To be overly simplistic, macroevolution deals with speciation: the belief that one population of organisms over time with accumulation of beneficial adaptations can become another. Microevolution, on the other hand, deals with mutations in genes and more readily observable qualities. No scientist in recent times that I'm aware of would ever dismiss microevolution as false; it can be observed in easily repeatable experiments with bacteria or flies.

Macroevolution, by its very nature, can't be observed except over hundreds, thousands, or millions of years. This is a major talking point of people who attempt to dismiss evolution as being untrue; no species has been observed to turn into another. My biology of organisms class over the past two semesters has dealt extensively with evolution and phylogenies. Phylogenies are basically a family tree, but with species over time. For example, Humans and chimpanzees are next to each other in a humanoid phylogeny, with the other 3 old-world apes just nearby. Wolves and dogs would be right next to each other, as would zebra and horses, etc.

Throughout the lectures, macroevolutionary theory has been referred to as fact, but for the doubters evidence has been cited in many many lectures as to why this is the case. I am from Massachusetts, however, so there aren't too many people who would openly say, "I don't believe in (macro)evolution." However, I understand that the opposite may be more true in places where some of you are from. Those of you for whom this is true are the people that I'd most like to discuss with. My instructor is, to be blunt, preaching to the choir. I would be very very interested to see how such a lecture would go in more religious parts of the country.

The reason that science gives for the occurrence of speciation is the opening of a niche: an environment that presents a new food source, a new predator, new weather, etc. After mass extinctions, for example, there were huge amounts of speciation observed in the fossil record. The dinosaurs occupied virtually every niche, but when they became extinct mammals began to populate the earth, eventually leading to humankind. By the most common definition, a species is a group of organisms that reproduce with each other. If they do not reproduce on their own, they are considered separate species.

In recent times, only one such speciation event among animals has occurred that I am aware of: the London Underground Mosquito. Basically, with the opening of subways in London, a species of mosquito was able to sustain itself entirely from human and rat prey. The ancestral species which they descend from feeds on birds, and the species will no longer willingly mate with each other.

I accept all this as fact, and in honesty did so long before I knew the details of it. Through reading various topics in this forum, I have found that some people here do not accept macroevolution as truth, and I'd be curious as to what evidence I could show to convince those people. If I were to type up all of the relevant evidence that I know of I'd still be here a day from now, so I'm more concerned with addressing specific topics on which people have doubts or misinformation. I guess that makes me an "evangelical evolutionist," if you will, which slightly bothers me. So specifically, if you don't believe that macroevolution has occured (that humans descend from monkeys), why is that the case?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 18 2009, 10:50 am by FaZ-.

There is no such thing as microevolution and macroevolution. It's just evolution. Timescale is the only separation.

Zebras and horses are much more closely related than humans and chimps, and wolves and dogs are even closer than that. Humans and chimps only share a tribe, zebras and horses share a genus, and wolves and dogs are the same species.

And yes, other species have been observed to change into another. Aside from the example you already gave(?). Since 1935 a new species in the genus flavobacterium has arisen. How do we know this? It digests nylon, a completely synthetic substance.

Of course, it's just a way of human classification, just like tribes, genus, and species are. But it still exists, in the sense that we can define it. I have heard of that nylon-bacterium before, that's another good example.

Evolution, in my way of thinking, occurs at a microscopic level which gradually leads to a physical change. Since evolution is really indesputable (We all know it happens.) I find myself wondering... What's your point?

To tell religious people creationism is as fake as Michael Jackson? To revel in your new found knowledge? Or you wrote it simply because you can?

Reading other topics made me pretty disgusted with some of the statements that were being thrown around as fact. One guy who kept referencing drdino.com, in particular, was especially laughable in how much he said that was factually inaccurate; as in not even disputable. I really just wanted to have a mature discussion as to what types of things they disputed in modern evolutionary theory and I could put forth convincing evidence. If no one is confident enough in their beliefs to compare them to evidence, obviously this topic won't really go anywhere.

Idiots will dispute anything. It's best to just wait for them to die so we can move forward, because they won't change.

Oh hey, evolution in action.

The member you mentions was suspended for a week I believe and the topic was closed (if not, then I guess I failed as a moderator >.> ). I doubt Vrael or I would allow a topic of that nature to occur in this day and age.

I see. Well, if it makes you feel better, evolution is real. But, I fail to see where you were going with this. I know your view/ argument is belief in evolution. However, you didn't clearly identify alternative beliefs/ views on which to discuss.

Are there multiple evolution theories?
What are they?
Are they wrong?
Why?

Is there evidence against evolution?
What is it?
Is it reliable?
Is it possible?
Why?

Basically, provide us with a topic that we can discuss. Not a simple yes or no.

There's not much point in discussing a topic that most of us agree on. I was looking more to discuss the topic with someone that doesn't agree with me.

You're esentially saying your topic is a more advanced version of this.