Does macroevolution qualify as a scientific theory?

Question

A truly reliable scientific theory must meet the following criteria :

1. thoroughly testable,
2. scientifically falsifiable, and
3. makes accurate predictions.

How many of these criteria does macroevolution (not to be confused with microevolution) meet?

Answer 1

Micro- and macroevolution really just come down to buzzwords that are tossed around, but I think that I understand what you are trying to say.

I'm inferring that you have no conflict accepting microevolution as a valid? And that your issue is solely with macroevolution? It could be said that these two are nothing but the end points in a continuous series of evolving populations. That is Richard Dawkins view, and I tend to agree with him.

It's like measuring a one year old child's growth on an hourly basis. Our rulers aren't sensitive enough to pick up any changes. Over the course of weeks or months, the child may grow several centimeters or such. If we continue recording data until the child is 20 years old, then plot out the data in 5 year intervals, we will see large changes. Macrogrowth, even.

We can study microevolution directly. Methods are testable and falsifiable, and accurate predictions can be made. We cannot study macroevolution directly. The time scales are simply too long. However, looking at macroevolution as the sum of many small episodes of microgrowth, macroevolution can be studied by examining patterns in biological populations and groups of related organisms, and inferring process from pattern. I have no problem calling this a scientific theory.

Answer 2

Macroevolution is not a theory. It is a codeword used by creationists to avoid the role of evolution [change in allele frequency in a population over time] in speciation.

Things like evolution, macroevolution and speciation are all observable phenomena. Where the theory comes in is exactly as you state. It is a self-consistent explanation of these phenomena that makes testable, falsifiable predictions. By those criteria, there is only one theory that explains evolution: Evolution by Natural Selection. Other explanations are not theories because they fail on one or more of the necessary criteria (Lamarkism is wrong, Creationism is not science)

So, macroevolution is not a theory. It is a phenomenon explained by the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Answer 3

You are also suggesting that Creation cannot be true, is that what you are implying?

The distinction between micro and macro evolution is artificial. Macro evolution is just micro evolution over many years. For micro to exist, macro must exist. It cannot be any other way.
Since the premise of evolution is that mutations cannot be predicted, you argument is fallacious. Natural selection is testable, I would suggest you look up antibiotic and pesticide resistance. Scientists, in their experiments, do try to falsify natural selection, but have,after 150 years, been unable to. It would suggest that the theory is very robust. If by falsifiable, you are suggesting that no theory is valid that cannot be proved false, well, then it would rule out Gravity also.

There is evidence for evolution, it just requires that people like yourself accept it as given, and not dismiss it beforehand.

It should also be noted that there are scientists who have been trying to disprove evolution, because they do not believe it themselves, but they seem to draw only religious people as supporters.