What is the Difference Between Microevolution and Macroevolution?

Macroevolution refers to evolutionary phenomena that occur above the species level, especially the origin of new higher taxonomic groups, invasion of new adaptation zones, and the acquisition of key new evolutionary features related to them (such as bird wings, mammalian Warm-blooded, etc.).

Macro evolution

Right!

Macroevolution refers to evolutionary phenomena that occur above the species level, especially the origin of new higher taxonomic groups, invasion of new adaptation zones, and the acquisition of key new evolutionary features related to them (such as bird wings, mammalian Warm-blooded, etc.).

Chinese name

Macro evolution

Foreign name

macroevolution

Nature

Biology

Function

Lead to rapid formation of new species

Macro evolution may occur in two ways: one is through

Gott's first piece of evidence was "micro-evolution." This is common sense, everyone agrees, but we cannot infer that there is "

Gott said that the limbs of mice, bats, dolphins, and humans all consist of the same bones, because they are inherited from the same ancestor. This so-called "evidence" is indeed puzzling. "Biologies have similar bones", how can I introduce "biologies have the same ancestor"? There is no logical relationship between the two propositions. The assumption of the same ancestor can be a sufficient condition for similar bones, but not a necessary condition. Rain can be wet, not the same as rain. Gotthard couldn't even pass the basic logic.

Gott spent many more chapters discussing the imperfections of living things, and inferred that they could not have come from design. He is not familiar with the theory of scientific design, but justifies that evolution is a fact based on the fact that biology does not come from a design similar to human science. This is confusing logical inferential reasoning as a kind of perjury.

Gott's third evidence is the so-called fossil evidence. This is precisely the most unfavorable evidence for evolution. In addition to the sudden emergence of Cambrian fossils in large numbers, which is fatal to the evidence of progressive evolution, and already a small number of "intermediate organisms" fossils, they have been questioned whether they are indeed a link of different species.

Darwin talks about fossil evidence in his book Primitive Species, entitled "Incomplete Geological Records." Regarding the process of evolution of each organism from one to another, it is believed that there must be an "intermediate connection" organism. He acknowledged, however, that there was no evidence of these intermediate organisms in geology. He pointed out that "this may be the clearest and most powerful reason to oppose evolution." However, evolutionists at the time believed that these fossils could be found in the future.

After 120 years, humans have collected tens of thousands of tons of fossils, but there is no evidence of fossils supporting evolution. Raup, who chaired the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, noted that the museum collected one-fifth of known fossil species, but concluded that examples of intermediate organisms that were less evolved than the Darwinian era were missing. Raup is also an evolutionist, but has to give up the survival of the fittest and switch to the survival of the lucky.

Evidence of intermediate organisms in the past, such as a fossil called the onychophorans, was originally thought to be a link between arthropods and annelids. However, in the Cambrian, it was found that the beetle and its ancestor arthropod trilobitas existed at the same time, so it can only be assumed that they have different ancestors and lose the status of intermediate link.

Evolutionists like to use it as evidence of intermediate creatures such as Archaeopteryx, which was judged to have reptile characteristics, such as claws and teeth, and is also found in today's birds, such as opisthoorgnshoatzin in South America and touracocorythaix in Africa. Some scientists have considered this to be a flying bird and cannot be considered as a creature between a bird and a reptile. In fact, Jensen pointed out in the Science News of 1977 that the fossil of the bird's femur was found on the same rock as the Archaeopteryx. In October 1991, China reported that the bird's fossils unearthed in Liaoning were almost the same age as the Archaeopteryx. It was also reported in the October 1995 issue of Science News. Then the archaeopteryx and the bird are contemporaneous creatures, so they lose their intermediate link status as the ancestors.

In addition, ancient intermediate creatures that are believed to be between humans and apes, such as the Ramapithecus, are characterized by a structure close to human teeth, without the front teeth and canine teeth of orangutans, but the mouth shape is longer and narrower than humans , Is considered to have the characteristics of orangutans and humans, so it is an intermediate creature. But the problem is that these characteristics cannot be logically deduced to be intermediate between apes and humans, unless evolutionary theory is assumed first to explain. But this is just a circular argument, not an evidence of evolution. Today, a baboon named Theropithecusglada has the same teeth and facial features of the Ramara ape, but it is nothing more than a baboon, not an intermediate creature.

Australopithecus, because of its larger brain capacity than young orangutans, without the bones and ridges of older orangutans, and its tooth structure resembles that of humans, was judged as a half-human half-ape. However, when a large number of southern ancient ape fossils were unearthed, the erect ape man who found the same stratum in the Olduvai Gorge should be a later evolutionary creature that actually appeared at the same time as its ancestors.

More surprisingly, a skull fragment was dug out in northern Kenya in 1972, called KNM-ER-1470, which is more advanced than the erect ape man and belongs to the genus Genus Homo, but it was 2.9 million years ago. Its ancestors stood up to two million years ago, and at the same time as the ancestors of the southern ancient ape, the southern ancient ape lost its ancestor status.

A skull was found in Table Mountain, California, at the end of the 19th century. It was below the magma layer 180 feet below the ground, belonging to a layer from nine million to 50 million years ago. A jawbone was later found to be just as old, millions to tens of millions of years earlier than any so-called human ancestor. How can those anthropoid ancestors be established?

Standing on different levels may see different evolutionary phenomena. One type of evolution phenomenon occurs at or below the species level, such as population variability, adaptive change, geographical variation, and seeding events, etc., and is called micro-evolution; the other type occurs at the species level, especially new and more The origin of high taxa, the invasion of new adaptive regions, and the acquisition of key evolutionary new features related to it (such as bird wings, warm-bloodedness of mammals, etc.) are called macroevolution ^[1] . Since the Darwin era, people have been fiercely arguing whether macro evolution is just a continuation of micro evolution or has nothing to do with micro evolution, so a different set of theories is needed to explain it ^[1] .

Darwinists with much evidence of micro-evolution firmly support gradual evolutionary mechanisms, while some paleontologists and system taxonomists who have evidence of macro-evolution believe that there are also evolutionary mechanisms of evolution in nature. Why do we have to separate the two? Why can't they be intertwined with each other? ^[2]