Why did Creationists have to coin the term "micro evolution"?

Question

Surely they are conceding SOME evolution exists in nature, and they don't want to be seen as complete and total idiots now....

Are we not closely enough related to primates for creationists? Do we not have the SAME mammalian functions as every single other mammal. We are animals, we are NOT aliens to this earth as they would suggest.

stayathommom: eat atheist's alive? hardly.....you just sound like another one trying to twist the natural world and mountains of evidence into a teeny tiny narrow and improbable world view.

Answer 1

Micro-evolution is testable. We see it. Macro-evolution, per se, is not testable.

It's kind of like saying, "I accept that light travels at the speed of light. But I only accept that this has happened for the past 50 years."

Answer 2

The term "microevolution" was not coined by Creationists, but by Dr Erich Jantsch, an Austrian astrophysicist in 1967 in "The Self-Organizing Universe: Scientific and Human Implications of the Emerging Paradigm of Evolution".

And I do not know of a single creationist that teaches humans are aliens to the earth.

Answer 3

Actually, we are aliens to this earth...All of the evolution on this planet is for the native life-forms, but the only natural humans, the neanderthals, were an evolutionary dead end, and died out when the colony ship deposited Humanity and formed the first colony of Atlantis.

Evolution works, just that we didn't evolve on this planet...except for that cross breeding with the neanderthals, but it's not polite to talk about how they are related to the primates...

Answer 4

there's no distinction. it's just a question of scale. if you combine microevolution, reproductive isolation, and a little time, you automatically come to macroevolution.

Whoa, Stayathomemom, looks like I hit a nerve.

Here's one example called "ring species"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
This is when a species migrates in a large circle that takes many generations. The individuals that eventually reconnect with the parental population (as well as this population) have changed so much by "microevolution" that they can hardly be considered the same species.

"macroevolution" is an artificial, arbitrary distinction.

*edit* you know you can go to prison for eating people. explain to me why you and your kid(s) (and me too) had gills and a tail as a fetus (http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12.html). Somehow, I can never get a straight answer on this from creationists.

http://www.visembryo.com/baby/12.html

i used wikipedia because nature requires a subscription, but here's a nature search:
http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=macroevolution&sp-c=10&sp-x-9=cat&sp-s=date&sp-q-9=NATURE&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all

if you think that a gull is going to become a giraffe in a few generations, then you are extremely confused about how evolution works. here's a good textbook:
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Analysis-Third-Scott-Freeman/dp/0131018590/sr=8-1/qid=1169869719/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-5466828-6586425?ie=UTF8&s=books

if you promise to read it, i have an extra copy i can send you.

wow! "keep your books"? HOW TELLING!!! you really must be well read with an answer like that. guess I better go and hide in shame now.

where did you see bad reviews, did you make them up?:

"14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:

Top notch evolution text for the undergraduate student, March 1, 2001"

Answer 5

I think you are misinformed. That term was coined by evolutionist. They wanted to show that evolution was in progress. It is a weak attempt to prove their point when all we have ever seen in variation.. Even in a life form like a virus that has millions of generations every season and yet a virus has never become anything but a virus... Evolution is a lie... Jim

Answer 6

Kerry, please pay attention: one million) empirical evidence for evolution is everywhere, from the flu photos you need to get each 12 months (because of the fact it mutates, changing over the years...) to the bones of dinosaurs and different extinct animals dug up from the floor, that we are in a position to carbon date. we are in a position to particularly make certain from different animals fossilized remains that they progressed over the years, going from one species to a different. 2) the animals we see today are in many situations no longer a similar ones that have been around returned then. case in point, we did no longer evolve without postpone from the monkeys and apes around today, yet all of us got here from a normal ancestor: apes and people got here from a normal ape ancestor, primates got here from a normal primate ancestor. 3) please bypass examine greater approximately this. Or ask a biologist to describe issues extra.

Answer 7

I think people confuse religion with faith. Religion is some set of rules without empirical basis. Some people need/enjoy this artificial structure. Faith is what you have when there's nothing left to lean on. Don't worry about the Creationists - if they don't get it figured out, their children or grandchildren will. I have faith in that. :-)

Answer 8

macroevolution and abiogenesis (both terms coined by scientists) have NEVER been proven idiot.

ticktallic--that is the most retarded response EVER!!! pls. show us irrefutable evidence of your dumb statement

*edit* LOL, not really, u must not be familiar with my questions :chuckles: and how I eat atheists alive...:-)
Ok Ticky...first of all wikipedia??? you gotta be kidding me using that as a "reference" . second of all, well, you mention they can hardly be considered the same species....THEIR GULLS, NOT GIRAFFES..and your "hyperlink" did not open or does not exist....

Cloe-you're an idiot and i think you are very well aware of that :-)

OK ticky...now you're really hopeless with that statement about the giraffes....*sigh* oh well, keep your books, trust me I'm well read...and...enough responding to you (since I realized your limitations) BTW- i saw the picture on your adjusted link and yes embryos are small *GASP* what did u expect it to look like!!! Oh and your amazon book has so many negative poor reviews its embarrassing:chuckles: I'm off to chew...i mean respond to other posts...:-)

Answer 9

Because they realized that they could see small changes and that was evidence for evolution. They are trying to say that change isn't really change.

Answer 10

Can you surely concede SOME creation in nature?