Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The term macroevolution is often abused (see the section "Misuse" in the Wikipedia article) by creationists who are referencing the Biblical concept of immutable "kinds" of animals.

Is there a word or conveniently short phrase that could be employed to distinguish between evolution (both micro- and macroevolution) and the evolution of one "kind" into another?

Baraminology is a relevant topic that may be helpful.

Edit: I am definitely not asking for a new term.

The mental image conjured up by the term "macroevolution" (amoebas to apes) is much different from its actual scientific definition (anything changing at a taxonomical level). This seems to be the root of the problem.

I am looking for the way a scientist would describe grasshoppers-to-kittens "evolution" (This is what Creationists incorrectly use the term macroevolution to refer to), without including "speciation" which is what macroevolution really refers to.

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by FumbleFingers, Robusto, Jimi Oke, kiamlaluno, Mitch Jul 6 '11 at 19:37

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

2 Answers 2

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I think the short answer is "no." From the resources you provided, there is no equivalent concept of macroevolution in creationism, so there is no equivalent term. That is, it seems there is no "evolution of one 'kind' into another" in creationism.

Think of it this way. Macroevolution is speciation, or the divergence of a species into two distinct groups that can no longer produce viable offspring across species boundaries. This event is not a recognized possibility in creationism. Baramins ("Biblical kinds") cannot change.

However, I rather think that you might have meant microevolution, in which shifts can occur within species or baramins. In evolutionary biology, microevolution is the result of natural selection and genetic drift. An appropriate term that applies to microevolution that does not necessarily evoke "evolution" might be adaptation.

EDIT:

From your edit and the discussion in meta, it seems that you want to know what term an evolutionary biologist would apply to grasshoppers-to-kittens "evolution." I think this would be called transmogrification or transmorphing (shape shifting), and would be understood as something that could not happen in the real world.

share|improve this answer

The evolution of a specific "kind" into another is "speciation". Speciation is a somewhat arbitrary line where biologists consider two species to have become distinct. This is what typically divides microevolution from macroevolution.

While maybe not directly answering the question, the misuse of "macroevolution" is the assertion that any empirical evidence we have only supports microevolution, and that macroevolution cannot be proven (paraphrasing). So, creationists are arguing that while changes within a species can occur, there cannot be speciation.

I don't think "speciation" is a creationist term, though...

share|improve this answer
1  
Essentially there is no difference between macro and micro evolution. It's only used in the context of trying to spin why evolution is wrong and yet we have MRSA. –  mgb Jul 6 '11 at 18:26
1  
Biologists have organized evolution into micro and macro for practical purposes. Microevolution looks at specific gene pools (the frequency of alleles) and macroevolution looks at the relationships between different gene pools. While the mechanisms that explain microevolution are essential to macroevolution (scale is really the only question), there is terminology specific to macroevolution (or microevolution), but mostly as a consequence of significance due to scale. –  theidiotbox Jul 6 '11 at 18:48
1  
I just wanted to make the point that the theory is the same. –  mgb Jul 6 '11 at 18:51
1  
This discussion has little or nothing to do with English usage/terminology, and is content heavy. –  Mitch Jul 6 '11 at 19:39

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.