[Coyoteman]

Macroevolution would require the addition of genetic material; natural selection does not, relying on existing genetic material in the population. You should know this already.

I do bones, not genetics.

Are you saying "macroevolution" cannot occur? If that is so, what is the magic barrier that stops lots and lots of micros from forming a macro?

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Firstly, your reply was much more polite than your colleague, VadeRetro. As for macroevolution and microevolution, the common mutations observed in microevolution are often caused by a loss of genetic material, such as when winged beetles evolve into wingless beetles--through natural selection--on windy islands, or when (using the shade of melanin topic) darker skinned people are more prominent in the sunny equatorial regions and lighter skinned people are more prominent in the polar regions. in the first case, the ability to produce viable wings was lost. in the second, no additional genetic material was added; the original populations of both regions probably had the ability to be lighter or darker skinned, and most were probably in the middle range. However, darker skinned people in the polar regions would probably produce less vitamin d. Lighter skinned people near the equator would be at risk of sun cancer. Natural selection would produce a weeding out of light people in the equatorial regions and the dark people in the polar. Existing genetic material would be removed, and less genetic material would remain. To get from a unicellular organism to a vertebrate would require more genetic material, as would even getting from a chimpanzee to a human, genetic close though they be.