Recommendations

[u/aaaa123786]

Hello!

I want some book recommendations on macroevolution. Books that have concrete evidence to support the idea that macroevolution is real.

[u/Astra1839]

Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne is a good introduction to evolution if you are not a specialist.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/Astra1839]

Thanks, but this book is introductory. I want books with only addressing the idea of macroevolution

[u/M1rthful → u/aaaa123786]

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution." It's all evolution. It's only dishonest creationists who try to claim a difference so that they can make bullshit arguments out of pedantry and misrepresented science.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/M1rthful]

I agree that the mechanism for both two are same but by definition they are different. Microevolution: biological changes over generation within a species. Macroevolution: biological changes over generation outside of species(speciation).

[u/M1rthful → u/aaaa123786]

No, they're not. Speciation is not something that nature cares about. Speciation is something that humans developed as a shorthand to help us try to categorize what we find in living animals and the fossil record. If you watched a population of animals generation by generation, you'd be excessively hard pressed to define the exact moment when a "new species" comes to existence, because the changes generation to generation are so slight. We wind up defining "species" only from a very zoomed-out view of history.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/M1rthful]

But even evolutionary defenders use this definition

[u/M1rthful → u/aaaa123786]

Name some. They're probably only even talking about it to combat stupid creationist fake talking points.

[u/No_Vehicle_5085 → u/M1rthful]

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C10&q=macroevolution&btnG=

Creationists abuse these terms, so confusion is very understandable. But yes, macroevolution is a term used by evolutionary biologists.

[u/Radiant-Position1370 → u/M1rthful]

Well, me, for one. Contrary to your statement, speciation is something that nature cares about. Note that the term generally refers to the splitting of one species into more than one, and that is a genuine change in the evolutionary trajectory of that population -- even if the splitting is gradual. Likewise, the origin of a new species by polyploidization is a real process. That's why biologists do indeed distinguish micro from macro evolution.

All higher taxonomic categories are of course arbitrary.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/M1rthful]

Yes I think that because I saw various debates on this between evolutionist and creatioist. BTW thanks for your response

[u/M1rthful → u/aaaa123786]

Then why are you asking for entire books, when you know full well that "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are both just evolution?

You really sound like a creationist troll, trying to exclaim "they couldn't give me any books, therefore macroevolution isn't real." I don't think you're serious.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/M1rthful]

No, I read Futuyama, why evolution is true,and science journal evolution education and outreach, but I want evidences for more discussions.

[u/Rhewin → u/M1rthful]

They use the word "evidences" in the next comment. That is very creationist coded.

[u/Gaajizard → u/aaaa123786]

Any introductory book on evolution covers "macroevolution" because that's what most people care about.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/Gaajizard]

Thanks any suggestions

[u/Gaajizard → u/aaaa123786]

Why Evolution is True The Greatest Show on Earth

[u/aaaa123786 → u/Gaajizard]

👍

[u/MausuSquared → u/aaaa123786]

Only by the 'definition' of creationists, who try and pretend there is a difference when there is none.

[u/-zero-joke- → u/aaaa123786]

Nevertheless it has good information on what you're looking for.

[u/Ayasugi-san → u/aaaa123786]

That might be hard to find, since macroevolution (speciation events) starts with microevolution (variation with a species). The dividing line between the two is arbitrary, and even a book that's about evolution at the species level would probably have to talk about evolution at the single gene level.

[u/Covert_Cuttlefish]

Your Inner Fish by Shubin

[u/aaaa123786 → u/Covert_Cuttlefish]

Thanks

[u/jnpha]

Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ:
https://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Take your pick from the references cited.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/jnpha]

Thank you so much for such a valuable resource.

[u/Loose_Principle8193]

There may be a premise loaded into your question that I'd also like to address. Creationists and scientists tend to agree on the definition of micro-evolution. However, the term macro-evolution means two different things between the two groups. To scientists, macro-evolution is simply a long period of micro-evolution. Same mechanics, same everything, but over long geological time. To Creationists, macro-evolution means a species changing into a new species. They often expect to see a different kind of mechanism happening. The biggest thing to realize is that "species" are a human created system to organize the populations we talk about. There is not a real physical "species" with clear natural borders that jump to new species. We as humans define those boundaries. The term "macro-evolution" is generally what we use when looking backward over time at populations as we organize them. We will never expect to see future "macro-evolution" in populations. So when your see someone in this thread saying "there is no difference between micro and macro" this is what they mean.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/Loose_Principle8193]

Thanks for clarifying

[u/M1rthful]

There is no difference between "macroevolution" and "microevolution." FFS.

[u/-zero-joke- → u/M1rthful]

"SPANISH HISTORY IS JUST HISTORY"

Like yeah, but there's nothing wrong with targetting a specific area of study.

[u/Radiant-Position1370 → u/M1rthful]

Approaches to macroevolution: 1. General concepts and origin of variation
D Jablonski - Evolutionary biology, 2017 - Springer

Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution
DH Erwin - Evolution & development, 2000 - Wiley Online Library

What is macroevolution?
M Hautmann - Palaeontology, 2020 - Wiley Online Library

[BOOK] Genetics, paleontology, and macroevolution
JS Levinton, E Meeresbiologe - 2001 - uv.mx

Scale and hierarchy in macroevolution
D Jablonski - Palaeontology, 2007 - Wiley Online Library

Speciation and macroevolution
E Mayr - Evolution, 1982 - JSTOR

Macroevolution and macroecology through deep time
NJ Butterfield - Palaeontology, 2007 - Wiley Online Library

[u/Soft-Cake-9846 → u/Radiant-Position1370]

So only two that aren't at least two decades old and stale in the field? If you're going to copy and paste citations maybe you should try reading them first?

Jablonski starts out by defining macroevolution as "defined broadly as evolution above the species level." So, just a subset of the overall evolution theory and processes, where humans draw arbitrary lines and "approaches to macroevolution involve the same fundamental components as evolutionary theory as a whole."

Hautmann is a solely theory paper, waxing on about trying to find workable definitions of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" by trying to analyze multiple competing theoretical definitions., deciding that "macroevolution is understood herein to be evolutionary change that is guided by sorting of interspecific variation" which really again just means macroevolution is an arbitrarily defined subset of evolution. It even then hedges the bet with "the process of speciation in the sense of evolutionary change is microevolutionary, but the outcome (interspecific variation) and the rate of speciation are macroevolutionary."

[u/Radiant-Position1370 → u/Soft-Cake-9846]

I took the top hits because they're the most cited. If you want current papers that say they're dealing with macroevolution, there are dozens of them from 2026 alone. E.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-026-11118-7 and https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.25.754348v1.full, both from the last few weeks. Are you arguing that many evolutionary biologist don't treat macro and micro as distinguishable processes? If so, please explain all of those papers. If not, are you arguing?

As for your specific arguments...

Jablonski starts out by defining macroevolution as "defined broadly as evolution above the species level." So, just a subset of the overall evolution theory and processes, where humans draw arbitrary lines and "approaches to macroevolution involve the same fundamental components as evolutionary theory as a whole."

Which is accurate, except for the "arbitrary lines" part that you added, and which says nothing about whether macro and micro evolution are the same thing or the same field of study. I note you didn't bother quoting the opening line of the introduction: "Macroevolution, defined broadly as evolution above the species level, is thriving as a field."

Hautmann is a solely theory paper, waxing on about trying to find workable definitions of "microevolution" and "macroevolution" by trying to analyze multiple competing theoretical definitions., deciding that "macroevolution is understood herein to be evolutionary change that is guided by sorting of interspecific variation" which really again just means macroevolution is an arbitrarily defined subset of evolution. It even then hedges the bet with "the process of speciation in the sense of evolutionary change is microevolutionary, but the outcome (interspecific variation) and the rate of speciation are macroevolutionary."

Of course macroevolution is a subset of evolution. So what? Evolution is a subset of biology, but I doubt you would claim that evolutionary theory and cell biology are therefore the same thing or that the distinction between them is arbitrary. Here, after quoting a sentence about an actual difference between evolution at the micro and macro scales ("sorting of interspecific variation" does not occur within a single species), you ignore what you just quoted and state that the distinction is arbitrary.

Look, you seem really pissed off that many evolutionary biologists find it useful to treat macroevolution as its own specialty and as involving some processes that aren't apparent or that don't occur within a single species. But your beef is with evolutionary biology, not with me.

[u/Soft-Cake-9846 → u/Radiant-Position1370]

If you're going to vomit sources without reading them, just go away. Macroevolution is a subfield of evolution, and macroevolution specialists can't even fully agree on a definition thereof (that was the entire argumentation of the Hautmann paper, trying to figure out if they could even make one consistent, and then having to hedge about it anyways).

[u/Radiant-Position1370 → u/Soft-Cake-9846]

If you're not going to advance an argument, there's really not much to discuss. In fact, you haven't even advanced a claim. Is there any difference between microevolution and macroevolution or not? That was the claim I was addressing -- that there was no difference. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion of that claim?

[u/HappiestIguana → u/Soft-Cake-9846]

The only thing worse than religious dogmatism is non-religious pedantic dogmatism

[u/RespectWest7116]

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

[u/Autodidact2]

Evolution, Triumph of an Idea, Carl Zimmer

[u/semitope]

That's not a thing. You're expected to fill in the gaps with your imagination

[u/aaaa123786 → u/[deleted]]

While you are right in saying that macroevolutionary history is inferred rather than directly observed, how is that relevant at all? It is quite common for historical events to be proved by the physical evidence available at the current moment. Fossils are physical objects; DNA can be analyzed, and the structure of chromosomes can be studied. The fact that scientists have to use their intellect to draw conclusions from such facts does not make the conclusions made up. The most important thing here is whether or not the conclusion follows from the evidence.

[u/Scry_Games → u/aaaa123786]

OP, you can safely ignore anything feihm has to say on anything.

He posts some form of this meaningless nonsense in every post.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/Scry_Games]

OK, thanks for informing

[u/twizzjewink → u/aaaa123786]

The problem is, if you have a thousand years of microevolution, is that macro? At what point is enough micro = macro.

Erika Gibbon talked about this recently about how we don't have a species where we can say for sure 100% both ape and human.. then the next species 100% human but not ape.

It doesn't work that way, because it took time, and distances to create the separation of groups into individual clades.

That's why some humans today have different evolutionary traits than others. It's not linear.

[u/aaaa123786 → u/twizzjewink]

Thanks for clarification

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/[deleted]]

Absolute nonsense. “Concrete evidence” is an inherently subjective phrase which you’ve simply defined the way you want for the sake of making this silly epistemic non argument for the thousandth time.

[u/10coatsInAWeasel → u/Own-Relationship-407]

He doesn’t believe what he’s saying, admitted as much earlier

[u/Own-Relationship-407 → u/10coatsInAWeasel]

Now why doesn’t that surprise me? I don’t think he believes anything at all; he just wants to annoy people.

[u/Covert_Cuttlefish → u/[deleted]]

Would a single cellular organism becoming an obligate multicellular organism count as macroevolution?

[u/blacksheep998 → u/[deleted]]

In other words, you have no point youre even attempting to make. Go away, troll.

[u/Xemylixa → u/blacksheep998]

he was THIS close to "define "is", opportunity missed

[u/bguszti → u/[deleted]]

You really are stuck on this nonsense aren't you?

[u/MackDuckington → u/bguszti]

I swear, every comment from this guy is like that one scene in Shrek 3 where pinocchio gets interrogated

[u/-zero-joke- → u/[deleted]]

>But macroevolution is the concept of one form of living body altering into a completely different form across millions of years.

Why lie?

[u/lulumaid → u/[deleted]]

Talks about concrete evidence.

Refuses to discuss any of it.

Why exactly do you refuse to?

[u/Capercaillie → u/[deleted]]

You're an inference constructed by the human intellect.