When did creationists start believing in micro evolution?

Answer 1

With the advent of microwave ovens.

Answer 2

Creationist knew about micro changes even before there was a term called evolution. You can see it in every creature on the planet, including man himself. The problem is the so called "macro" part. Just not there. Darwin always thought it would be found once he started the ball rolling. Not so. 150 years later and we still have tremendous doubt. No absolute proof. You must have a belief in evolution just as you do any other philosophy. If you truly and honestly read through evolution writings you'll see that. Way too many things that you must make a great leap of faith to believe. If you say it is slam dunk truth, then your beliefs don't even line up with your fearless leaders. At least they admit there's short comings.

Answer 3

It isn't "believing in," it is merely pointing out that the evidence for small changes in an organism to meet small changes in an environment is somewhat established. The term "micro-evolution" is used to distinguish from Charles Darwin's (and many since him) claim that these changes can lead to new species. For this there is no evidence at all. The fossil record he felt confident would vindicate him instead shows every life form appearing suddenly, fully formed. There is not one fossil of an "intermediate."

So it's not "believing in," it's clarifying the argument. The evidence of the fossil record supports a little micro-evolution and no macro-evolution at any point. Darwin has been proven to be wrong. (Did you ever read his book? The guy used animal husbandry as the basis of his argument, completely missing the fact that farmers are INTELLIGENCE put into the system. His "evidence" was actually arguing the opposite of what he was saying!)

Answer 4

Ever through fact the belief of evolution replaced into theory up there has consistently been some theists who incredibly have faith evolution is between the techniques an all-understanding God makes use of. The definition substitute should not be sup becoming in any respect. technological know-how is often changing the definitions to be extra precise, and as time is going on we can consistently discover inaccuracies and can desire to maximum suitable some thing right here and there. Take case in point Isaac Newton's discovery of the regulation of action. for hundreds of years this replaced into the widely used; despite the fact that whilst Einstein got here alongside he replaced into waiting to advance this technological know-how along with his theory of relativity. This then grew to alter into the recent widely used. this does not recommend Newton replaced into incorrect, it in simple terms potential he did no longer have the completed concern, and that i'm specific we nevertheless have not got the completed concern. technological know-how is often convalescing and turning out to be "extra precise" with time. there are a lot of creationists that have faith in the guidelines of organic decision, and there are a lot of Evolutionists that have faith in God. Even Darwin wasn't an Atheist.

Answer 5

When there was too much demonstration of the evolutionary process for them to keep lying about it with a strait face, they admitted the truth and changed their position to one that is unlikely to be demonstrated happening with their lifetimes. They created the micro/macro separation so that they could sustain the lie. No matter how much is demonstated, they can claim it is microevolution and fabricate new lies about how the undemonstrated portion, macroevolution is impossible.

Answer 6

June 16, 1989 at 4:01 PM

Answer 7

Many scientists have noted that over time, the descendants of living things change slightly(microevolution). Charles Darwin called this process "descent with subsequent modification." Such changes have been observed directly, recorded in experiments, and used ingeniously by plant and animal breeders.* (Dog breeders can selectively mate their animals so that eventually the descendants have shorter legs or longer hair than their forebears. However, the changes dog breeders produce often result from losses in gene function. For example, the descendants small size is caused by a failure of normal developement of cartilage, resulting in dwarfism)
You see, Darwin went far beyond such observable changes. He wrote in his famous book The Origin of the Species: "I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few being." Darwin said that over vast perriods of time, these original "few beings" or so-called simple life-forms, slowly evolved--by means of "extremely slight modifications" into the millions of different forms of life on earth. Evolutionists teach that these small changes accumulated and produced the big changes needed to make fish into amphibians and apes into men. These proposed big changes are referred to as macroevolution. Well, it never happened...

The teaching of macroevolution rests on three main assumptions:
1-Mutations provide the raw materials needed to create new species.
2- Natural selection leads to the production of new species
3- The fossil record documents macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.

So have any of these things happened? No.

Myth=macroevolution
Fact=microevolution

Answer 8

when it became untenable to completely deny evolution a couple of years ago. I mean, some 150 years of research since Darwin is hard to keep denying. But it is a 'trickle-down' process, some people here will still completely reject any form of evolution.

It's a gradual change.

Answer 9

As far as I know, they always have. It is easy, for it is seen. I don't think any of them would contest a tadpole to a frog as being micro evolution. It is getting them to understand the macro part.

Answer 10

When the evidence of evolution became hard to deny.