Why do evolutionist refuse to recognize the difference between micro and macro evolution?

Question

Micro evolution is proven, it is a fact, species have evolved to suit their surroundings. However, macro evolution (i.e. one species changing into another) has never been proven and there is absolutly no evidence. If this where true wouldn't there be half this animal and that half that animal fossils everywhere? I really and truly want to understand how they can turn minor modifications of one species into one species changing into another. There has been millions of dollars in reward money set aside for anyone who can prove this! Why doesn't someone collect if they are so sure that we evolved from monkeys, frogs, fish or what ever!! Where is the proof, if you can't provide it then you must accept that macro evolution is simply a theory!!!!!!!!

Proof, not a bunch of mumbo jumbo but proof!!!!!

Micro evolution is proven, it is a fact, species have evolved to suit their surroundings. However, macro evolution (i.e. one species changing into another) has never been proven and there is absolutly no evidence. If this where true wouldn't there be half this animal and that half that animal fossils everywhere? I really and truly want to understand how they can turn minor modifications of one species into one species changing into another. There has been millions of dollars in reward money set aside for anyone who can prove this! Why doesn't someone collect if they are so sure that we evolved from monkeys, frogs, fish or what ever!! Where is the proof, if you can't provide it then you must accept that macro evolution is simply a theory!!!!!!!!

I don't see anyone with an answer good enough to collect a million dollars, what's wrong boys and girls?

Answer 1

Macro is theory, in much the same way that the universe was created (this is also theory), a theory is a scientific hypothosis that has yet to be proven wrong. In otherwords, it's an educated guess.

If scientists never conjectured macro evolution, then science would never have the oppurtunity to prove that it is incorrect.

For example, if you want to go swimming, but never get in the water, then you'll never go swimming. It's much the same way with science, if we don't ask the questions, propose the theories, then the facts will never surface and we would all continue to be in the dark.

Now, one theory about how macro evolution can occur comes from a substance known as Cosmic Dust, it's proven to exist, it enters our body and passes through our body without ever affecting us most of the time, however, on very very very very rare occasions, odds are far greater than any lottery, a cosmic dust particle will strike the DNA strand in a nuclei, causing a change in DNA structure, and thus causes the cell structure to undergo a substantial change. Scientists believe that of these DNA strands hit, most would cause the cell to die, but over time, eventually one dust particle would collide with the right strand and trigger a change that sticks, or succeeds.

Answer 2

"If this where true wouldn't there be half this animal and that half that animal fossils everywhere?"

There are. Well, not "half", of course, but animals that differ from one another, just as you'd expect per evolution.

For all your shouting, all you're doing is showing your complete ignorance of the subject. Your problem is that you don't have any idea what a "species" is (you also apparently have that standard creationist ignorant idea of what a "theory" is).

You seem to believe that once microevolution has resulted in the changes of a population of organisms, something else has to come around and change their species. But "species" is just what describes the words we use to name the organisms. You can refuse to call the new organisms "human beings", but that doesn't change the fact that evolution has changed them from what they used to be into what they are.

Don't you think you should have learned something about the topic before making loud, arrogant accusations? Your failure to do so really left you making a fool of yourself.

Answer 3

"tell me the answer to that" Macro is replace at or above the species point Micro is below… "then tell me the place the evolution concept all started then I even have yet another question for you!" Evolution, as a concept, has been around in one sort or yet another because of the fact that approximately 500BC Darwin needless to say further organic decision to the assumption of evolution in the 1860's. Genetics has further plenty because of the fact the 1930's. Our contemporary evolutionary synthesis is plenty greater complicated than it become as proposed by ability of Darwin one hundred fifty years in the past...

Answer 4

Domestic sheep can no longer interbreed with the mouflon, the wild sheep from which the original domesticated stock came. In other words, the domestic sheep is a different species. Humans took a group of sheep, bred them for specific qualities, and in so doing, moved them far enough away genetically from the original stock as to make them a different species. And all it took was a series of minor modifications.

As for the "reward money", I assume you're talking about the legendary Kent Hovind, who includes abiogenesis and the Big Bang is his requirement list for evolution.

Answer 5

The theory of evolution does NOT say that we evolved from one species into another, entirely different species. It does NOT say that. We evolved from simpler versions of OURSELVES, and we are distantly related to other life forms. (Such as apes.)
The claim that the theory of evolution says that we evolved from one species into another is a LIE perpetuated by creationist advocates.
For Pete's sake, people, LEARN something about the theory of evolution before spouting off B/S. And YOU should learn the correct definition of macro-evolution before putting incorrect words in scientists mouths and then attacking what you're trying to CLAIM they're saying.

Macro-evolution is one species splitting into two species due to evolutionary changes, NOT one species changing into another entirely different species.
Micro-Evolution is any small, adaptive change made by a species that isn't significant enough to create a new species.

Answer 6

The only differences are time. Small changes can happen relatively quick, and they add up over time to make big changes. This is fact unless you can come up with a scientific theory as to a mechanism that would stop small changes from adding up to big ones. Microevolution is the proof form Macro. If you accept that small changes in genes can happen, then you also accept that genes can change. And to date there is no scientific stopping point as to how much genes can change. That is the proof.

Answer 7

When are people who don't know thing 1 about evolution going to realize that macro and micro evolution are the same thing? Micro evolution is simply the more observable moment during macro evolution. Since Macro evolution takes many thousands of years you won't see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Just a note to you, real scientists who work in fields that study evolution don't use the terms micro and macro for that exact reason.

Answer 8

So are you saying that you are wholesale dismissing things like...

Hipbones in whales
Vestigial bones in many creatures that are actual limbs in others
Vestigial eye sockets in blind cave fish
The human appendix

Transitional fossils like archeopteryx are pretty clear-cut examples of one species (lizard) evolving into another (bird), or do you simple ignore the lizard-like skin with feathers?

Like most people convinced of their own press, you choose to "see" what you wish to see. All science is theory, and the acceptance of the theory is based on supporting evidence and peer agreement. There is good, solid evidence to support the theory of macro-evolution, and there is world-wide expert peer agreement.

What else do you want?

Answer 9

Saying it over again doesn't make it correct.

You are wrong. There are literally hundreds of fossils which show an intermediary organism like the ones you describe.

You're an uninformed troll who should really do some reading. Something other than Kent Hovind or Michael Behe.

Get back to us when you've decided you want to talk about science seriously.

Answer 10

Drinks!

Go and read some science. Everything is a theory.

Edit:

They award millions of dollars every year to those who not only have proved evolution but use it to make the medicines that keep many people alive, they are called Nobel prizes.

And stop digging you are just making youself look even more ignorant.