If you beleive in micro changes at the species level?

Question

then why is it so hard to comprehend that over an extensive period of time(macro) and reproductive isolation between populations of any given species, that eventually, speciation will occur? That is, physical traits will differ in descendents over time?

csbp

it is kinda obvious, yet people evidently DO disagree with it, unfortunately

Answer 1

In fact if you believe in "microevolution", you believe in "macroevolution". You just don't know it.

The confusion that creationists have that leads them to think the "macroevolution" thing is a good argument is that they have an essentialist notion of what a "species" is. Imagine that we started with a population of small dinosaurs, and through selection pressures that population gradually changed, acquiring lighter bones, feathers and the like through what creationists call "microevolution". Eventually that population changes so much that the creatures look like this:

http://www.fnal.gov/ecology/wildlife/pics/Sandhill_Crane.jpg

Now, if you believe in microevolution and not macroevolution, you're forced to say "that's a dinosaur that has adapted through microevolution. Sure, it looks like a bird, and has the physical structure and behavior of a bird, but it's a dinosaur". Normal people - those who believe in evolution - say "That's a sandhill crane".

Now, the creationist is probably jumping up and down screaming that those changes can't happen - that you can't get a population of sandhill cranes from a population of dinosaurs. If that's what you're screaming, you can't use the "microevolution, but not macroevolution" argument, because "microevolution" implies that the physical characteristics of the population can change gradually over time. You're stuck denying "microevolution", which is a problem because we know for a fact that what you call "microevolution" DOES occur.

Now, if you have some kind of magic theory that says "well, sure, it can change, but it's not a new species", I'd love to hear it. It's going to have to involve genes changing in such a way that they migrate into our brains - and our biology texts - and prevent us from calling those birds "sandhill cranes".
================
I notice that the only creationist who has answered so far is one who dismisses evolution on the mistaken belief that it is supposed to be progressive.

(Later:) And the two others who chimed in didn't do any better. One reference to made-up authority, the other the old "law of thermodynamics" schtick. Sigh.

Answer 2

If real science is based on observation and proof, I'll wait to believe in evolution---and it is a belief---until someone shows me all the fossils of intermediary life forms or can demonstrate how life forms change from one species or family to another. Up until now, there have been no solid intermediary fossils of any kind found and there should be millions or billions of them if Darwinistic evolutionary concepts are true. Back in the day when Darwin first proposed his theory, scientists were not aware of how the genetic code locks information into reproduction and makes it impossible for the type of macro-evolution to occur as proposed by the evolution theory. Some variation or micro-evolution does occur because of genetic variables in the DNA code but a dog-type animal will always reproduce another dog, a feline will produce a feline, a giraffe, another giraffe and so on. Only animals of a similiar family can interbreed successfully or reproduce fertile offspring to propagate themselves.
Change over time or evolution is just another religion disguised as science and is based on a belief---no one was around to record this supposed change firsthand, so all we have is some scientist's belief on how life began and evolved and their conclusions are biased by their worldview or belief system. Two people of different biases can look at the same evidence and come to two opposite conclusions....so who's right? Is science so exalted that we must follow it in lockstep and accept every new notion as truth or be accused of being backwards or out of touch with the modern world? If scientific evidence is brought into the discussion which refutes the theory of evolution or age of the earth, it is simply tossed out as not being credible or "interpretted" correctly.
So many hoaxes and false or misleading information have been foisted on the public over the last 150 years that it's hard for me to take any of it seriously, which is a black eye on many good scientific pursuits. I wish they would just emphasize that it's still a theory and open to being incorrect. Someday the truth will reign.

Answer 3

Where is the physical proof of dinosaurs turning into birds or apes turning into men other than just an artist concept that takes an ape skull and makes it look more human or taking a human skull and makes it look more ape like? There still is a missing link.

I have not studied physics but doesn't the 2nd law of thermal dynamics blow a hole in evolution anyway?

Answer 4

Micro changes are self evident, whereas Macro changes are just a theory, and in fact are being disproved by notable scientist even as I write this.

Answer 5

It's like they believe the DNA encodes not just information about the current life form, but also its original "kind" - and mutations which deviate too much from it simply don't happen.

Answer 6

I can see micro evolution, but I don't see it in the case as macro evolution. If it did happen, why all of the different species now and not just one, say the best one.

Answer 7

You realize that you are talking to people that believe magic is the answer to all of life's questions.

Answer 8

Because they don't hear you. You can see this when you talk to them. You can get them to believe all the smaller stuff, and when you show them it adds up to evolution, they just tune out.

And I don't know what to do about that.

Answer 9

They don't think that, to get from here to there, you have to take it one step at a time. Or at least they somehow don't think that the same applies to evolution.

Answer 10

...Does anyone disagree with that? It's kind of obvious.