Microevolution?

Question

Why do so many here put down microevolution? Both macro- and micro-evolution are part of the evolution theory. Why can't everyone embrace both? It is actually easier to view evolution on a molecular scale. Take a class on biochemistry and/or molecular biology, and it will be very easy to understand this part of evolution. I have seen too many people put this down as an absurd creationist point of view to accept evolution. Microevolution is fact. A good example would be spermatogenesis and oogenesis undergoing genetic recombination of the parent's gene pool. Thus, a mixing of the gene pool passed on to their children (unique genetic profile).

zeb6219
You do not need to insult. There is no need for that. Grow up. Maybe you should learn a thing or two about microevolution.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVMicroevolution.shtml

Answer 1

There's really no real line between micro and macroevolution. The only line is the arbitrary one of whether the two groups have drifted apart enough that they can't produce viable offsping anymore. There are many examples of each, including direct observation.

Answer 2

Micro evolution is a variation within a kind (adaptation) and is an accepted and witnessed part of science. I do think that the word is misleading though. Evolutionists want people to look at examples of micro and conclude that macro must also be true.

The problem is with macro evolution.
There has never been any evidence of life coming from non-living material.
There has never been an example of any thing producing offspring out of its "kind" (canine has never produced a non-canine)
There is absolutely no evidence that all animals came from a common ancestor. Saying that the whale and human share a common ancestry because they both have a bones called the radius and ulna only shows me that whoever named them was incapable of an original thought.
Human Egg + Human Sperm = Human offspring
Not evolution, Conception. There is no change in kind there.

Answer 3

Good point, but very few who claim that evolution (be it macro or micro) is just a "theory" will even understand what you are talking about.

And, by the way, macroevolution and microevolution are just terms made up by the creationists that mean change at or above the species level (in the case of macro-) and changes at or below the species level (micro-). The process is the same in both cases.

Answer 4

No. huge-unfold you journey micro-evolution. a sparkling born toddler could have micro-more suitable each and daily into somebody who's very distinctive by the time it relatively is 80 years previous. even though it continues to be a human. there's a decrease to how plenty micro-evolution can ensue. we are in straightforward terms programed for a limited volume of replace. Mutations are risky in purely about all circumstances, and could no longer be surpassed on besides.

Answer 5

I'm a Christian and I have a Biology degree and I agree that MICRO-evolution happens every day. It is the change WITH-IN a species. Macro is where the giant leap of faith comes in. Micro is provable and observable...just look at all the different 'SPECIES' of dogs...again change WITH-IN a species. No great jump there. Even the example you gave shows change 'WITH-IN' the species.

You might want to read..The Case For a Creator by Lee Strobel

Answer 6

Macro-Evolution is rather vague. I mean if you look at an Evolution chart, it makes you wonder how come no habitat has been uncovered by archeology? The Bible can be confirmed by Archeology by discoveries of ancient cities, pottery, stone tablets, obelisks, and even papyrus. But when you look at Macro, the same cannot be said. Did they live in a tree until the ape lost his hair? How about a hole in the ground? Mud huts? Cavemen lived in caves, why else would they be named that?

Micro seems more possible than Macro...

Answer 7

Sadly, It seems human nature in general finds it inconvenient
to consider micro/innerspace concepts even though it is growing more popular among top scientists. I suppose there is enough to think about in day to day life.But that is no excuse....

Answer 8

Microevolution is fact, otherwise known as adaptation.
Microevolution always is a loss of genetic information.

Macroevolution requires a gain or added new genetic information. This has never been observed in a lab. Never been demonstrated to be possible. Mathematically and biologically proven impossible.

Answer 9

Exactly what mechanism are you proposing that allows fairly significant changes over the last few hundred years that would not lead to big changes over a million?

Answer 10

Seems like everyone here has to simplify and generalize until their opposition appears to be meaningless. It's called dishonesty, and BOTH sides indulge in it.