Biology
Evolution
Fossils

What is the proof for macro evolution?

181920

Top Answer
User Avatar
Wiki User
2010-01-17 10:13:39
2010-01-17 10:13:39
AnswerOkay, perhaps an answer from an evolutionary biologist will help (someone who actually understands evolution). Obviously, this answer will be a gross oversimplification. Microevolution and macroevolution are, essentially, the same thing. However they are very different in the respect that macroevolution extends over many generations and can eventually lead to another species. Yes, there is proof of macroevolution. Obviously we do not have the time to sit around and wait thousands or millions of years to watch it happen, so we must look elsewhere. Summation is a great example. Scientists from different fields (such as biology, paleontology, anatomy, genetics, microbiology, anthropology, etc.) can take different species of animals and arrange them on a phylogenetic tree (tree of life). Every time, from all different fields, independently, all of the trees of life will match...EXACTLY. We also have millions of fossils to show transitions and millions of animals to compare DNA.

Specifically regarding humans, Chromosome 2 proves that we do in fact share a common ancestor with the Great Apes. All of the Great Apes have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs), we have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). Where did that pair go? We believed that a chromosome had gotten fused, but we weren't sure. If there was no fused chromosome, then evolution had a huge problem. Then we found Chromosome 2. Chromosomes have a telomere on each end and a centromere in the middle. Each chromosome has two telomeres and one centromere. So if a chromosome had been fused, it would have three telomeres (one on each end and one in the middle) and two centromeres (one should be inactive). Guess what...we found it. Chromosome 2 has three telomeres and two centromeres (unlike any other chromosome). Somewhere along the line, we broke off and took our own evolutionary route, although we still belong in the family of Great Apes.

On a side note, Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) exist in DNA. They are essentially viruses that are "good," and they exchange information. If they land on a body cell of an organism, their information is forever lost. However if they land on a sperm or an egg, their information will be passed to that organism's offspring. Chimpanzees and humans have over 60 ERVs in the exact same places in our genome. The chances of even one ERV landing in the same spot in our genomes (if we weren't related) is .00000000016% (since our genome is about 3 billion base pairs long). Think of the likelihood that over 60 ERVs would land in the exact same spots.

Things to study to improve your understanding:

- Summation

- Atavisms

- ERVs

- Vestigial Structures

- Pseudogenes (relates to atavisms)

- Speciation (very important)

- Allele Frequencies

- Genetic Drift

Hope this helps,

Dr. J

AnswerAlthough many examples are produced, when examined closely, they often could be interpreted differently under another paradigm. Some of the evolutionary arguments for vestigial organs and embryonic recapitulation have turned out to be either fallacious or fraudulent (in the case of the latter). Answer">Answer">AnswerYou believe in micro evolution do you not? If so then you must accept macro evolution as it is micro evolution on a grander scale AnswerThe evidence does not support it... case in point: antibacterial soap... the bacteria are microevolving, but the whole time, they remain bacteria. The DNA information is so specific, (according to Richard Dawkins, equal to 30 sets of the Encyclopedia Brittanica) and ordered in such a way, it has never been observed or proven to occur, in any single celled creature or multi-celled creature.
12
๐Ÿ™
0
๐Ÿคจ
0
๐Ÿ˜ฎ
0
๐Ÿ˜‚
0

Related Questions

User Avatar

Any sort of nucleotide switches exist in the realm of evolution, and can lead to 'micro' and then 'macro' evolution.

User Avatar

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.

User Avatar

The difference between micro and macro evolution is that micro evolution does not involve creation any new allele while macro evolution involves creation of the new alleles.

User Avatar

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.

User Avatar

Because nothing is proof of evolution.

User Avatar

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.

User Avatar

If you use the micro-macro dichotomy then no Speciation is macro evolution. To be precise, biologists, though many biology texts do not conform, say evolution and speciation.

User Avatar

Micro-evolution is a perspective on evolution, just life macro-evolution is a perspective on evolution. Micro-evolution is evolution seen at small scales; macro-evolution is evolution seen at larger scales. But they're both perspectives on the same process: reproductive variation and differential reproductive success causing divergence between populations.

User Avatar

No, the plants may be small, but the evolution is macro.

User Avatar

An example of macro-evolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

User Avatar

No, evolution is not goal oriented. Evolution is more accurately described as an *effect*, not a cause. Evolution is simply what happens when organisms reproduce with variation.

User Avatar

Evolution produces new species. Macro-evolution is the term used to indicate such divergence at a scope beyond that of the single species. It's not referring to a different process, but to a different perspective on the same process.

User Avatar

'Macro-evolution' is not a process in itself. Rather, it is a perspective on the effects of evolution. 'Micro-evolution' is those effects seen from close-up; by 'zooming out' one sees those same results in a wider scope called 'macro-evolution'. All evolution is driven by genetic variation and natural selection.

User Avatar

Macro-evolution is a large scale perspective on the effects of evolution, just as micro-evolution is a small scale perspective on the effects of evolution. Evolution produces continuous divergence. Divergence between the genome of one generation of a population and a specific ancestral genome, and divergence between sibling branches stemming from the same ancestor. If one focuses on the variation and divergence occurring within a species, it is micro-evolution that one is studying. When one zooms out and sees the divergence continue beyond the point of speciation, it is macro-evolution that one sees. The process and the effects it causes are the same; the perspective differs.

User Avatar

Macro and micro. Do not kid yourself however, they are nothing alike.

User Avatar

Miroevolution is the change in allele frequency overtime in populations of organisms not leading to speciation; below the taxa level. Macroevolution is speciation. This terminology is not favored by many biologists because there is some implied difference in processes. That is to get from micro to macro. Actually evolution long enough is macro. So, many biologist prefer the terms. Evolution Speciation instead of micro and macro

User Avatar

microevolution is small evolution. macroevolution is big evolution. micro mean small and macro means big.

User Avatar

Macro-evolution is evolution at and above the species level. Macro-evolution is divergence continued beyond speciation. It occurs because of the continuous, more or less random, variations that reproduction introduces into the genome of every new offspring. Because this variation is more or less random in nature, no two reproductively isolated populations will develop the same variations, and as a result, reproductively isolated populations are bound to diverge genetically (and as a result behaviourally and morphologically), with no set limit.

User Avatar

Selection is not required to prove evolution. Evolution is observed, and really does not require further proof. Selection is a mechanism of evolution. It is the mechanism that guides evolution, that gives it "direction".

User Avatar

Macro evolution is major evolutionary change that occurs over a long period of time.

User Avatar

evolution is considered a theory and not a hypothesis or law because there is no real proof or evidence to prove evolution.

User Avatar

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!

User Avatar

I'm not sure that there exists such a thing as "factors of macro-evolution". Macro-evolution is simply what happens when reproductively isolated populations continue to diverge as a result of micro-evolution. They drift apart genetically, behaviourally and morphologically, so that the differences between them become greater and greater. The mechanisms that cause this are reproductive variation and differential reproductive success, the principal mechanisms of evolution.

User Avatar

yes u can tell by looking at him


Copyright ยฉ 2020 Multiply Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved. The material on this site can not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Multiply.