Why do evolutionists point to micro-evolution to prove macro-evolution?

Question

Where are the missing links? That is why it is only a theory !!!

Answer 1

partly because the way it is taught in schools does not differentiate the two

micro evolution is like a wolf becoming various type of dogs.. dog breeders can do this because the variation within the type already pressent in the wolf

macro evolution might involve issues of irreducible complexity or other revolutionary changes not explainable by a series of small gradual changes each having some advantage...

we see micro evolution
we do not see macro evolution

micro evolution is consistent with creation views

Answer 2

First of all, scientists NEVER make a distinction between macro-evolution and micro-evolution. It's ALL evolution. Only nonscientists make the distinction so they can justify not believing in science.

And if you paid attention, there's all kinds of missing links that have been discovered in the last hundred-odd years, not just for human species, but for animals and plants of ALL types. It's called paleontology.

Finally, your stipulation that it's just a theory, so there are no facts supporting it, is extremely misleading and inaccurate. The general usage of the word 'theory' and how scientists use it is extremely different. An explanation with no factual evidence is not called a theory by scientists, but rather a hypothesis. MOST of our scientific knowledge is from scientific theories, as there are only a very few scientific laws out there. Some other examples of theories which we use everyday (that like evolution have a great deal of evidence) are Cell Theory, Theory of Relativity, Atomic Theory. They are NOT called the Law of Cells, the Law of Relativity, the Law of Atoms (check out my source to see what determines what is a 'law' and what is a 'theory', as it's not the way you see it)

Anyways, nothing is EVER proven by science. Scientists just say that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports a particular theory, but they'll never say ANYTHING is proven. Scientists like to keep an open mind. :)

Answer 3

Well, because they consider it evolution! The basic evolutionary theory says that if you add micro-evolution together you get macro-evolution. Lots of small changes create a big change. A hundred cents make a dollar.

The anti-evolutionists agree! To a point. They agree that IF you added lots and lots of small changes together you'd get big changes. This is why the concept of micro and macro evolution is so important - it posits a boundary condition on change beyond which the change cannot go. Canadian cents are not part of US dollars - they're entirely different things.

So what is this "boundary"? How does it work? The charitable answer is that it is a theoretical construct a bit like "dark matter": The theory suggests its existance, but it hasn't be found yet.

The less charitable answer is that its a load of nonesense they made up to rescue their theory.

Answer 4

Which Evolutionists is that? And how do you know what I or they believe and or base their assertion's on?
Do you even know the differences between micro and macro evolution? I doubt it. Evolution is a theory because it is an analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another. It is a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomena. Calling it a theory in a dismissive tone is meaningless. Much of what we know or think we know falls under the category of theory. Some rather well known ones are the theory of the properties light and the theory of the nature of gravity. Calling them theories in no way negates what we know about them. If innovators in science and technology only operated from the position of what is an absolute fact we would most likely still be living in the dark ages at best.

Answer 5

1. Go on google and type in "transitional fossils" and you'll come up with hundreds. Hell, just go here....

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

And this list barely scrapes the surface of the number of transitional fossils there are. Or, in your terms, missing links.

And for the billionth time, scientific theory is NOT the same thing as the laymans meaning to theory.

Scientific theory is basically the sum of all knowledge in a given area. Rather like music theory. Does that mean that because musical theory has the word theory in it that its just a guess?

Buy a dictionary. Better yet, spend 30 seconds to type it in an online dictionary.

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.

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

Layman terms means guess, scientific theory DOES NOT.

Now how about you use the internet your paying for and actually look things up before making claims you know absolutely nothing about? Maybe you won't make a fool of yourself.

You're right, we don't have the missing link for human beings that leads directly to us. But you can't seriously be stupid enough to believe that science knows everything that it will ever know and that there is nothing more to discover.

Someday in the past, that computer you're using now was never even conceived on. Yet, someone with a brain and intelligence enough to question what had been before actually invented it and the world was changed. It changed through SCIENCE and FACT. Not through religion.

Answer 6

Anyone who uses the phrase "only a theory" to reject science is just practicing a despicable form of deceit. Gravity and electromagnetism are "only theories".

"Micro-evolution" is just another term for deceit. When evolution hadn't been observed, that was used as a dishonest "disproof". That backfired when sufficient observations were accrued, so the dishonest raised the requirements of what would have to be demonstrated.

Saying "micro-evolution" does not prove "macro-evolution" is true. However, when you consider that the fossil record and genetic homology independently demonstrate the process of evolution.

Given that "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution" are fairly modern terms, the use of "missing links" for "transitional fossils is also deceptive. There are numerous transitional forms.

Answer 7

There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution within the scientific community. What characteristics would define a missing link? Humans are apes by definition There is proof but it so accessible that you are just being lazy to not look for it. Artistic renditions are based on the skeletal structures found. They are not made up. Here is tip for researching with google. Rephrase your words and you will get different results. You can also read articles instead of look at pictures.

Answer 8

Evoloution was a theory about 150 years ago, it is now an accepted system. It is not a religious belief, but a science fact, so it has on 'ists' because it is a fact, you can accept it, or reject it - it is not a religious rule.

Charles Darwin sparked a revolution in scientific thought with the publication of his book, The Origin of Species, in 1859. With his concept of evolution by natural selection, Darwin attempted to render invalid the then biblical supported idea that "every living thing produces life after its own kind.

In the first half of Species, Darwin cited evidence for "micro-evolution," or changes on a small level between species. From this observation, Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or "macro-evolution." He used the evidence from the first half of his book on micro-evolution to suggest that the same mechanism could produce all life forms.

However, this concept of macro-evolution is not supported by religion, despite scientific evidence. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.

There are 'missing links' because bones in fossile records, of the early periods, and of some of the key species like fish and early birds simply do not survive very well in most soils. So when one is found, it is scrutinised and many theories about it being the missing link are applied, this is part of the scientific process.

However - a misunderstanding about this scientific process by people untrianed in science - has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

Answer 9

I think I'm starting to grow a second penis. Is that micro or macro evolution?

Answer 10

1) There is no such thing as a "missing link". Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. Humans did not evolve from apes.

2) Yes, evolution is only a theory. In science, a "theory" is defined as: "the best explanation for a given set of facts and evidence."

Please contact me if you feel like attempting to disprove evolution. I guarantee you that I will shoot down each of your arguments.