microevolution ie forms of adaptation are practical, but why believe in macro when the evidence is so little?

Answer 1

There is a *lot* of evidence for macroevolution. Scientists simply would not support it so overwhelmingly if there wasn't! Period. Scientists live, eat, and breathe *EVIDENCE* ... they are NOT universally stupid or corrupt.

Sorry the following is so long ... but I first have to clear up the common misuse (or misunderstanding) of the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution', and *then* address the evidence.

There is a lot of confusion about the difference between the terms 'microevolution' and 'macroevolution.' It is *NOT* some fundamental difference found in nature. In other words, macroevolution is simply the same process that produces microevolution, except on much longer time scales. That same process is simply called "evolution" ... and there is no fundamental difference between the two *in nature*.

It is a division that *biologists* sometimes make when *studying* evolution (in the same way that we distinguish between 'biochemistry' and 'molecular chemistry' ... but there is no real barrier between the two *in nature*). Microevolution is "evolution below and at the level of species." And macroevolution is "evolution at and above the level of species" ... but both include evolution *at* the level of the species ... i.e. the split of species into two species, which has been documented both by experiment and observation.

The only reason biologists make the distinction is that microevolution occurs on timescales of a few years ... while macroevolution occurs on longer timescales ranging to thousands or even millions of years. Thus microevolution (and some forms of macroevolution) can be studied using direct experiment ... while macroevolution mostly relies on observation (which is an equally valid way of doing science ... in fact, many sciences rely almost entirely on observation ... geology, astronomy, astrophysics, archaeology, anthropology, paleontology, climatology, meteorology, etc.).

Creationists try to exploit this difference between experiment and observation to imply that there is "little evidence" for macroevolution ... or even that macroevolution doesn't qualify as a science at all.

This is of course rubbish.

If there wasn't *tons* of evidence from observation that serves as powerful evidence of macroevolution, then scientists would not support it so strongly. The strongest of this evidence is the gene and DNA evidence showing unmistakeable signs of common ancestry between living species (not just a "relationship", but one of shared DNA sequences and genes that show *how much* any two species are related, and *when* their two genetic lines diverged). Almost as strong is the fossil evidence. But there is also embryological evidence, evidence from structures of species both alive and extinct, vestigial structures, homologous structures, atavisms, biogeography (e.g. the fact that kangaroos and all their fossils appear *only* in Australia), shared proteins, virology, bacteriology, etc. etc.

There is absolutely no reason the overwhelming majority (>98%) of scientists would continue to accept macroevolution if "the evidence is so little."

Whoever told you that was lying to you.

Answer 2

There is no known mechanism which would prevent microevolution, over a period of time, from becoming macroevolution.

Think about it next time you're walking your dog or eating an ear of corn.

Edit:
Oh man, I'm about to get pwned by Secretsauce, LOL.

Answer 3

Perhaps you have a better theory? One which better fits the evidence? One which doesn't not involve some kind of wishful thinking, or supernatural phenomena?

Answer 4

There is no such thing as micro- or macro-evolution. It is all one thing, just the evolution of species.