"Macro-Evoloution"?

Question

The separation of evolution into micro and macro first came from Iurii Filipchenko in 1927. This is an artificial distinction that stands no reason. You would not separate a small amount of water in a cup and a large amount of water in a cup, then say that there is no evidence that applying several small cups of water would become a large cup of water.
That is why in 1937 Theodosius Dobzhansky stated that the two should be considered the same. A similar term used today is speciation. How could we separate micro and macro evolution? They both happen for the same reasons and in the same manor. There is no magic line that separates the two. Macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution happening until the species has changed. Speciation has been documented as happening in nature and laboratories.
( http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5 )

Just wanted to cleare this up also. Thanks everyone.

Scientists discuss and debate these things in scientfic journals. They don't have some sort of meeting. LOL

Answer 1

It is a convention that allows scientists to differentiate and discuss a complex pattern of events.

When does red become orange? When does orange become yellow? It doesnt really matter, but we still need to differentiate.

Answer 2

Speciation is no great surprise even the bible speaks of it among sheep. there is a need for the evolutionist community to show good archaeological evidence that this gradual type of change truly authored the major differences we see in the world. There has been a growing need in the scientific community to look to the possibilities of sudden (or very quick) significant genetic changes with major genetic code complexity advances. Fossil evidence does not give the gradual flowing changes from species to species that you would expect. which even Darwin 150 years ago promised would be quickly found once people began truly searching for it. I'm not trying to disclaim evolution in so simple an answer, but I am saying that evolution is actually in the process of rewriting it self, and while there is good evidence of speciation. That does not in the slightest prove every single biological mechanism is a result of this random migration. And it provides no evidence at all that there could not be intelligence design for at least some aspects of the biological mechanisms around us. In fact making such a claim would be very religious of you. A true scientific mind will do all he can to examine all options

Answer 3

I believe you're mistaken.
As an example, let's discuss fruit-flies: Do you have any idea how long geneticists have been testing fruitflies? breeding fruitflies? Intentionally inducing 1000x fold increases in mutation to increase the rate of speciation in fruitflies? I think you'd be surprised. But more surprising is that with all that experimentation scientists have not been able to make a new "type" of fruitfly. They've made all sorts of micro-variations, but no macro-variations.
The same applies to dogs. As you probably know (*cough*), all dogs are the near descendants of intelligent selection processes which have been used over the last millenia. There are many types of dogs: chowchows, poodles, collies, etc... But they've never managed to change a dog into a different type of species.

Clearly, the empirical evidence demonstrates that macro-evolution simply isn't alot of micro-evolution. They're different.

The avian lung, for example, has a unique system. How can this develop gradually? Lungs are essential for living, as you well know. If the avian lung evolved at all, it is impossible to conceive of its evolution the same we think about other changes in morphology which non-evolutionists readily agree are subject to micro-evolution.

in short: I disagree with you.

Answer 4

Evolution and the science of it, no matter what site you point to, is nothing more than man's INTERPRETATION of certain events and what they percieve to be true. When they can find several people that agree with their interpretation, they present it as fact, even though it is not ABSOLUTE fact. Then the sheeple follow them repeating what they have heard, and what humans "think" is true and they say it is fact. They have their facts, theories, and man-made beliefs. The objects they study get studied by fellow "scientists" and there may be 7 different interpretations, so they sit together and decide as a whole as to what will be considered "facts" presented to the multitudes of their sheeple to be true. Look at all the dating methods, and each one suppossedly better than the other, yet they all cannot point to the same date on an object. That info is suppressed in favor of a consensus presented as fact to their sheeple and taught in classes as fact. The funny thing is, the "holy grail" of evolution, berkley, states on their site, "These are our understandings on how we believe things have come in to being." Their UNDERSTANDING. Not the facts, but their understanding! If it is solely their understanding, it is NOT absolute truth. Evolution proves only that non-believers who choose this path of thinking are easily brainwashed.
http://planttel.net/~meharris1/mikescorn...

Answer 5

Maybe if we post enough of these, then opponents of evolution will stop being so misinformed.

Answer 6

thanks!