Macroevolution
Part of a series on |
Evolutionary biology |
---|
![]() |
Macroevolution comprises the evolutionary processes and patterns which occur at and above the species level.[1][2][3] In contrast, microevolution is evolution occurring within the population(s) of a single species. In other words, microevolution is the scale of evolution that is limited to intraspecific (within-species) variation, while macroevolution extends to interspecific (between-species) variation.[4] The evolution of new species (speciation) is an example of macroevolution. This is the common definition for 'macroevolution' used by contemporary scientists.[a][b][c][d][e][f][g][h][i] Although, the exact usage of the term has varied throughout history.[4][10][11]
Macroevolution addresses the evolution of species and higher taxonomic groups (
Origin and changing meaning of the term
After
Filipchenko appears to have been the one who coined the term ‘macroevolution’ in his book Variabilität und Variation (1927).[11] While introducing the concept, he claimed that the field of genetics is insufficient to explain “the origin of higher systematic units” above the species level.
Bei einer solchen Sachlage muß zugegeben werden, daß die Entscheidung der Frage über die Faktoren der größeren Züge der Evolution, d. h. dessen, was wir Makroevolution nennen, unabhängig von den Ergebnissen der gegenwärtigen Genetik geschehen muß. So vorteilhaft es für uns auch wäre, uns auch in dieser Frage auf die exakten Resultate der Genetik zu stützen, so sind sie doch, unserer Meinung nach, zu diesem Zweck ganz unbrauchbar, da die Frage über die Entstehung der höheren systematischen Einheiten ganz außerhalb des Forschungsgebietes der Genetik liegt. Infolgedessen ist letztere auch eine exakte Wissenschaft, während die Deszendenzlehre heute, ebenso wie auch im XIX. Jahrhundert, einen einen spekulativen Charakter trägt.
In such a state of affairs, it must be admitted that the decision of the question depends on the factors of the larger features of evolution, of what we call macroevolution, must occur independently of the results of current genetics. As advantageous as it would be for us to rely on the exact results of genetics in this question, they are, in our opinion, completely useless for this purpose, since the question about the origin of the higher systematic units lies entirely outside the field research area of genetics. As a result, the latter is also an exact science, while the doctrine of descent today, as well as in the 19th century, has a speculative character.
— Yuri Filipchenko, Variabilität und Variation (1927), pages 93-94[11]
Regarding the origin of higher systematic units, Filipchenko stated his claim that ‘like-produces-like’. A taxon must originate from other taxa of equivalent rank. A new species must come from an old species, a genus from an older genus, a family from another family, etc.
— Yuri Filipchenko, Variabilität und Variation (1927), page 89 [11]
Filipchenko believed this was the only way to explain the origin of the major characters that define species and especially higher taxonomic groups (
Nevertheless, Filipchenko’s distinction between microevolution and macroevolution had a major impact on the development of evolutionary science. The term was adopted by Filipchenko's protégé
As an alternative to saltational evolution,
Microevolution vs Macroevolution
The fact that both micro- and macroevolution (including common descent) are supported by overwhelming evidence remains uncontroversial within the scientific community. However, there has been considerable debate over the past 80 years regarding causal and explanatory connection between microevolution and macroevolution.[1]
The ‘Extrapolation’ view holds there is no fundamental difference between the two aside from scale; i.e. macroevolution is merely cumulative microevolution. Hence, the patterns observed at the macroevolutionary scale can be explained by microevolutionary processes over long periods of time.
The ‘Decoupled’ view holds that microevolutionary processes are decoupled from macroevolutionary processes because there are separate macroevolutionary processes that cannot be sufficiently explained by microevolutionary processes alone.
" ... macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with microevolutionary theories, but macroevolutionary studies require the formulation of autonomous hypotheses and models (which must be tested using macroevolutionary evidence). In this (epistemologically) very important sense, macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution: macroevolution is an autonomous field of evolutionary study." Francisco J. Ayala (1983)[23]
Many scientists see macroevolution as a field of study rather than a distinct process that is similar to the process of microevolution. Thus, macroevolution is concerned with the history of life and macroevolutionary explanations encompasses ecology, paleontology, mass extinctions, plate tectonics, and unique events such as the Cambrian explosion.[24][5][25][26][16][10][27]
Within microevolution, the evolutionary process of changing heritable characteristics (e.g. changes in allele frequencies) is described by
More questions can be asked regarding the evolution of species and higher taxonomic groups (
- How different species are related to each other via common ancestry. This topic is researched in the field of phylogenetics.
- The rates of evolutionary change and across time in the living fossils'. However, this term is criticized for wrongly implying that such species have not evolved. The term 'stabilomorph' has been proposed instead.[28]
- The impacts and causes of major events in Cambrian Explosion and Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution.
- Why different species or high taxonomic groups (even in spite of having similar ages) exhibit different survival/extinction rates, species diversity, and/or morphological disparity.
- The observation of long-term trends in evolution. Evolutionary trends can be passive (resembling diffusion) or driven (directional). A related question is whether these trends are directed in some way, e.g. towards complexity or simplicity.[12]
- How the distinctive and of complext traits, which differentiate species and higher taxa from another, have evolved. Examples of this include gene duplication, heterochrony, novelty in evodevo from facilitated variation, and constructive neutral evolution.
Macroevolutionary processes
Speciation
According to the modern definition, the evolutionary transition from the ancestral to the daughter species is microevolutionary, because it results from selection (or, more generally, sorting) among varying organisms. However, speciation has also a macroevolutionary aspect, because it produces the interspecific variation species selection operates on.[4] Another macroevolutionary aspect of speciation is the rate at which it successfully occurs, analogous to reproductive success in microevolution.[2]
Speciation is the process in which populations within one species change to an extent at which they become reproductively isolated, that is, they cannot interbreed anymore. However, this classical concept has been challenged and more recently, a phylogenetic or evolutionary species concept has been adopted. Their main criteria for new species is to be diagnosable and monophyletic, that is, they form a clearly defined lineage.[29][30]
Charles Darwin first discovered that speciation can be extrapolated so that species not only evolve into new species, but also into new genera, families and other groups of animals. In other words, macroevolution is reducible to microevolution through selection of traits over long periods of time.[31] In addition, some scholars have argued that selection at the species level is important as well.[32] The advent of genome sequencing enabled the discovery of gradual genetic changes both during speciation but also across higher taxa. For instance, the evolution of humans from ancestral primates or other mammals can be traced to numerous but individual mutations.[33]
Evolution of new organs and tissues
One of the main questions in evolutionary biology is how new structures evolve, such as new organs. Macroevolution is often thought to require the evolution of structures that are 'completely new'. However, fundamentally novel structures are not necessary for dramatic evolutionary change. As can be seen in vertebrate evolution, most "new" organs are actually not new—they are simply modifications of previously existing organs. For instance, the evolution of mammal diversity in the past 100 million years has not required any major innovation.[34] All of this diversity can be explained by modification of existing organs, such as the evolution of elephant tusks from incisors. Other examples include wings (modified limbs), feathers (modified reptile scales),[35] lungs (modified swim bladders, e.g. found in fish),[36][37] or even the heart (a muscularized segment of a vein).[38]
The same concept applies to the evolution of "novel" tissues. Even fundamental tissues such as bone can evolve from combining existing proteins (collagen) with calcium phosphate (specifically, hydroxy-apatite). This probably happened when certain cells that make collagen also accumulated calcium phosphate to get a proto-bone cell.[39]
Molecular macroevolution
Microevolution is facilitated by mutations, the vast majority of which have no or very small effects on gene or protein function. For instance, the activity of an enzyme may be slightly changed or the stability of a protein slightly altered. However, occasionally mutations can dramatically change the structure and functions of protein. This may be called "molecular macroevolution".

Protein function. There are countless cases in which protein function is dramatically altered by mutations. For instance, a mutation in acetaldehyde dehydrogenase (EC:1.2.1.10) can change it to a 4-hydroxy-2-oxopentanoate pyruvate lyase (EC:4.1.3.39), i.e., a mutation that changes an enzyme from one to another EC class (there are only 7 main classes of enzymes).[40] Another example is the conversion of a yeast galactokinase (Gal1) to a transcription factor (Gal3) which can be achieved by an insertion of only two amino acids.[41]
While some mutations may not change the molecular function of a protein significantly, their biological function may be dramatically changed. For instance, most brain receptors recognize specific neurotransmitters, but that specificity can easily be changed by mutations. This has been shown by acetylcholine receptors that can be changed to serotonin or glycine receptors which actually have very different functions. Their similar gene structure also indicates that they must have arisen from gene duplications.[42]
Protein structure. Although protein structures are highly conserved, sometimes one or a few mutations can dramatically change a protein. For instance, an IgG-binding, 4+ fold can be transformed into an albumin-binding, 3-α fold via a single amino-acid mutation. This example also shows that such a transition can happen with neither function nor native structure being completely lost.[43] In other words, even when multiple mutations are required to convert one protein or structure into another, the structure and function is at least partially retained in the intermediary sequences. Similarly, domains can be converted into other domains (and thus other functions). For instance, the structures of SH3 folds can evolve into OB folds which in turn can evolve into CLB folds.[44]
Examples
Evolutionary faunas
A macroevolutionary benchmark study is Sepkoski's[45][46] work on marine animal diversity through the Phanerozoic. His iconic diagram of the numbers of marine families from the Cambrian to the Recent illustrates the successive expansion and dwindling of three "evolutionary faunas" that were characterized by differences in origination rates and carrying capacities. Long-term ecological changes and major geological events are postulated to have played crucial roles in shaping these evolutionary faunas.[47]
Stanley's rule
Macroevolution is driven by differences between species in origination and extinction rates. Remarkably, these two factors are generally positively correlated: taxa that have typically high diversification rates also have high extinction rates. This observation has been described first by Steven Stanley, who attributed it to a variety of ecological factors.[48] Yet, a positive correlation of origination and extinction rates is also a prediction of the Red Queen hypothesis, which postulates that evolutionary progress (increase in fitness) of any given species causes a decrease in fitness of other species, ultimately driving to extinction those species that do not adapt rapidly enough.[49] High rates of origination must therefore correlate with high rates of extinction.[4] Stanley's rule, which applies to almost all taxa and geologic ages, is therefore an indication for a dominant role of biotic interactions in macroevolution.
"Macromutations": Single mutations leading to dramatic change
While the vast majority of mutations are inconsequential, some can have a dramatic effect on morphology or other features of an organism. One of the best studied cases of a single mutation that leads to massive structural change is the Ultrabithorax mutation in fruit flies. The mutation duplicates the wings of a fly to make it look like a dragonfly, a different order of insect.
Evolution of multicellularity
The evolution of multicellular organisms is one of the major breakthroughs in evolution. The first step of converting a unicellular organism into a metazoan (a multicellular organism) is to allow cells to attach to each other. This can be achieved by one or a few mutations. In fact, many bacteria form multicellular assemblies, e.g. cyanobacteria or myxobacteria. Another species of bacteria, Jeongeupia sacculi, form well-ordered sheets of cells, which ultimately develop into a bulbous structure.[50][51] Similarly, unicellular yeast cells can become multicellular by a single mutation in the ACE2 gene, which causes the cells to form a branched multicellular form.[52]
Evolution of bat wings
The wings of bats have the same structural elements (bones) as any other five-fingered mammal (see periodicity in limb development). However, the finger bones in bats are dramatically elongated, so the question is how these bones became so long. It has been shown that certain growth factors such as bone morphogenetic proteins (specifically Bmp2) is over expressed so that it stimulates an elongation of certain bones. Genetic changes in the bat genome identified the changes that lead to this phenotype and it has been recapitulated in mice: when specific bat DNA is inserted in the mouse genome, recapitulating these mutations, the bones of mice grow longer.[53]
Limb loss in lizards and snakes

Snakes evolved from lizards. Phylogenetic analysis shows that snakes are actually nested within the phylogenetic tree of lizards, demonstrating that they have a common ancestor.[54] This split happened about 180 million years ago and several intermediary fossils are known to document the origin. In fact, limbs have been lost in numerous clades of reptiles, and there are cases of recent limb loss. For instance, the skink genus Lerista has lost limbs in multiple cases, with all possible intermediary steps, that is, there are species which have fully developed limbs, shorter limbs with 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 or no toes at all.[55]
Human evolution
While human evolution from their primate ancestors did not require massive morphological changes, our brain has sufficiently changed to allow human consciousness and intelligence. While the latter involves relatively minor morphological changes it did result in dramatic changes to brain function.[56] Thus, macroevolution does not have to be morphological, it can also be functional.
Evolution of viviparity in lizards

Most lizards are egg-laying and thus need an environment that is warm enough to incubate their eggs. However, some species have evolved viviparity, that is, they give birth to live young, as almost all mammals do. In several clades of lizards, egg-laying (oviparous) species have evolved into live-bearing ones, apparently with very little genetic change. For instance, a European common lizard, Zootoca vivipara, is viviparous throughout most of its range, but oviparous in the extreme southwest portion.[57][58] That is, within a single species, a radical change in reproductive behavior has happened. Similar cases are known from South American lizards of the genus Liolaemus which have egg-laying species at lower altitudes, but closely related viviparous species at higher altitudes, suggesting that the switch from oviparous to viviparous reproduction does not require many genetic changes.[59]
Behavior: Activity pattern in mice
Most animals are either active at night or during the day. However, some species switched their activity pattern from day to night or vice versa. For instance, the African striped mouse (Rhabdomys pumilio), transitioned from the ancestrally nocturnal behavior of its close relatives to a diurnal one. Genome sequencing and transcriptomics revealed that this transition was achieved by modifying genes in the rod phototransduction pathway, among others.[60]
Research topics
Subjects studied within macroevolution include:[61]
- Cambrian Explosion.
- Changes in biodiversity through time.
- Evo-devo (the connection between evolution and developmental biology)
- Genome evolution, like horizontal gene transfer, genome fusions in endosymbioses, and adaptive changes in genome size.
- Mass extinctions.
- Estimating diversification rates, including rates of speciation and extinction.
- The debate between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism.
- The role of development in shaping evolution, particularly such topics as heterochrony and phenotypic plasticity.
See also
- Extinction event
- Interspecific competition
- Microevolution
- Molecular evolution
- Punctuated equilibrium
- Red Queen hypothesis
- Speciation
- Transitional fossil
- Unit of selection
Notes
- ^ Rolland et al. (2023)[5] in the introduction describe ‘microevolution’ and ‘macroevolution’ occurring at two different scales; below the species level and at/above the species level respectively: “Since the modern synthesis, many evolutionary biologists have focused their attention on evolution at one of two different timescales: microevolution, that is, the evolution of populations below the species level (in fields such as population genetics, phylogeography and quantitative genetics), or macroevolution, that is, the evolution of species or higher taxonomic levels (for example, phylogenetics, palaeobiology and biogeography).”
- ^ Saupe & Myers (2021)[1] states: “Macroevolution is the study of patterns and processes associated with evolutionary change at and above the species level, and includes investigations of both evolutionary tempo and mode.”
- ^ Michael Hautmann (2019)[4] discusses 3 categories of definitions that have been historically used. He argues in favor of the following definition [added clarity]: "Macroevolution is evolutionary change that is guided by sorting of interspecific [between-species] variation."
- ^ David Jablonski (2017)[6][7] states: “Macroevolution, defined broadly as evolution above the species level, is thriving as a field.”
- ^ In his book “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” (2002)[3] page 612, Stephen J. Gould describes the species as the basic unit of macroevolution, and compares speciation and extinction to birth and death in microevolutionary processes respectively: “In particular, and continuing to use species as a “type” example of individuality at higher levels, all evolutionary criteria apply to the species as a basic unit of macro-evolution. Species have children by branching (in our professional jargon, we even engender these offspring as “daughter species”). Speciation surely obeys principles of hereditary, for daughters, by strong constraints of homology, originate with phenotypes and genotypes closer to those of their parent than to any other species of a collateral lineage. Species certainly vary, for the defining property of reproductive isolation demands genetic differentiation from parents and collateral relatives. Finally, species interact with the environment in a causal way that can influence rates of birth (speciation) and death (extinction).”
- species selection, Steven M. Stanly (1974)[2]described macroevolution as being evolution above the species level and decoupled from microevolution: “In reaction to the arguments of macromutationists who opposed Neo-Darwinism, modern evolutionists have forcefully asserted that the process of natural selection is responsible for both microevolution, or evolution within species, and evolution above the species level, which is also known as macroevolution or transpecific evolution. [...] Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution, and we must envision the process governing its course as being analogous to natural selection but operating at a higher level of biological organization. In this higher-level process species become analogous to individuals, and speciation replaces reproduction”
- UCMP: “Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species”
- ^ Thomas Holtz’s course GEOL331 lecture notes[9] discusses macroevolution observed in the fossil record:“Following these early attempted modifications of Darwinism, the rest of the 20th Century onward stayed largely within a Darwinian model. However, there were different major schools of thought. Many of these differences hinged on views of microevolution (evolutionary change within a species) and macroevolution (evolutionary change above the species level). While most agreed that the ultimate processes in macroevolution were ultimately microevolutionary, there were disagreement[s] whether the patterns produced were actually reducible to microevolutionary changes.”
- ^ The ‘Digital Atlas of Ancient Life’ website[10] by PRI provides a very detailed historical overview for the definition of ‘macroevolution’: “The meaning of the term “macroevolution” has shifted over time. Indeed, early definitions do to not necessarily make much sense in light of our current understanding of evolution, yet are still worth considering to show how the field itself has evolved. Here we will consider usage of the term macroevolution in a few key works, as well as present a definition of macroevolution that we endorse. [...] Lieberman and Eldredge (2014) defined macroevolution as “the patterns and processes pertaining to the birth, death, and persistence of species” and we adopt this definition here.”
- ^ a b c d The terms ('biotypes', 'Jordanone', and 'Linneone') used here by Filipchenko were/are rarely used among non-Russian speaking scientists. According to Krasil'nikov (1958),[14] these terms were used to describe the variety of forms observed within a single species: "With the development of genetics the concept of species widened according to the ideas of variability and heredity of organisms. New terms were introduced for the determination of species subdivision, such as "biotype", "pure line", "jardanon", "linneon", etc. ["Jardanon"--a simple means of classification of lower organisms. "Linneon"--the complex of "jardanons"--according to the Russian concept, the inner species variety of forms does not exceed the limits of qualitative unity of the species.]"
References
- ^ ISBN 978-3-319-32979-6.
- ^ PMID 1054846.
- ^ OCLC 47869352.
- ^ ISSN 0031-0239.
- ^ PMID 37429904.
- PMID 29142333.
- PMID 29142334.
- ^ "Evolution at different scales". Understanding Evolution. UCMP, Berkely.
- ^ a b c "Macroevolution in the Fossil Record?". GEOL331 Lecture Notes. University of Maryland Department of Geology.
- ^ a b c d "What is Macroevolution?". Digital Atlas of Ancient Life. PRI.
- ^ a b c d Filipchenko, J. (1927). Variabilität und Variation. Berlin: Borntraeger.
- ^ ISSN 1936-6434.
- ^ Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: John Murray.
- ^ Krasilʹnikov, Nikolaĭ Aleksandrovich (1958). Soil microorganisms and higher plants (PDF). Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
- doi:10.1666/13076.
- ^ a b Adams, Mark B (1990). "Filipchenko [Philiptschenko], Iurii Aleksandrovich". Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 17 (297–303).
- PMID 17811930.
- ^ Goldschmidt, R. (1940). The material basis of evolution. Yale University Press.
- S2CID 4983539.
- )
- ^ Dobzhanski, T. (1937). Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press.
- )
- ^ Ayala Francisco J (1983). "Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution". In Asquith, Peter D and Nickles, Thomas (eds.). PSA 1982. Vol. 2. Philosophy of Science Association. pp. 118–132.
- ISBN 0-521-80317-9.
- .
- PMID 11258393.
- ^ Moran, Laurence A. (13 October 2022). "Macroevolution". Sandwalk Blog.
- PMID 25275563.
- JSTOR 2419812.
- JSTOR 3892607.
- .
- ISSN 0066-4162.
- PMID 37104581.
- S2CID 38120449.
- PMID 29177513.
- S2CID 35368264.
- PMID 26476056.
- S2CID 28787569.
- PMID 21657973.
- PMID 28892668.
- PMID 10737789.
- S2CID 28979681.
- PMID 19923431.
- S2CID 254907939.
- ISSN 0094-8373.
- ISSN 0094-8373.
- PMID 33686149.
- OCLC 5101557.
- ^ Van Valen, L. (1973). "A new evolutionary law". Evolutionary Theory. 1: 1–30.
- PMID 36217823.
- PMID 36217817.
- PMID 25600558.
- PMID 16618938.
- PMID 28904179.
- PMID 19014443.
- )
- ISSN 0008-4301.
- JSTOR 3892653.
- .
- PMID 37480852.
- ^ Grinin, L., Markov, A. V., Korotayev, A. Aromorphoses in Biological and Social Evolution: Some General Rules for Biological and Social Forms of Macroevolution / Social evolution & History, vol.8, num. 2, 2009 [1]
Further reading
- What is marcroevolution? (pdf) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pala.12465
- AAAS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (16 February 2006). "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" (PDF). aaas.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 February 2006. Retrieved 14 January 2007.
- IAP, Interacademy Panel (21 June 2006). IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF). interacademies.net. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 July 2006. Retrieved 14 January 2007.
- Myers, P.Z. (18 June 2006). "Ann Coulter: No Evidence for Evolution?". Pharyngula. ScienceBlogs. Archived from the original on 22 June 2006. Retrieved 12 September 2007.
- NSTA, National Science Teachers Association (2007). "An NSTA Evolution Q&A". Archived from the originalon 2 February 2008. Retrieved 1 February 2008.
- Pinholster, Ginger (19 February 2006). "AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws as Hundreds of K-12 Teachers Convene for 'Front Line' Event". aaas.org. Archived from the original on 19 October 2013. Retrieved 14 January 2007.
External links
- Introduction to macroevolution
- Macroevolution as the common descent of all life
- Macroevolution in the 21st century Macroevolution as an independent discipline.
- Macroevolution FAQ
- New theory of macroevolution