How can someone believe in Micro-evolution but not Macro-Evolution?

Question

Micro-evolution is fact. It has been proven through experimentation and observation. If you don't believe in micro-evolution, please don't answer by telling me that. Only answer the question.

If you take two populations of a species, and put them in separate environments and allow micro-evolution to occur. Doesn't it make sense that given enough time, micro-evolution will create enough changes that they will become different species from each other? And this would then become Macro-evolution.

Macro-evolution really doesn't encompass the way life started. It only deals with what happened after life first formed.

Answer 1

Given enough time, micro-evolution will produce separate species. The definition that you present for macro-evolution is not quite the same as the one that I am used to dealing with. The definition of macro-evolution that I am used to involves the creation of new genetic information. new genetic information is not necessary for the divergence of species, just sufficient mutation of existing genetic information. an example of micro-evolution using my definition would be an isolated population of a species of fish living alone in a cave. eventually the isolated population loses its eyes and pigmentation, etc. and becomes a new species. No new genetic information was created, but there are now two species. I would call that micro-evolution. If you call that macro-evolution, then there is no way to distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution.
Using a definition for macro-evolution that provides is different than the one for micro-evolution does make it possible to believe in one but not the other.
Micro-evolution is a proven fact, the divergence of species exist, the creation of new genetic information is not necessary to either but is necessary for life to of evolved from a "lower" form to a "higher" form.
Oh, I am an Old-Earth Creationist if that affects your view on any of my reasoning. I hope that it doesn't, but after looking at the scoring in Y!A, I expect it will.

Answer 2

The brutally honest answer is this: macro-evolution conflicts with scripture, while micro-evolution does not. The only people that question the theory of evolution are fundamentalist christians. Very, very few scientists question either macro- or micro-evolution. In fact, evolution is literally the cornerstone of modern biology: evolution is to biology what Newton's mechanics is to physics, or what plate tectonics is to geology. So, the reason for the current objections (in the U.S.) to macro-evolution is not that there's any problem with the theory (as theories go, it's very well supported by a number of lines of evidence), it's because of religious beliefs. Sad but true.

One of the victories of the religious right in the U.S. has been convincing a lot of people that there isn't much proof for macro-evolution. By "proof", they mean supporting evidence. In reality, there is a massive amount of supporting evidence for evolution. You can find an excellent summary of these lines of evidence at the following site:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

The fundamentalists have also done a good job of making evolution look like a theory in crisis. It isn't. I work with scientists of all types every day, at a well-respected university, and no-one I know seriously doubts evolution.

Answer 3

I think the lack of belief some have in macro-evolution is a result of the lack of proof of it. I agree with your extrapolation (and the fact is that there IS life on Earth and has been for a long time), but scientifically there are too many unanswered questions around macro-evolution. The question is one of the original life form: what was it and how did an arrangement of carbon molecules in protoplasm go from inanimate to animate? Some good theories out there, but LOTS of unanswered questions.

Answer 4

There aren't enough finds of the remains of animals that have evolved only half the way to the present form. It would seem that there would be much more discoveries of the transitional phases than that of the original form.