Sentences with word «macroevolution»

There is little or no empirical evidence supporting Darwin's claim of macroevolution yet on «faith» someday we will prove it.

On Professor Tour's Website, there's a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine — VJT):

Title: Functional roles of Aves class - specific cis - regulatory elements on macroevolution of bird - specific features Authors: Ryohei Seki, Cai Li, Qi Fang, Shinichi Hayashi, Shiro Egawa, Jiang Hu, Luohao Xu, Hailin Pan, Mao Kondo, Tomohiko Sato, Haruka Matsubara, Namiko Kamiyama, Keiichi Kitajima, Daisuke Saito, Yang Liu, M. Thomas P. Gilbert, Qi Zhou, Xing Xu, Toshihiko Shiroishi, Naoki Irie, Koji Tamura & Guojie Zhang Journal: Nature Communications 8 DOI: 10.1038 / ncomms14229

Microevolution differs from macroevolution in its approach to the analysis of the evolution process.

Thus it's not the same as macroevolution because it never exults in a new species

As speciation is a demonstrated natural phenomena, where do macroevolution deniers (particularly those who accept deep time) claim the barrier exists between this level of divergence and higher order taxonomic divergence?

The British museum has 7 million fossils and yet there isn't one transitional form proving macroevolution (Darwin showed us microevolution — transition within a species).

The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye.

Gould states that «the fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change,» and then proposed that «macroevolution proceeds by the rare success of these hopeful monsters, not by continuous small changes within populations.»

In addition are the unanswered challenges to macroevolution posed by information theory and molecular genetics by scientists such as Lee Spetner in prestigious journals such as Science and the Journal of Theoretical Biology.

We can not call macroevolution a scientific theory because we can not go back in time to make the necessary observations that would either support or refute it.

First, note that the «holistic» approach of macroevolution implicitly incorporates the geologic time scales within the fossil record, allowing for comparison and contrast of the relatively minor and major morphological divergence of various forms (i.e. morphometric cladistics).

You ignorant nutters have to believe in a super duper double top secret magical hyper macroevolution to account for all these species of beetle!

There is also a continuing debate about whether it is necessary to «decouple macroevolution from microevolution.»

The bigger point is that there are numerous scientists saying they agree evolutionary theory explains macroevolution but those very same people do not understand how.

This leaves macroevolution sitting atop a boundary (or wall) with an outlook no better that that of Humpty Dumpty.

At last, we would have a truly experimental way of studying macroevolution, the kind of changes that lead to the creation of new species.

If macroevolution really is an extrapolation of natural selection and adaptation, we would expect to see environmental change driving evolutionary change.

The winning paper synthesizes concepts across macroevolution, diversification, coevolution, specialization, dietary evolution, and basic insect ecology.

I like watching insects fly about, I like running ecological experiments in the field and in the lab, and I like building mathematical models of macroevolution so I can poke them and see what happens.

Michael Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) points out that there is abundant evidence for «microevolution» (smaller population change), but there is a boundary at which the evidence for microevolution stops and evidence for macroevolution either doesn't exist, or any clues that do exist are beset with problems so serious that explanatory attempts boil down to «just - so - stories.»

Are these the cumulative outcome of the same processes that drive microevolution, or does macroevolution have its own distinct processes and patterns?

«Although most scientists leave few stones unturned in their quest to discern mechanisms before wholeheartedly accepting them, when it comes to the often gross extrapolations between observations and conclusions on macroevolution, scientists, it seems to me, permit unhealthy leeway.

Can you advise of any practical uses of macroevolution?

whatever... microevolution is a fact, macroevolution is not.

Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution.

So what is the scientific status of Darwinism, or macroevolution, i.e., the idea that all living species evolved from a common origin through random mutation and natural selection?

I repeat, the only significant difference between microevolution and macroevolution is the time scale (and thereby relative morphological change) under consideration where a morphological change observable at the macroevolutionary scale is simply the acc - umulated adaptations at the microevolutionary scale.

Yet you nutters keep claiming that «macroevolution» is a lie.

My faith honestly does not hinge on whether or macroevolution is proven to be false.

... I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened.