generic-user-1 said:
realy? read the nature article you just linked... 1. it clearly says that there is no clear difference between micro and macro evolution. 2. it uses a different "macro"evolution than your last link 3. YES YOU CAN prove macro evolution with microevolution, because its the same just from another point of view. and the wiki link is just so funny... "Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales" hm i think thats what i told you all the time... |
| Thus, many scientists propose that evolution can be divided into two distinct hierarchical processes -- microevolution and macroevolution -- although the distinction between them is somewhat artificial. |
| In contrast, macroevolution describes patterns on the tree of life at a grand scale across vast time periods. Many different patterns can be observed across the tree of life at a grand scale (Figure 1), including stability, gradual change, rapid change, adaptive radiations, extinctions, the co-evolution of two or more species, and convergent evolution in traits between species -- just to name a few. Macroevolutionary studies tend to draw heavily from the fossil record. Fossils document the emergence of new life forms, how their geographic distribution changed over time, and ultimately when they went extinct. In contrast, microevolutionary changes are not frequently observed in the fossil record because the processes that govern evolutionary change within species are thought to occur over much shorter time scales. Thus, macroevolution is centered on explaining evolutionary patterns above the species level (Rexnick & Ricklefs 2009), and those who study it are searching for the ‘organizing principles' that explain these patterns. |
I don't see how that's different from what I was saying. You said macroevolution doesn't exist. Scientifically, it exists as a theory. It's a branch of the theory of evolution. You cannot prove macroevolution because you cannot observe it. There is no proof of it. You say "I have prove of A, and I know that because of this I have proof of B even though A and B are not the same thing." That doesn't make sense. Just because 1+1=2 that does not mean that 1+a=2. Is it possible that 1+a=2? Yes. But you can't prove it, because you don't know what a is.
