theory they speak of missing links. Yes, most of them are dead and disintgrated over millenia of decomposition. There are a few species which are recognizably related to very early species.


Some of the creatures above were believed to be extinct until their discovery revealed otherwise. Our understanding of evolution does not just come from the study of extinct ancestor species, but also through examining those creatures that have barely changed ‘ what hasn’t changed can teach us as much as the study of what has changed. All of these species survived the extinction of the dinosaurs and are still around today. How many more species do we believe to be extinct are still alive and waiting to be discovered?


CC-v.3 said ; Does that make sense?

I always like to add “natural selection” to the equation. Most changes are not successful and don’t survive. Not all change results in evolution of a species. It is those that pass the test of natural selection which eventually evolve into successful adaptation to their natural environment.

If a changed organism does not successfully pass on it’s genes, it is just a dead end, evolutionarily speaking.

You could have mutations that survive to reproduction. You could also have a hybrid (a virtually new cross breed creature) that survives to reproduction (although a lot of hybrids cannot reproduce).

As environmental contingencies change, the characteristics that have helped an organism survive to reproduction, may also change. Hence some organisms’ species can become extinct with the drastic changing of the environmental contingencies. And new, or at least, altered species would be expected to arise.


CC-v.3 said ; Does that make sense?

Write4U: Absolutely,

I always like to add “natural selection” to the equation. Most changes are not successful and don’t survive. Not all change results in evolution of a species. It is those that pass the test of natural selection which eventually evolve into successful adaptation to their natural environment.

Good catch, I stand corrected.

Of course natural selection is an integral part of evolution, which creationists always like to leave out because they then get to make a ridiculous claim about it, like the watch and the watchmaker fallacy. In fact I heard a similar fallacy just last week or the week before from my JW friend. I don’t remember what ridiculous thing he was suggesting might be formed, but I do remember a tornado was involved. Which just made me realize that they always want to make it happen instantaneously, too.

But I think there’s a rather new process in play which replaces natural selection in some cases, “unnatural selection”. Have you noticed that people seem to have all kinds of allergies we never heard of as kids? This may or may not be true, but you certainly hear about them more. It’s the subject of many an amateur conspiracy theory, spoken among ordinary people, but not widely spread as a conspiracy theory. The most common one I hear is because kids aren’t exposed to anything any more, so they don’t build up a tolerance to it. It does make sense, if you don’t know that you can actually develop an allergy to something over time by being exposed to it repeatedly.

I think this is a symptom of unnatural selection, our ability as humans to give evolution the big middle finger and survive and breed regardless what our genetics want. The things which once would have stopped a genetic line from continuing are, more and more, treatable. Having a severe allergic reaction doesn’t necessarily kill you along with the genes which cause it any more. If you’re not attractive, there’s surgery for that. If you’re infertile, there are drugs for that. If you’re bipolar, there are drugs for that. If you’re intellectually disabled and unable to live on your own, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can’t live a full life, even one with children. Lifespans are steadily increasing, but most people look on the far end of that. It’s the early end, the children who would normally have died, who are affecting the gene pool.

To be clear, I’m not a monster suggesting eugenics or anything like that. It’s just an interesting thought; A commentary on what it means to be human and the power over nature which comes with that, for good or for bad. If we wanted to I bet we could find a way to do something truly incredible, like melt the polar ice caps or something. In fact, I bet we could do it if we didn’t want to! That’s how much power we have over nature as humans.

The exponential function is man’s greatest survival dilemma.

All that is good and promotes long life for more people is bad for population control. All that is bad and reduces long life for more people is good for population control. (Prof. Albert Bartlett)

Natural selection is being replaced by human selection and is really contrary to natural law. But in the end natural selection (a mathematical function) will curb the exponential growth rate of the human population as it must and it will probably not be very “selective” about who or what is gonna die and how.

tru dat

Natural selection is being replaced by human selection and is really contrary to natural law. But in the end natural selection (a mathematical function) will curb the exponential growth rate of the human population as it must and it will probably not be very “selective” about who or what is gonna die and how.
Idiocracy. Funny movie. Scary possibility.
Widdershins said : Idiocracy. Funny movie. Scary possibility.
If you haven't seen the Albert Bartlett lecture, I urge you to watch it. The exponential function is one of the least understood mathematical functions, because it applies to all things that display a steady rate of growth and is one the universe's most important mathematical functions.

The exponential function will eventually present mankind with its greatest dilemma in chosing who shall live and who shall die.


This explains the problem in greater detail.

Population Growth Rates
Population Growth Rates and Doubling Time

The World's Growth Rate The world's current (overall as well as natural) growth rate is about 1.14%, representing a doubling time of 61 years. We can expect the world's population of 6.5 billion to become 13 billion by 2067 if current growth continues. The world's growth rate peaked in the 1960s at 2% and a doubling time of 35 years.

Back to micro-evolution. This is probably the most significant evolutionary step from pure chemistry to biology. Dynamic motion.


Here is a boundary between inanimate and animate, one of the first steps in the evolution of life and living things.


Widdershins: “To be clear, I’m not a monster suggesting eugenics or anything like that.”

What’s wrong with practicing eugenics? The Jews have been doing it for centuries and it has worked well for them. The Germans practiced it for a while in the mid-19th century (and I think beyond). The blue-eyed blonde-haired progeny from that period that I have met are impressive. We are told that it worked for the vikings and the Spartans. And of course we do it with all manner of domestic animals and plants.

We manage almost every population on the planet except for us. We act as if we are the least important of all life forms. Many seem to believe we have some right to procreate without regard for how that might affect others and the environment. Many human disorders are accepted as caused by genetics and combinations of genetics and associated environmental factors. We could fix that problem.

We will be producing genetically engineered “designer babies” before long. I think it would be better to improve our species by breeding out undesirable traits than to do it by splitting and splicing genes. I think people should recognize that no one has any right to perpetuate genetic problems.

Bob said; We manage almost every population on the planet except for us.
And who is "us"? Are "we" a transplanted Arian master race or are Americans a mixture of many races from all corners of the world, potentially incorporating all the best traits of the different races? Lest we forget, Europeans were not the first Americans, and unless you want assert a divine Arian right to become an "invasive species", you may want to think this through a little more carefully.

Invasive species

An invasive species is a species that is not native to a specific location (an introduced species), and that has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health.
If "we" manage this "equality thing" right, Americans will become a "golden race" and we can discard this primitive notion of racial superiority.

I am a pure Arian (fair skin, blond hair, blue eyes) from Holland, but I wish I had some brown pigment in my skin so I won’t have to cover my skin to avoid getting sunburn and having to suffer pain and possible melanoma. (and yes, dark skinned people can also get melanoma, but usually later in life)

p.s. I am married to a native gal, have been for 50 years.

Write4U: “And who is “us”?”

The world population.

Just about the only management of procreation that has been universally practiced is with regard to incest, and that has come from our recognition that children produced are at greater risk for congenital disorders, death, and developmental and physical disability.

We have the tools today to identify the genetic risks of passing on problems to children, and yet we tip-toe around the issue apparently unwilling to be seen as politically incorrect should we happen to identify any minority potential parents as at risk. Nature used to cull the population. Modern medicine overrides nature. If we were to do more prevention, we would need to less remediation. By ignoring the prevention we could do we ensure more suffering.

What’s wrong with practicing eugenics?
I don't even know how to answer that. Eugenics makes sense on paper, but when it comes right down to deciding who is a second class citizen it gets a little too real. And how would you enforce it? Kill babies who weren't perfect? Abort pregnancies if the genetic test didn't come back quite right? And what are you going to do about the holy war you start? Because some of the biggest breaders, at least in America, are Christians. Catholics can't us birth control. Some crazier religions believe you should have as large a family as possible.

What’s wrong with practicing eugenics is that only a person without empathy for their fellow man would ask that question.

Bob. Stop.