Question for Creationists?

Question

I find that creationists in here dismiss evolution because they say a donkey has never given birth to a turtle or a monkey has never given birth to a bear etc. they call this macro evolution and say it doesn't happen. (of course it doesn't happen, evolutionists don't claim that it does)

Creationsists do believe that micro evolution happens, such as the flu bug changing, viruses becoming resistiant to antibiotics do to changes etc.

i have a couple of questions to creationists (but all opinions welcome)
1) isn't macro evolution just the compounded effects of microevolution?
2)do you really think macro evolution means one species giving birth to another?
3)do you really think that evolutionists are trying to convince you that YOUR definition of macro evolution is happening/has happened/is real?

fireball, that's not really an answer.

Answer 1

You forgot a fundamental question:

Since mechanisms for evolution have been demonstrated, what is the mechanism by which microevolution cannot progress to macroevolution and how do you demonstrate it?

Answer 2

I wouldn't classify myself as a Creationist at all, I am more neutral since I have never studied the subject from both sides. I've just taken Biology classes in school and saw no evidence to believe it, and I've read a few Intelligent Design books but I am of the opinion that God did have a part in Creation, though I don't know if he just made animals pop up out of nowhere or if somehow Evolution played a part. I could accept either with sufficient evidence.

As to your questions:

1) No Macro evolution is not part of microevolution. Natural selection is evident, the defects in one species die out. For instance if a human was born paralyzed, if they did not receive help they would not survive. Natural selection would mean those type of people dying off. Darwinism would basically say that after millions of years, the Paraylized people would become a totally new species and in several more million years they would make people who.... don't need legs but walk perfectly on their arms. That is not natural selection. I heard a fair analogy of this, it is like an assembly line for a car, if one piece is defective they do not take those defective parts to make a totally new car, they take the piece out. But according to Darwinism, that defective piece becomes a part of the species' progeny, and from there the next offspring receives another defect, and so on and so on, until the car assembly line produces a boat from all the defective selections. Such a thing wont happen. The defects are taken out, that is what natural selection does.

2) Macro evolution means "big changes". Now I know Evolutionists don't believe that a cow immediately gives birth to a horse.... but the same concept is there. Over millions of years one species becomes another. I don't think such a thing exists. For instance hundreds of years ago humans were shorter purportedly, but we are not at all becoming a new species. Simple genetics and who we reproduce with affects that.

3) ....... uhhh..... what?

Answer 3

Hi Riegan,
There is a misconception here, and I'd like to help you see that Creationists are not 100% in denial of evolution.
Many of those who believe that God created the world in 6 days are traditionalists who were taught this in Sunday school by parents and teachers who grew up before the concepts of Evolution were brought to the main light.
Having studied science and as a holder if degrees in physics and astronomy, I have a more open minded and critical point of view that is actually being shared by more and more Christians as time passes.
I will address your questions first and then expand on what I am saying:
1 yes, macro evolution is the compounded effects of microevolution (or more properly classified as adaptation)
2 the terminology is a bit rough, but you could say that it is one species giving birth to another in a figurative sort of way. The truth is that over a number of generations, multiple adaptations eventually yield a different species. There is no clear dividing line where one parent is a different species than its offspring.
3 not really. I don't think evolutionists are trying to make a statement one way or the other (except for those who want to use evolution as some weapon of an atheistic cause)
Now to a little expansion of what I was talking about earlier:
First and foremost, we need to understand that people who were very wise, but not very educated as we measure such things today wrote the Bible. Moses (the author of the book of Genesis) knew very little about biology and never even heard the word "evolution". But then again, the Bible was not meant to be a science textbook. It was instead intended to pass certain messages to the people in a form that they could understand at the time. For God to tell us that He created man from the dust of the earth and to not go into any further detail on the actual process would be like a parent telling a child "just because" or "because I said so" when the parent knows that the child is incapable of understanding.
If you look at evolution from beginning to end, then it actually supports the creation of man as spelled out in the scripture. Evolution starts with the dust of the earth and ends with man, just as the Bible states. The difference is that evolution does go into detail with regard to the process involved.
Here is another analogy: A sculptor carves out a statue from marble. He says, "I made this statue out of solid rock". It is a simple and true statement. But it does not say much about the actual process; the chiseling, polishing, grinding or filing that took place to create the final product. I think this is the same thing that we see in Genesis. God tells us he made man. Just because He does not tell us the process, does not mean that there wasn't one.
Six days? Well to anyone with enough time and initiative and with an open mind to read the first chapter of the Bible, it quickly becomes apparent that we are not talking about six consecutive 24-hour periods. How do we know? Because we measure days by the rising and setting of the sun, and the sun is not created until the fourth day. This is clear evidence that the days mentioned are not to be taken literally. That actually opens the door for very liberal interpretations keeping in mind that God's word was being written for simple-minded people to understand the overall big picture, and not necessarily the scientific details.
So in closing, I hope you have a little better understanding that evolution and creation are not mutually exclusive of each other. True, there are those who will argue on both sides until the walls come tumbling down, but with a little open mindedness and thought, it becomes clear that a book written thousands of years ago actually confirms what science now says and if taken in the proper context, science is now confirming what the Bible has always said.

Answer 4

I have heard of some scientists who claim that evolution often takes a giant leap forward suddenly (in relative terms).

To answer your question: What else would macro evolution be? Micro evolution as far as my research goes is species eventually giving birth to another of their kind - but never transforming into another species. For example, a pair of cats find themselves in a different kind of environment. Micro evolution will help the following generations of cats to adapt to their new environment to ensure their survival. However, you are never going to see a pair of cats adapting by becoming a dog, bird or anything else that is not cat. It is not possible. Check the laws of biology.

Or, what if all of the trees somehow became much shorter in Africa? If the Giraffe population did not adapt, and start growing shorter necks, then they would starve. Would they be another species when the adaptation was complete? No. They would look different, but they would still be giraffes.

In fact, to all of you Napoleon Dynamite fans - there are Ligers and even Tigons (look them up in an encyclopedia) - however, because they are crossbred, two ligers cannot mate and have more ligers - in fact they cannot mate at all. It seems that nature keeps species from giving birth to other species even after millions and billions of years.

Now, I will admit that creationists are often guilty of not using their brains, and trying to brainwash people to agree with their agenda. Sometimes, they even dishonestly cause the evidence to point towards their favor. However, so do evolutionists - more so than creationists because they have a better access to the people than creationists do.

I know you are going to say "That didn't answer my question." I assume that is because you already think you know the answer.

Oh, and for one of the previous posters - not all of us are robots, any more than all of you are robots. You claim that we are brainwashed - where did you get your information? Did you come up with it yourself - or did, hmm, an evolutionist give it to you? Seems we aren't the only ones who "don't think for themselves."

Answer 5

I'm not a creationist, but I thought it was a little sad that this question got so few answers.
1. Yes. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is entirely arbitrary. It's essentially a way for creationists to continue to oppose evolution without challenging hundreds of observed cases of it happening.
2. Of course not, but there are creationists who do. The more ridiculous evolution is, the easier it is to disregard without consideration. So it's logical that priests and creation 'scientists' would promote an image of evolution that's as ridiculous as possible. And their target audience is fairly gullible.
3. Same answer as 2, basically.

Answer 6

I believe that yes micro evolution happens to some extent (viruses and bacterica becoming resistant to different things... oh by the way viruses can't be battled by antibiotics because they're used to battle bacteria), anyways I know that a horse obviously doesn't give birth to a turtle, and I understand evolutionists view of branching from one species to another. (I'm currently majoring in Biology). However, I really do not see how over time humans have become sooo complex. How was the first organism that could percieve sight able to see? Was sight just a random mutation that occurred? There's just so many holes in evolution that I can't accept it.

Answer 7

Creationists have given their answers to these questions, for what its worth.

1)They will say that they have no evidence of multiple micro-evolutions adding up to a macro evolution.

2)They say that is what macro evolutkin is, but neither creationists nor smart people believe there to be such a thing.

3)Only the most willfully ignorant creationists take that position.

Answer 8

Think of a creationist as a new born child, which possesses very little ability to think for themselves. They are spoon feed information from creations sources from others that have also started out the same way. Creationists have no understanding of how science actually works, so they make up silly stories with scientific sounding words to make the child think they are being told the truth.

The whole point is if your feed garbage, then you repeat garbage. Garbage in, garbage out.

Answer 9

A lot (and I mean a LOT) of creationists just really don't know ANYTHING about evolution.

If, for example, you point out that the word evolution isn't in Origin of the Species, or that evolution means 'change in allele frequency in a population over time" they go around going "does not compute" like the robots they are.

Answer 10

1) No. Variation within kind is merely the expression of phenotype. You may or may not be aware, but very little genetic inheritance can be explained in terms of a simple Mendelian model - it's a bit more complex than this. Certain characteristics are only expressed if other characteristics are expressed, and in other cases, certain characteristics are supressed in the presence of characteristics. In neither of those cases are we dealing with anything other than expression of ALREADY existing information, not the addition of new information. In order to make the uphill climb from one celled organism to multicellular organizaiton, NEW information is required. To move from an aquatic environment to a land environment, NEW information is required.

In the case of microbial resistance, which is well documented, no new information is expressed. Through the means of "selection" microbes that are resistant (usually due to a defect in the phage mechanism which means they do not take in as much nourishment, hence less antibiotic) do not die, while those that are healthy/normal live. The offspring of those microbes have a similar defect, yet they have the same genetic material as their healthy cousins - the genome is not one single sequence longer!

Let's compare this to a card game. If I have a deck of cards and allow people to pass them to their partners in order to form an ideal hand and shoot anyone whose hand is less than ideal, I will eventually end up with only ideal hands, n'est ce pas? How will I ever get anything other than the numbers 2 through 9 and the face cards? I CAN'T!

To save a bit of time, also bear in mind that since we are dealing with a SEQUENCE, insertion of a single new amino means that every single amino is off positionally by one from the point of insertion forward. This generally fatal and when it is not is extremely harmful. Consider that a single genetic mistake is responsible for Down's syndrome, for example. Deletion of material is even worse, and obviously does not give rise to new information needed for ever increasing complexity.

2) no

3) no

Do a bit of simple investigation into genomics and patterns of inheritance - it will lend credibility to your posts.

Tom