For those who believe in Microevolution and yet refuse to accept Macroevolution....?

Question

How do you draw that line? I just don't understand how one concept can be reasonable to you, and yet the other not? Is it just a religious line....i.e. because the concept of macroevolution conflicts with your religion too much, or do you have any logical deductions that make you believe this? If bateria, for example, can evolve within your lifetime (Superbugs), why couldn't more complex lifeforms evolve over millions of years? Does believing in a supernatural being that breathed life into dust really make more sense to you?

Answer 1

A good question, but it worries me that this sort of thing encourages this nonsensical belief that there really two separate things called micro- and macro-evolution.

In fact, of course, there is no such division. The only yardstick I can find is that micro-evolution is that which theists will accept, if their other silly arguments fail and they're up against the wall.

The point of division actually occurs when a theist's imagination fails, and they can't understand anymore how it could happen.

That's what you get when you try to substitute 'common sense' for real information. It's all too common, but it isn't sensible.

CD

Answer 2

Well, I happen to realize that some of what is known as "macro-evolution" actually incorporates some concepts that are more commonly espoused by micro-evolution.

Anyway, my two main issues with most theories in macro-evolution are:
1. There is absolutely NO evidence to support it. NONE. Not even one single fossil. The main fossils which are supposedly "evidence" have turned out to be frauds, or in the case of Java Man, shoddy work.
2. Life does not come from non-life. Ever. Even the Miller-Urey experiment ONLY had amino acids as the end result because Miller used the wrong kind of mixture. AND even if a scientist eventually used the RIGHT compound and created amino acids from it, they would still be about a thousand steps from even creating ONE living cell, much less the millions that we have, and our DNA.

I believe that inter-species evolution CAN and DOES occur. There is proof for this. However, the Cambrian Explosion, which is supported by a plethora of scientific evidence, does not support the idea of completely different species having a common ancestor.

It has nothing to do with religion.

Answer 3

Everything was created.
Everything has evolved.
As we speak we are seeing the next part of the equation unfold, and it's called revolution.

Revolution is happening on the inside and outside of humans.

As mankind becomes divided on the many issues he faces, a state of disunity arises, and that's where we are at now.

When this gets out of hand it might be necessary for the Creator, to send an emissary, to intercede, or mend the fences so to say.

Every problem has a solution. The solutions to the problems
that we are facing today are of such a magnitude that man will come to an understanding he is limited and seek the Creator for help.

If you have a problem with a new automobile and it is under warranty, one returns to the manufacturer or creator to seek help in the repair. This is how it is accomplished if one has "Wisdom".

Answer 4

The belief in Microevolution is an indication that at least some religious folks are starting to concede that thier beliefs based on writings of uneducated prophets from thousands of years ago may be flawed.

It is pretty obvious to anyone who has a basic understanding of the laws of physics and nature that once a rule is established it will continue to work and over time can create some spectacular results.

The fact that some are holding on to the belief that macroevolution doesn't exist is just ignorance, especially considdering all of the transitional fossils that have been discovered. But at least they are willing to give up a little on micro evolution, eventually they will reason through the fact that micro evolution leads to macroevolution. They have to if they are honest.

The fact that people like the guy above expects to see a monkey change into a man during his lifetime shows exactly how undereducated many of them are on evolution, they accept that a micro evolution can take place over their lifetimes, but don't understand that it takes ALLOT of time for minichanges to become major changes. It is pretty sad.

Answer 5

If you understand both, there is not problem.

Micro evolution is not evolution at at all. Its just variation within a species.

Bacteria cannot evolve into something other than another strain of bacteria.

There are seven seminars on the links below, an average of three hours long each. Listen to them. You will learn a lot.

Taugh by a high school science teacher in language that any high school student will understand.

Pastor Art

Answer 6

There are two major problems that I see in the idea of evolution.
1. There isn't enough time for the small rodent like mammals left after the last extinguishing event to bring them to the size and variety of the mammals the roamed the earth during the last major ice age.
2. Viruses have been known to man for approximately the last 200 years. During that time there have been billions of generations, yet never has a virus jumped species. Yes the have varied but they remain viruses...

I can see variation what you call micro evolution but there is no evidence for more than that. Not one instance in recorded natural history to support it. You will have to take it's existence on faith.. Since you must do that I would be careful jumping on the faith of Christians. WE have as much evidence that our faith is real as you do yours is. I was forced to study your faith in school. Have you studied mine? Jim

Answer 7

SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

(Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method )

1. OBSERVATION -steps of evolution have never been observed (Stebbins )

In the fossil recordwe view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.(Gould )

2. EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any

human experimenter (Dobzhansky )

3. REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. (Dobshansky )

4. FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science. (Ehrlich )



RESEARCH PROBLEMS WITH MACROEVOLUTION:

1. ORIGINS -the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility (Hoyle )

2. DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material which are lethal to the organism (Maddox )

3. STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA (Barton )

4. GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts have been found in earth's sedimentary layers which disrupt the supposed evolutionary order (Corliss )

5. DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design (Denton, Behe ).


(DNA REPAIR: The genome is reproduced very faithfully and there are enzymes

which repair the DNA, where errors have been made or when the DNA is

damaged. - D.H.R. Barton, Professor of Chemistry, Texas A&M University,

Nobel Prize for Chemistry )


(CHANGE WITHIN GENETIC BOUNDARIES: Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution,

the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as

incipient species. Richard B. Goldschmidt )


(MUTATION ACCUMULATIONS RELENTLESSLY FATAL: Any random change

in a complex, specific, functioning system wrecks that system. And living things

are the most complex functioning systems in the universe.Science has now

quantitated that a genetic mutation of as little as 1 billionth (0.0000001%) of an

animal's genome is relentlessly fatal.The genetic difference between human and

his nearest relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6% Calculated out that is a

gap of at least 48 million nucleotide differences that must be bridged by random

changes. And a random change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal.

Answer 8

Microevolution is like an adaptation where as Macroevolution is a total change in a species. For example, Microevolution is like a fly adapting to a certain bug spray causing you to have to change products to repell the flies. Macroevolution is like a monkey turning into a man. Bugs adapt (micro) where as I have never seena monkey change into a man or seen the stages that would cause me to believe that a monkey can become a man (macro). If you care to discuss this farther with me, my e-mail is on my profile.

Answer 9

It's great that macro-evolution is "laughable"...
but Creation! That is good science...

Christians are ignorant of science... Because the Bible says that being smart is a sin. (eating from the tree of knowledge...wise men will tell you that the bible is false)...
And they merely spew back what their leaders (shepards) tell them.
"Talking Points"...

++++
Case in Point: Lion of Judah...

You just took a whole bunch of random points from random studies and Literary works (ie not scientific)... and put them all together as to form some sort of "logical" (but not really) point. That's how propaganda works...

You yourself probably don't even know the context inwhich those "sound bites" were stated. Someone merely picked them out...put them all together and now your spewing it around as if though you understand how science works....

***
To the people who say that life doesn't come from non life...
What exactly do you think your body is made from...Magic?!
Your body is carbon-based...meaning that it has a chemical composition. Your DNA is just strands of inorganic "stuff"... that make more inorganic stuff. it is only in the chemical reactions with other inorganic "stuff" that "life" takes place. Y

Take a Biology Class Or a Chemestry...your body works though chemical reactions... If you go down far enough (molecularly) you have a similar composition to that of your kitchen table.

Answer 10

People who do not accept evolution after being taught about it, are either too simple to understand it, or they are insane. Rational discussion rarely helps them. They have decided not to listen.