Why do evolutionists use micro-evolution as proof of macro-evolution when they are 2 different things?

Question

Why does a proof of mutation equal a proof of evolving from apes? Isn't that form of proof a little silly, irrational and somewhat circular?

Answer 1

there's plenty of other evidence,
here's 29 bits of evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex2

also wouldn't all the microevolutions add up over time?

Answer 2

Well it is a lot more concrete proof than "Magic guy in sky made us cause this book says so".
But what everyone seems to think is that evolution is a law..it is not..it is a theory, the best theory we have right now. It is based on real evidence like how humans and chimps have over 99% identical genetic makeup. There is lots of data showing species that have diverged from a common ancestor.
So it is not really silly it is a extremely specific argument..a little too specific to be used on a large scale..but again it is the best we have right now and a damn sight better than anything else out there.

ditzi_k: If God made us why then only 2 arms if it would be so great? As for more faith that is 100% untrue because unlike Christianity there is actual data supporting evolution so since faith is a belief..it would take more faith to believe in Christianity since there is 0 real data and at least some data on evolution.

SandyTmpa: One basic flaw in your argument. Evolution has nothing to do with what created the universe. Also please explain how anyone can argue creationism vs evolution since that would make everyone decended from 2 people which is biologically impossible and even if it was true then it says you believe incest is a moral and good thing since we would ALL be brother and sister

Answer 3

If you walked into your house to find it flooded in water up to your knees, and then discovered that the kitchen sink was dripping slowly and the drain was clogged, would you argue with me that a slowly dripping sink doesn't prove that that's how your house got flooded? While it may not prove that's how it happened, it a pretty good indicator where to start looking.


Scientist don't say micro-evolution proves macro evolution -- that's your perception. They view micro-evolution as a piece of the puzzle. There is no ONE indisputable aspect of evolution that "proves" the entire theory. If you look at all the pieces together, they collectively build one damn convincing, nearly complete puzzle, That's what so many of you anti evolutionists keep missing. It's not about a smoking gun-- it's about an overwhelming amount of interlocking evidence.

As for micro-evolution, it may not "prove" macro evolution, but it's certainly a big piece of the puzzle. It's also a prerequisite for macro evolution. So it strongly supports evolution on the whole.

Answer 4

You are correct!! Micro evolution is a variation in a specie. This does not mean that an elephant will have a baby whale! It could have a longer or shorter tail! It could have bigger or smaller ears! It could even have three ears and two tails however this is not a new specie it had the information for these things it just got screwed up along the way!!

Mutations reflect either a loss of information or scrambled information...NEVER new information!!!

So this alone shows evolution as impossible though we have a lot more info from where that came from!!

They are trying to hang their hats on something and they are quickly running out of support for their made up theories. So why not take something that is a fact and try and twist it so they can try and prove that it supports their theories!

Answer 5

Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution are VERY related.

The problem with people who can't grasp evolution is they think these changes occur very quickly - over night. You've got to realize that evolution occurs of thousands of generations (ie millions of years). Small changes in one generation (micro evolution) DO add up so that after 100,000 generations, the end result is significantly different from the original. The effect is even more dramatic with animals that have short life cycles (such as insects - a million generations may only be 100,000 years or less)

The proof that humans evolved from a more primative (relative term) ape-like creature doesn't stem from a circular logic based on micro-evolution. The proof comes from thousands of fossils of humanoids found in Africa, Asia and Europe that are clearly not modern human and not ape (as we know it - modern apes evolved from early apes too)

Evolution isn't some circular logic game played by scientists. Its hard science whose details are debated costantly. The fact that its debated doesn't make it untrue... it makes it a science and not a faith.

Answer 6

It's not proof at all, and they know that, but it's all they have to stand on. They use the word evolution in both to try and confuse people, and to begin in early education to program into children that evolution is a fact. Because micro evolution is a fact, they can state it that way and get away with it. I prefer to call micro-evolution VARIATIONS within KINDS which is really what it is. The truth is, evolution (all except micro) is as much a religious belief as creationism. The idea of evolutionary theory has never been conclusively proven, thrives on circular reasoning, and has countless facts working against it. Just ask some of the top creationists who successfully debate evolutionists frequently. Any of them who know their stuff win the debates handsdown. But evolution is a state supported and funded and media supported religious belief, so regardless of the countless holes in the theory, it will continue to be taught in our nation the way it is now, until or unless our nation's people (80% or so of whom claim to believe in God and creation) take a stand and take it back.

Answer 7

It does not prove it, but certainly provides credible evidence to support the idea. If you would like proof, just look at the fossil record of species including man changing a great deal over time. Do you not find it compelling that the older species dies out as the newer one takes its place, over and over throughout history. The 'God did it' argument simply does not hold any water when we scrutinize the ever changing diversity in species. Remeber also that mutation is not the only mechanism that controls this. Natural selection such as preferable traits also play a large role in the continuing development of species. Evolution has been proven to a fairly high degree, and it is mainly only in the US that this irrational debate still lives on.

Answer 8

Actually, the primary reason why they do this is that they refuse to abandon a concept that their own 'god' Darwin recanted before his death. Resisting to admit the irrationality of their own faith, they have no other course than to insist upon its validilty regardless of the myriad lacks of proof throughout the Age of Reason.
'None so blind as those who will not see.'
And actually, to be completely accurate, you are not really discussing micro versus macro, but horizontal versus vertical. Observably, all species do evolve, in one way or another. The one thing for which there has been absolutely no proof that was not pretty amateurishly tinkered together, is the prospect of the evolution of one species to another. For the very simple reason that it just does not happen. But bear in mind that these are not scientists but the blindly faithful, who refuse to acknowledge that no such evidence has ever been found, and so insist the more strenuously in their faulty credos. In the teeth of excellent evidence to the contrary.
It's all a matter of faith, and the fear of having to change it.

Answer 9

Oh please, get a clue, the rules of nature are very simple and follow a basic process. Men don't grow from apes. You have to be able to look back millions of years, before man or apes to see where each came from. It's really simple and much more logical than "god did it".

Macro evolution happens so slowly and gradually, that we will never "see" it happen in our lifetimes. We can see micro evolution, so if you accept that, you must accept macro, it's the same process. Get a stinking clue.

Answer 10

There is no known barrier for micro-evolution to turn into macro-evolution given enough time. You also have to remember that the fossil record does show that species change over time (at least the list of species changes) so we have records of both small scale change in a few years and large scales change over millions of years. In the particular case of humans (and why do those opposing evolution only seem to object to human ancestors?), the record is quite extensive and shows several different lines of changing species; only one of which led to modern humans.

Answer 11

You are completely correct, and people who say 'macro is just micro over a long period of time" are obviously not well studied in evolution, as this is a point with which most prominent evolutionists would agree.