How can you "believe in " "micro-evolution" and not "macro evolution"?

Question

This is like saying that although you believe in steps, but that staircases are just silly.

Or here's a better analogy:

You have a computer that is programmed to do one thing. you change a line of programming and it still does that one thing, but it does it a bit differently. So you change another line of programming. It still does the same thing, but it does it a little differently. If you change a line of programming every day, or add a line or delete a line, eventually that program will be very unlike the original program, right? Eventually, it might not do the same thing it originallly did. Eventually, a program for calculating mortality tables could become a program for, say, playing pacman.

Primoa, I appreciate your candor, but quite honestly, that explains a lot. I also believe in God, but at some point these adaptations become so many that new species are formed. Just because no one human lives long enough to see it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Through the generations, the gene pool changes, thus changing the creatures that are born out of it.

Joe, I see what you mean... but genetic code.... computer code... I'm an agnostic theist, so I'm allowed to have that kind of thing anyway. ;-)

Wilson J, that is just sad. Why do people want to find out about things? Would you prefer living in a cave and clubbing your food? We are a curious species. It's called intellect. Why on earth would you consider ignorance and disinterest to be a good thing?

Answer 1

That is the basis of Quantum Theory. The least quantum unit, which cannot be broken further, but can be added infinitely to create macro units. Science believes that the cosmos was formed 12 billion years ago. This amount of time is built by adding the quanta of time, the `Cronon`. Same logic applies to everything. U have correctly applied it to evolution...Gee Waman

Answer 2

the bacteria usually loses a part of it. If it was in a different place or back to where it previously was it would die. im sorry guys but macro hasn't been proven. ha ha ha...I know that very funny but im not the one that doesn't use "maybe" "probably" "possibly" and words like that when im describing something I think is true. Before you evolutionist and atheist give me a thumbs down. Pease explain how a woodpecker or the jaw with 2 sets of teath evolved? What do you have to sa about the bible having prophesies, around 300 for just Jesus and about historical events? or Why did all but one apostle die for their belief? (It cant be a lie becuase they were with Jesus. I dont think the terrorist from 9/11 were with muhamad when the angle came to him.)

Answer 3

Well I do. In-built adaptability, the ability to adapt to changing environments just like the survival instinct all animals and humans have.
Micro-evolution is scientifically provable whereas macro-evolution has never been proven through a rigorous scientific method, it remains as a theory but is taught as a fact. Consider the beginnings of life - the experiments to create amino acids in a simulated early earth environment, this repeatedly failed to prove anything concrete, it showed how unlikely life could arise by chance let alone then start evolving, the probabilities are likely similar to winning the lottery every day for years on end. Does complexity arise out of disorder and chaos? A sculpture from an explosion in a pottery? A cathedral from an explosion in a brick factory?
In the computer program you were changing the lines of programming, but here you require the program to change its own programming - that's pretty advanced...

Answer 4

It's all just evolution. Some is observable; some happened slowly over millennia, with changes so slow and gradual that you'd hardly notice a difference if you were able to observe each and every generation of the species in question. It's not as if one species just magically becomes another -- BAM! -- one day. That's not how it works -- the adaptations are small and gradual -- and I think that's why some people have such a problem grasping the concept. But I don't see how you could accept micro without accepting macro. That doesn't make any sense. They're one and the same -- all part of the same process.

Answer 5

Quite simply.

Micro-Evolution implies a continual change from generation to generation without any major spikes in feature development.
Macro-Evolution implies periods of unchanging stability, followed by very rapid change.


If I've decided that the idea of birds coming about because one day a dinosaur hatched out of its egg with coloured feathers and a desire to climb trees and jump out of them is a silly one..... then chances are I favour the micro-evolutionary model.

Macro-Evolution is the steps.
Micro-Evolution is the ramp.
And my legs are too short to get up the steps... thanks.

[Then again, from what I remember, most palaeontologists have reason to believe life works somewhere between the two.]

Answer 6

Not at all. Micro-evolution is similar to adaptation. The species never starts becoming another species. The changes that are made are skin color, bodily functions and other changes that take place to suit the needs of the environment. We see no where in the fossil record of one species becoming another. One species may die off due to it not being able to adapt or having traits that make it die off but, a species that survives does not become a different species.

Answer 7

The same way some people think that if you kill yourself in the name of Allah you get 72 virgins when you die. You can't have an intelligent conversation with people who think they have a monopoly on the truth. But there aren't any scientists out there who are going to say evolution is wrong. So who are you going to believe, scientists, or people who spend their time talking to invisible men that live in the sky?

"macro-evolution has never been proven through a rigorous scientific method"
Neither has gravity or god, do you believe in them?

Answer 8

There is a big difference between micro- and macro-evolution that you either don't understand or conveniently leave out.

In micro-evolution an organism never gains anything new. A gray cat and an orange cat mate and produce kittens - The coloring of the kittens will be determined by their parents, the gray and orange cat, and whatever genes they inherited from their parents. You will never mate a gray cat and an orange cat and come out with a litter of purple kittens. Or a litter of kittens that are part dog. What you get out of it is exactly what was put in - cat genes. If you mix genes enough you can come up with a new breed of cat, but it's still a cat. It's not a horse, or a beaver, or a bird. It's a cat. That's micro-evolution and we observe it every day. What we've NEVER observed, even in fossilization, is one species macro-evolving into another species. For macro-evolution to be possible, something new needs to be added - gray cat genes, orange cat genes, and something else that neither parent had to give. That's impossible and has never happened.

Answer 9

Is that the same thing as saying I believe in Micro Economics but not Macro Economics?

Interesting question

Follower of Christ

Answer 10

I'm totally with you on this one. Most scientists regard the whole micro/macro-evolution thing as a strawman. It's just evolution by natural selection, and that's all there is to it.