![Picture](/uploads/9/0/3/2/90327171/714359890.jpg?297)
Macro evolution is a change from one species to another specie which can also be known as speciation. Speciation is a process where a new specie is made so, macro-evolution is basically making a new species from the previous specie. There are 3 types of macro-evolution. The 2 types are divergent evolution and convergent evolution but there are a lot of problems with this theory which was holding it back from becoming a fact. Darwin came up with the theory where species had gradually changes within the species and called this theory gradualism. Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge same up with the theory punctuated equilibrium
Divergent evolution occurs when the specie gets split apart into small fragments in a population and becomes very isolated. The specie that was spread apart will eventually get adapted to that new environment, but the unlucky specie that got split into a harsher environment will have a harder time to adapt. Later on the specie that was not the fittest to the environment will evolve/ adapt to the new environment creating a new specie. The species that came from one species usually have a common ancestor.
Convergent evolution is when 2 species look alike physically but are not related by a common ancestor or has similar DNA. The two specie can look very similar from head shape and size and their body shape and size as well but both of the specie don't have similar DNA nor common ancestors. For example a duck has beaks like platypus, but they are not related in anyways whatsoever. They look very similar but don't have any history of them being related.
The problems with this theory is that there is no fossil evidence, therefore can not be proven as a fact. Darwin had suggested the world had evolve gradually with intermediate stages in between to help produce the new species in that new environment. Gould and Eldredge had suggested there were no intermediate stages in between producing a new species, that they just happened to produce that well fitted new species out of nowhere. Darwin's theory makes more sense but there is not a significant amount of evidence to prove this theory as a fact. If the species has different stages to get to the final new species how come there are no fossils or what intermediate stage of that organism? Because there were no fossil evidence it is still considered a theory. Gould and Eldredge's theory didn't need any fossil evidence but they weren't able to prove how the new fitted specie formed out of nowhere. How did the organism know how to change their DNA so the random outcome fit perfectly to that environment? These questions got know answers which is why this theory also had remained a theory and can't be proven as a fact.
Fun Fact: There were actually a few intermediate stages of fossils found but it wasn't enough to prove the theory as a fact
Divergent evolution occurs when the specie gets split apart into small fragments in a population and becomes very isolated. The specie that was spread apart will eventually get adapted to that new environment, but the unlucky specie that got split into a harsher environment will have a harder time to adapt. Later on the specie that was not the fittest to the environment will evolve/ adapt to the new environment creating a new specie. The species that came from one species usually have a common ancestor.
Convergent evolution is when 2 species look alike physically but are not related by a common ancestor or has similar DNA. The two specie can look very similar from head shape and size and their body shape and size as well but both of the specie don't have similar DNA nor common ancestors. For example a duck has beaks like platypus, but they are not related in anyways whatsoever. They look very similar but don't have any history of them being related.
The problems with this theory is that there is no fossil evidence, therefore can not be proven as a fact. Darwin had suggested the world had evolve gradually with intermediate stages in between to help produce the new species in that new environment. Gould and Eldredge had suggested there were no intermediate stages in between producing a new species, that they just happened to produce that well fitted new species out of nowhere. Darwin's theory makes more sense but there is not a significant amount of evidence to prove this theory as a fact. If the species has different stages to get to the final new species how come there are no fossils or what intermediate stage of that organism? Because there were no fossil evidence it is still considered a theory. Gould and Eldredge's theory didn't need any fossil evidence but they weren't able to prove how the new fitted specie formed out of nowhere. How did the organism know how to change their DNA so the random outcome fit perfectly to that environment? These questions got know answers which is why this theory also had remained a theory and can't be proven as a fact.
Fun Fact: There were actually a few intermediate stages of fossils found but it wasn't enough to prove the theory as a fact