Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution

Abstract

SUMMARY Arguments over macroevolution versus microevolution have waxed and waned through most of the twentieth century. Initially, paleontologists and other evolutionary biologists advanced a variety of non-Darwinian evolutionary processes as explanations for patterns found in the fossil record, emphasizing macroevolution as a source of morphologic novelty. Later, paleontologists, from Simpson to Gould, Stanley, and others, accepted the primacy of natural selection but argued that rapid speciation produced a discontinuity between micro-and macroevolution. This second phase emphasizes the sorting of innovations between species. Other discontinuities appear in the persistence of trends (differential success of species within clades), including species sorting, in the differential success between clades and in the origination and establishment of evolutionary novelties. These discontinuities impose a hierarchical structure to evolution and discredit any smooth extrapolation from allelic substitution to large-scale evolutionary patterns. Recent developments in comparative developmental biology suggest a need to reconsider the possibility that some macroevolutionary discontinuites may be associated with the origination of evolutionary innovation. The attractiveness of macroevolution reflects the exhaustive documentation of large-scale patterns which reveal a richness to evolution unexplained by microevolution. If the goal of evolutionary biology is to understand the history of life, rather than simply document experimental analysis of evolution, studies from paleontology, phylogenetics, developmental biology, and other fields demand the deeper view provided by macroevolution.

Towards a unified science of cultural evolution

“…Mesoudi et al consider that evolution occurs at the trait level because they accept uncritically the idea that macroevolution is Darwinian microevolution writ large (but see Erwin 2000;Carroll 2001;Simons 2002; among others, for some of the issues involved). However, their argument does not work for kinship terminologies.…”

Trilobite body patterning and the evolution of arthropod tagmosis

“…(28) In this case recent work suggests that any such canalisation was powered by external selection on life habits, rather than by internal developmental entrenchment. (26) Nevertheless, important as these trends are, their relation the genetic basis of arthropod body patterning is presently unclear. This is because our ability to infer links between body form and developmental controls relies largely on distinctions in segment morphology rather than segment number or articulation state per se.…”

Especiação e seus mecanismos: histórico conceitual e avanços recentes

“…Essas pequenas mudanças em nível genético, e sua consequência lenta e gradual dentro de uma população, foram denominadas 'microevolução' (Arnold, Pfrender, Jones, 2001;Charlesworth, Lande, Slatkin, 1982;Erwin, 2000).…”

“…O aparente antagonismo entre as duas perspectivas evolutivas promoveu fervorosos embates científicos entre os defensores de cada uma das linhas de pesquisa microevolutiva (Bush et al, 1977;Charlesworth, Lande, Slatkin, 1982;Coyne, Orr, 2004;Lande, 1985;Wrigth, 1982) e macroevolutiva (Blackburn, Gaston, 2004;Eldredge, 1985;Erwin, 2000;Gould, 1980;Gould, Eldredge, 1977).…”

“…Os macroevolucionistas lidam com mudanças em larga escala morfológica desde o surgimento de novas estruturas e padrões corporais até tendências evolutivas, irradiação adaptativa, relações filogenéticas entre espécies e grandes extinções em massa. Essas mudanças divergentes entre as linhagens de espécies monofiléticas e de táxons superiores é que podem ser reconhecidas no registro fóssil (Arnold, Pfrender, Jones, 2001;Coyne, Orr, 2004;Eldredge, 1985;Erwin, 2000;Gould, 1980;Gould, Eldredge 1977;Jablonski, 2007;Wrigth, 1982).…”