Micro-Evolution vs. Macro-Evolution
Before any of the science geeks jump on my case, I AM NOT defending the terms in the title, in fact, this will be a post criticizing them.
In my journey over the last few years, I’ve learned quite a bit about the evolution/creation/ID debate. It’s embarrassing how naive I was just a couple of years ago. I imagine that if you looked hard enough, you might be able to find some of the silly debate tactics I used in the past. I’m quite ashamed of them, so I won’t go looking 
One of the arguments I commonly used (with sharp confidence and condescension, no less) was that any so-called “evolution in action” was simply the phenomenon of “micro-evolution”. Now, if you pressed me to define the scope of “micro-evolution”, where it began and where “macro-evolution” began, I coudn’t. I may try to give you the “macro-evolution is small changes within a ‘kind’”, although once again, I had no concrete answer to the definition of a “kind”.
As I continued to argue with more and more informed opponents, they started telling me that the terms “micro-evolution” and “macro-evolution” were made up by creationists, and weren’t really scientific terms.
I was shocked! I’d been duped by my peers!
But it turns out the terms were actually originally coined by scientists, not creationists. According to Wikipedia:
Russian Entomologist Iuri’i Filipchenko (or Philipchenko, depending on the transliteration) first coined the terms “macroevolution” and “microevolution” in 1927 in his German language work, “Variabilität und Variation”
The article goes on to say that the definition of the terms has changed over the years.
I suppose one of the more recent redefinitions of the terms came from the creationists who decided that the terms would be defined in a very abstract, non-specific manner.
So I’m confused. Should I be mad at my creationist friends and/or authorities, or the scientist who came up with the terms?
I’ll talk more about the terms and what (if any) role in true biological science they play. Should be fun, and hopefully informative
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Hi,
I’m glad to see you’ve become more educated about science.
I constantly run into creationists telling me about how micro evolution is different from macro evolution. Yet they have little/no foundation for their point. I am honestly sick of hearing this nonsense.
As a side point, the word “theory” also suffers from a similar problem. This is not exactly the creationists fault, but they use the common meaning of the word eg: a guess or suggestion, rather than the word’s scientific meaning, which is that of a well founding body of facts and evidence with a story that explains the facts and evidence. ie: The theory of gravity, the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity.
Those are not exactly “guesses”!!
Are macro/micro evolution terms that could be or sometimes are used in science? Yes.
But (some) christians have corrupted the terms to mean something that they themselves are not.
So even if we could use the terms, we won’t.
It would only lead to more confusion and misquotation from creationists. Sad, but true.
You ask who you should you be angry at?
Well that seems obvious to me.
Who lied to you?
Was it Iuri’i Filipchenko ?
Shalom…
No matter the term used in evolution, I still find it hard to look at it logically.
It seems to me that would would need more “faith” to belive evolution, than the faith needed to believe creationism…
Morgan,
Very glad to see you stopping by! Thanks very much for your comment
Guy,
I think your sentiment is shared among many Christians, however I think that the reason it is shared by most Christians is because we are taught a caricatured version of evolution that is far from the truth. Believe me, I’m not chastising you. I completely understand your position. I do, however, believe that after some research, many aspects of evolution will become much easier to believe.
For some more thoughts on this subject, read my Why Christians Misunderstand Science post from a while back.
I think the original scientific usage indicated a difference of degree rather than kind, whereas the usual creationist usage denotes a significant difference in kind. The word “kind” here is appropriate, as according to creationists, “kinds” are discrete hierarchies of species that micro-evolution cannot transmute between; only macro-evolution can make new kinds, according to them, and (again, according to them), macro-evolution doesn’t exist.
I suspect that you are correct George.
The Daily Way:
I suggest that you back up your statements.
This is meaningless to an independent observer:
“It seems to me that would would need more “faith” to belive evolution, than the faith needed to believe creationism…”
Describe precisely how/why etc
You see, I’ve met many a person who has said this, and not once have they explained why they thought this.
It seems to be a turn of phase rather than a objective argument to me.
Shalom Morgan…
To prove Evolution effectively, one would also have to “debunk” creationism.
Historically, this would be hard to do!
Bear with me for a moment please…
“Christianity” revolves around the “Resurrection of Christ Jesus”.
“If” the resurrection story “is” true, then that would make “God” Omnipotent, Omniscient, & Omnipresent!
Roman soldiers knew their job, and they knew the consequences of “failure”.
Many would submit that the body of Jesus was stolen from the tomb in the midst of the night. But how could this be? Even if the Roman soldiers were asleep, which is unlikely, because it would cost them their heads if caught…
It would have taken a group of men to roll away the stone, and the soldiers slept through a group of men rolling away a large stone, without one person awaking to yell… “To Arms”?
Very unlikely…
With the tomb empty, the soldiers would have run as far, and as fast as they could to save their heads, so why return to report the tomb empty? That is just asking for the same “crucifixion” that the victim inside the tomb suffered! Humans are not that dumb, especially Roman Soldiers who were highly trained in fighting, and semi-learned in basic acedemics.
Why would the apostles proclaim the “Risen Christ” knowing that such heresy would cost them their lives as well, via the Pharsees? They would have to have known that Christ had risen personally, just as many non-disciples had verified that he had.
So if God has the ability to restore life to the dead, why could he not have the ability to create life as well?
If “Evolution” is true, then why did the process stop? Why are not other primates evolving into humans now? Why has there been no change in the body and cell structure of those beings ranging from single cell organisms, to water type animals, to a wide range of other animals who should begin walking upright after so many years. Why did it come to a screeching halt?
To “Evolve” is continuous, ergo there should be no retarding of the process of evolving.
I am not going to go into too much detail here, because Nathan’s blog does not need to be spammed with a debate over something that I know by “Faith Alone”. It is ok to believe in evolution, and it is ok to believe in creationism as well. Evolutionists have their science, and creationists have their faith. There is no reason why we cannot live side by side, and peacefully coexist..!
I am not one of those “Shove God Down Folks Throat” type of evangelical christians”, my “witnessing” does not “save” it only plants the seeds, it is Jesus that saves, I have not the ability to grant forgiveness, it is the Holy Spirit’s job to soften the hearts of man, ergo I can say that I in no way would argue over the creation of man, because that only tends to hinder the listener to my testimony.
I have no need for science, what I have a need for is faith. But I can reccomend a website that tends to go into more depth if one seeks science to debate the existence of man…
http://www.godandscience.org/
I am sorry that I cannot provide scientific evidence for creationism, but evolutionists also cannot provide a full chain of evolution with no missing links, ergo we must both be at a standoff, because neither can prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that either is correct in their theory.
I am not a scientist, I am but a lowly child of God, and have only “faith” to cling to, and for me that is sufficient.
Morgan brings up an interesting point… although, I apologize, a side point to this topic.
Re, the use of the word theory. Unfortunately, Morgan’s description is indicative of a widespread misunderstanding of the logical structure of “science”.
To use Morgan’s examples:
1st) Theory of gravity. Gravity is not a theory, it is an observational law. Observational laws describe a class of phenomena.
2nd) The theory of evolution comes from a class of “theories” which should rightly be called “natural history paradigms” – because they are NOT related in logical structure to theories in operational science. (Observational laws are generally a construct of assumptions about the interaction between past phenomena – repeatability not being a condition as with operational theories).
3rd) Theory of relativity. Too much to get into right now. We’ll leave calling it a theory I suppose. The point is that this one differs from #1 by representing an explanation or model to describe interactions between phenomena, and differs from #2 by requiring repeatability as a condition (i.e. experimentation – and relativity has been experimented with many times).
More on topic though: micro and macro are to easily skewed by colloquial use, and should probably be entirely abandoned. They are far too easily used to promote the Darwinian myth that all change is in the same direction (i.e. informationally positive is the implication) – which is of course nonsense.
Kind of reminds me of the Alchemists hundreds of years ago… “Using chemistry, we can change lead. Gold and lead are different, so require change. Thus using chemistry we can turn lead into gold.”
They just, er, *forgot* to ask whether chemical changes would accomplish nuclear effects (of course their ignorance of the subject blinded them from asking this appropriate question – kind of like Darwin’s ignorance of, um, almost everything in biology at the genetic level).
-Matthew
The Daily Way:
Ok, so you’re trying to show that it would be difficult for the resurrection of Jesus to have been faked. Ok, if I grant you that, tell me: what source besides the Bible recounts the resurrection story anyway? There is not a single contemporary source, secular OR religious, that documents the life of Jesus in any detail whatsoever. There is no chain linking the authors of any of the gospels to Jesus: none of them knew him, or knew anyone who knew him, or knew anyone who knew anyone who knew him, and so on. There’s simply a gap. Your point is irrelevant. Basically, you are claiming that the Bible proves the Bible.
Did it? We’ve only been human for around 50,000 years, mind you. That’s a blink of an eye in geological time. Evolution isn’t that fast. And we do look different from our ancestors even a few centuries ago; we’re much bigger, for one. These are small changes, but extrapolate them over a few million years and think about what happens.
But yes, some organisms do progress slowly. Why? Because they are well suited to their ecological niches, and their environments don’t change much. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?
Really? How do you think your computer works?
those and other fossils. When those missing links get filled in, there will be missing links between them and other fossils. Evolution works by gradual changes, remember? So the ‘gaps’ represented by ‘missing links’ will get smaller and smaller, but they will always be there.
Matthew:
Shalom George…
(I wish I knew how to use blockquotes here!)
You said…
“you are claiming that the Bible proves the Bible.”
Yes, it is “God Breathed” ergo infallible.
I said… “I have no need for science, what I have a need for is faith.”
You said… “Really? How do you think your computer works?”
Beats me? As I told Nathan in an email, I am a moron when it comes to computers, as you can see, I can’t even figure out blockquotes!
But what I meant that to be in reference to was…
In terms of “The Creation Of Man”, I have no need for science, what I have a NEED for is “Faith”. Even if science could prove that God did or did not create man, no matter which side of the coin the scientific community proved, it would be a moot point for me. I MUST have faith, without it, there is only outer darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.
Let the scientists have their science, and let me have my faith, and together we can live on earth for only a short season. Where we go beyond this life depends on what we had faith in….
But I am willing to admit that scientists have more than likely come up with mountains upon mountains of evidence, that they can use to prove their theories, and that is a good thing for the scientific community!
Alas I have only 66 books in a ragged old bible as my evidence, and to the scientist, it is probably laughable at best. But to me, and maybe others, it is more than enough.
I apologize if my saying… “I have no need for science, what I have a need for is faith.” mislead you, or others. It was never my intent to mislead, and for that I can only admit my guilt, and ask for forgiveness…
My problem is that I should learn to stay out of conversations that require “scientific knowledge” I guess it just makes me look like an idiot.
…and how do you know that it is “God Breathed ergo infallible?” Let me guess… the Bible says so.
Shalom George…
You said… (“…and how do you know that it is “God Breathed ergo infallible?” Let me guess… the Bible says so.”)
Oh mercy no! Because God told me.
That is one of the things that one receives through “faith in Christ Jesus” is the ability to communicate with God. No longer is a “mortal intercessor” needed, one can speak directly to him! It is called “Special Revelation”. 
George, You seem to sound as if you believe some of the Bible. Either you believe ALL of it, or NONE of it. You also try to contradrict what the Bible is saying. It is “God Breathed”. There are many prophecies in the Old Testament. They all came true, and happened as they were penned. The chances of ALL of those comming true, is like filling the entire state of Texas 4 ft. high with quarters. Marking one red dot on one of them, Being blindfolded and told to pick one. And you pick the one with the red spot. I may only be 13, but I believe I would know more about the “truth” than some of you posting.
P.S I do believe the earth is about 10,000 years old.
Matt,
I don’t know how you concluded that I believe some of the Bible. I don’t believe any of it- I’m an atheist.
Well, that isn’t exactly true. There is undoubtedly some legitimate secular history contained within the Bible. That doesn’t say anything about the Bible’s overall veracity, however: Harry Potter is quite accurate in portraying contemporary British culture, but that doesn’t lend any credibility to the idea of people flying around on broomsticks. Of course, in Harry Potter we can quite easily distinguish the accurate background information from the clearly fictional central plot devices; it is not so easy to do so with the Bible, so I don’t accept any Biblical passages as accurate unless there is significant documentation in secular sources to back it up.
As far as Biblical prophecy, Nathan replied to your point, but apparently accidentally posted in the wrong topic. I’ll repost his reply:
Now this goes for most of the so-called prophecies in the Bible: both the giving of the prophecy and its fulfillment are only documented in the Bible itself. There is no way to know that the authors of the Bible did not actually make up the prophecy after the event had already occurred.
However, there are a few prophecies that make it through this filter. These are dismissed for other reasons; for instance, many are ’self-fulfilling’ prophecies. An example of such is the prophecy of the return of the nation of Israel. It seems unlikely this would have happened simply by chance. The answer is in fact design, but not God’s design. Fundamentalist Christian leaders specifically pressed for a Jewish state in order to fulfill the prophecy and help bring about the end-times.
Other prophecies are so vague that they can be interpreted to speak of many separate events. Other religions, cults, philosophers, mystics, etc., have such fulfilled prophecies. They’re about as solid as those in the Bible. Why aren’t these compelling reasons to believe in them? Why don’t you believe in the prophecies of Nostradamus?
I do agree with you, however, that you must believe all of the Bible or none of it. When one claims to hold absolute knowledge with respect to a specific set of truth-claims, then a falsification of any one of those truth-claims is enough to topple one’s credibility entirely. Science does not have this Achilles’ Heel, because it does not claim to hold the absolute truth on any point, thus, a scientist making a mistake does not weaken the credibility of science as a whole (though it could weaken the credibility of that scientist). If there is one inconsistency, one point where the Bible either does not agree with itself or does not agree with the real world, the whole thing is in doubt- and there are a number of such points.
Every knee will bow, and every tounge will confess Jesus is Lord. No matter how much u try to refrain, God will break your knees and you will confess.
Before making my last post, I did not fully read what you replied with. But I agree with when you say if I try to defend the Bible, don’t fully use the Bible, if that person does not believe it…It will not help. I want you to tell me one thing tho. Think…How are you here? A creator. Create is to make from nothing. There must be spme being who had to create all of this. There can’t be something before nothing. Some being had to create the earth. That being would be God. There IS a God. He has givin us His word. We must know we are sinners, and need salvation from our sin. That is what Christ paid the price for. If you don’t, Just go to a local Baptist Chrisian church.
George,
“”"I don’t think anyone claims all evolution is in that direction.”"”
The claim is that the net result is information gain. The claim is also that almost all phenotypic change is exemplary of evolutionary theory, with almost no distinction between recombination events and mutation events. Almost any college textbook demonstrates this.
“”" Kind of reminds me of the Alchemists hundreds of years ago… “Using chemistry, we can change lead. Gold and lead are different, so require change. Thus using chemistry we can turn lead into gold.”
A particularly content-free analogy.”"”
Actually it’s not – perhaps you didn’t understand. The syllogism by which alchemists arrived at the likelihood of transmutation shares perfectly the logical structure of the argument for darwinian evolution. Non-specified premises lead to false conclusions.
Hello
Very interesting information! Thanks!
Bye
I can’t say I’ve ever gotten into debates about creationism, micro and or micro evolution, I must say it was an interesting read though.
Lets separate a Law from a theory. Law of gravety, Law of angular momentum (you can prove it and test it). A theory is just an idea with some logic but without prove. Before, the theory of relativity, now a part of it have become a law when they tested atomic watches one static and one a fast speed (do research), but there is not scientific prove of it. It becomes a Theory with a lot of missing links. After a lot of research and many years I became a creationist. I had a very critical point of view about It. My eyes were opened because theres is more scientific prove with creationism. Many of my notebooks with questions with no answers have been answered with logical science. One of the biggest is how the fossil record is upside down in many places and there is notorius objects though the layers that could hav been only wood but lasted 3 or 4 geologick layers. This is not posible in science in a logical way.
Hope you will open your eyes and be more critical. When you focus so much on a small chance of Kinds and species being adaptable with some limitations but can not evolve or change from a fish to a dog. Focuse in the big picture of 5 evolution theories with out any scientific prove and many problematic questions without answer.
I can proudly say God Bless all of you and open your eyes and think with your head.
George, can not be an athiest. You ara an agnostic
Just another example of creationists taking scientific terms and twisting them in order to make an argument! Unfortunately for them, science is very much not on their side, so there’s no other choice!
I made a little image (or should I say long image) that pokes fun at the creationists distinction between microevolution and macroevolution.
You can see it here