Can anyone explain this position to me? Where is the line drawn? At species level? Order? Is there any evidence of this border?
2007-08-17 04:06:00 · 18 answers · asked by Eleventy 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Those are mighty big words for a Creationist...
2007-08-17 04:09:00 · answer #1 · answered by Some Lady 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Believing in microevolution (evolution below the level of species) but not macroevolution (evolution above the level of species) requires a genetic fantasy that transcription errors in nucleobase replication ceases once reproductively isolated populations have been seperated more than 5-10,000 generations.
If you accept the modern understanding of genetics and accept that the earth is millions of years old, then you must accept that macroevolution must take place. Of course most creationists who argue that there has been no macroevolution will argue that the Earth is only a few thousands of years old. Of course that belief would then require another genetic fantasy that transcription errors happen at a much higher than observed rate, or how then to account for all of the genetic diversity in modern humans which could only have accumulated over 120,000 years?
Creationists are also very confused about things like species, orders, families, etc. They'll put all sharks together as one kind, or all crocodiles together as one kind. That would be the same as putting humans and other other Hominoidae apes together as one kind.
2007-08-17 04:12:53 · answer #2 · answered by Dendronbat Crocoduck 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
This is resistance to seeing life as being plastic and completely adaptive.
It seems almost unimaginable, all the little deviations between the generations that would then grow into lines and species, and...us. But imagination is what the ideas of evolution require.
We barely have the mental abilities to encompass the number of changes and the amount of time necessary for evolution to have occurred. But that is what the evidence is telling us happened. And more evidence is being uncovered every day.
From chemicals, to cells, to bugs, to fish, to monkeys, to us - like it or not.
2007-08-25 01:17:35 · answer #3 · answered by smkeller 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
in reverse order:
The evidence is that the missing links have never been found
I think the line is drawn at the species level - at least, it was the last time I did any studying in it a very long time ago
Examples:
microevolution - all dogs descended from wolves
macroevoluation - humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos all descended from a common ancestor
2007-08-24 18:07:52 · answer #4 · answered by javadic 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no evidence. It is just simply a scalar evasion. Macro evolution is simply more than has been observed. When you reach a criterion set by a creationist, they will extend the criteria. I have had Creationists set the criterion at order level shifts in one generation or kingdom level shifts for multicellular organisms.
2007-08-17 05:39:44 · answer #5 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is were one believes in the evolution of species. But doesn't believe in all of creation coming from a single celled organism billions of years ago. It's almost like a mix between creationism and evolution. One can't deny the evolution of species because it has happened and is happening in animals around us in the last century ; but to say we all came from an amoeba type organism doesn't fit to them.
Hope this helps.
2007-08-17 04:14:39 · answer #6 · answered by fire_fall_now 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They draw the line at "kind," which of course they're completely incapable of defining consistently.
Just yesterday I went 'head-to-head' IRL with a street preacher when I heard him starting to say some retarded things about evolution. Among them was his contention that two different animal species are different kinds (so that would suggest "kind" = "species," right?), yet he considers all bacteria the same kind (an entire KINGDOM!).
2007-08-17 04:09:57 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We've observed the existence of microevolution in the world around us. We haven't been recording the show long enough to see any new animal pop up out of the woodwork.
2007-08-17 04:12:22 · answer #8 · answered by Atlas 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
How can you possibly believe in something, but not something else, but not know the difference ? Quit splitting hairs. Evolution has been explained by scientists all over the world . You either believe it, or go for the hokus-pokus story.
2007-08-17 04:14:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe in what can be determined and explained to me through logical sense. I also believe (normally) what I see with my own eyes. I do believe in evolution, but evolution to be completely proven has a long way to go, in my opinion.
2007-08-24 21:15:55 · answer #10 · answered by anonymous 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This position is adopted by Christians who are bright enough to know that micro evolution is observable, but just can't let go, and hold onto creationist ideas.
But I guess you know that already.
2007-08-17 04:11:59 · answer #11 · answered by hog b 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋