Macro evolution is just speciation, so you are a form of macro evolution. We and the chimpanzees have a common ancestor that we split from about 6 million years ago. We became Homo sapiensand they became Pan troglodytes.
Micro-evolution is not only a part of macro-evolution, it is the same mechanism as macro-evolution. Macro-evolution includes speciation, as a result of continuing micro-evolution.
Micro-evolution is not only a part of macro-evolution, it is the same mechanism as macro-evolution. Macro-evolution includes speciation, as a result of continuing micro-evolution.
Evolution is sometimes described as macro-evolution, which is the long-term evolution of an entire new species, and micro-evolution, which is largely to do with less significant evolutionary changes within a species. Many creationists accept the existence of micro-evolution, but say that macro-evolution does not occur.
The fossil record
An example of macro-evolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.
The fossil record
Macro-evolution. Or, more accurately, speciation.
i dunno which is which but they evolve with the kind that is just due to a degrading birth defect or mutation for the worse cuz "evolution" is false!
This theoretical process is called Macro-evolution, or just "evolution." Some say that this does not occur beyond the microscopic level, others argue that is does. In any case, DNA had to be created before it could change within a life form.
Macro-evolution. Or, more accurately, speciation.
It is true that speciation occurs. Since macro-evolution is defined as evolution at and above the species level, this makes the statement that macro-evolution occurs an independently verifiable fact.It is also true that in biology we find nested hierarchies at every level - both at the range of observation from the molecular to the morphological, and at the range of groups from the single species to life-kind in general. This is precisely what we would expect if common descent were true not just within the genus, but for all known life.Furthermore, it is true that we find morphological intermediates in the fossil record: forms that are intermediate morphologically between basal clades in the nested hierarchies of life and clades derived from those basal clades. A basal clade is a group of organisms linked by shared features; a derived clade is a group within that larger group that shares all those features, but is also linked by a distinct set of features present only within that smaller group. An example of this is the basal clade of Apes, and the derived clade of Great Apes, between which exists, for instance the transitional form Pierolapithecus catalaunicus. This, again, is exactly what we would expect to find if macro-evolution were not just true for minor taxa (eg. within a genus), but for all taxa, throughout time.There are many statements about macro-evolution that have been verified through observation. The complete list of possible truths about macro-evolution is too large to detail in a single answer.
Some would call that microevolution. I would not. Some divide evolution into micro and macro. Evolutionary biologists prefer to use the terms evolution and speciation.