Why do some Christians acknowledge "microevolution," but reject "macroevolution?"?

Question

Many Christians on here have said that macroevolution does not exist, but small genetic changes (microevolution) do occur so species can adapt to their environments. Considering the fact that "macroevolution" is nothing more than microevolution given a very long time, how can one say that one exists without the other? It seems that only a little knowledge of genetic mutation and changes shows the potential for macroevolution, yet Christians deny it. I don't get it: how can you half-accept and half-deny a single concept (evolution)?

Answer 1

As science demonstrates the evolutionary process in greater and greater detail, Creationists have to keep refining the rhetoric they use to disregard obvious facts. They demand demontration of a new species arising, then when you show it to them, they demand a genus. Show them a genus, they will demand a family. I've actually seen demands for kingdom shifts. They demand evolution be reproduced on a laboratory benchtop, but show them the results and they disregard them as artificial. They claim there are no beneficial mutations, but show them one, and they disregard it for one reason or other. Show them another that overcomes their objection, and they come up with a new objection.

Nothing has been demonstrated to adapt more rapidly than anti-evolution rhetoric.

Answer 2

I am not very qualified to give you a scientific answer, but I have heard scientists explain that the two concepts are very different. (At the time I could have explained it to you too! lol. But it seems that microevolution is not just a concept that multiplied, say, by a billion, would make macroevolution. In fact, perhaps the term is not right, I don't know. Because "evolution of the species" is something that has absolutely never been observed, either in a micro or a macro way. It has developed as a theory because it is considered by those many scientists who hold it, as being the only plausible (some will say possible) theory.
And once you exclude the possiblility of a creating God, then they are quite right. It is the only possible theory (I don't know whether we can say plausible).

Answer 3

Continual, small genetic changes over time would lead to eventual macroevolution, would it not? Which you stated I guess.

I wouldn't think that microevolution was small genetic changes so much as breeding. Changing genetics is difficult, I don't think it's even possible with our current level of science. Survival of the fitest. The black plague eventually died out because only those immune to it survived and passed on the immunity to their children, but I don't think their genetics changed. Those genetics not suitable for a certain terrain or lifestyle die through "natural selection" and those more suited survive long enough to breed.

Answer 4

I'm not a young earth creationist, but I don't know that I would say macroevolution is microevoloution, given a very long time. There is debate within evolutionary sciences about the rates of change. Gould advocated punctuated equilibrium while Dawkins sees change more uniformly. The position you advocate, phyletic gradualism, is actually what Dawkins calls a strawman invented by punctuated equilibrium advocates.

Answer 5

They don't seem to grasp that micro-evolution means a mechanism for evolutionary change exists in nature so conceding that micro-evolution occurs is fatal to creationism. Many micro-changes in the genetic structure of a species over eons of time equals macro-evolution. Also to say evolution has never been observed is a total falsehood-fruit flies have been bred in laboratories that exhibit genetic characteristics that differ from their predecessors and that is all that is needed to prove small scale evolution.

Answer 6

There is no fossil record of Macro-evolution. Also the Fossil record is quite clear that evolution happened as Stephen J Gould described by Punctuated Equilibrium. But there has never been any mechanism put forth for PE. Gradualism is the only mechanism that Darwinism explains.

What mechanism do you suggest for lots of big changes across species occurring quite rapidly?

Answer 7

Well said, I asked this earlier but your question (the way its phrased etc) makes a lot more sense than mine. I think I'm having a serious dumb day :-)

I got some interesting answers but virtually non from these Christians that deny the possibilty of evolution!

Answer 8

This is because micro evolution is observable and macro is theory. Meaning we scientists think that this is what happens over millions of years. Macro it theory.

Answer 9

They reject God entirely simply by fact it enables one to stay of their sin without effect nor having to serve the Lord. The demons definitely have confidence in God and worry Him, says something approximately atheists.