2007-10-15 19:33:02 · 8 answers · asked by ʌ_ʍ ʍr.smile 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It came out of creationists, desperate to avoid real science. They get stopped every time, yet move onto the next town to repeat the same lies.
I'm not sure which first used the terms, but it smells of Duane Gish or Carl Baugh. Maybe Ken Ham since Kent Hovind isn't bright enough to think of it himself.
Elliot, do you mean Stalin's boy Lysenko? That would make sense, because Lysenko dismissed evolution as capitalist/bourgeois science and set out to destroy the USSR's science, particularly agriculture. He didn't accept genetics as science. He'd have made a fine present day creationist.
2007-10-15 19:43:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yuri Filipchenko (Russian entomologist)
The terms were designed to distinguish small scale changes in defined populations over short periods of time from large scale changes in large populations over long periods. The distinction of microeconomics and macroeconomics is similar. There is no defining point when one becomes the other.
Creationists have co-opted the terms, using microevolution to mean that which has been observed directly and macroevolution to mean that which has not yet been observed directly. The terms are merely deployed to set up the moving goalpost deceit.
2007-10-16 02:56:09 · answer #2 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't think that it really matters who originated the terms, but how they are used now. there are legitimate and illegitimate uses, talking about different things. creationists use the terms to distinguish between evolution that is so easily demonstrated that even they can't deny it, and evolution that is more easily misunderstood and misrepresented. scientists generally use the terms to distinguish between the mechanisms of evolution at the molecular scale, and the patterns of evolution that show up over very long, geological timescales. creationist usage then takes the terms to be about evidentiary support, while scientific usage takes the terms to be about differences in scale and methodology.
2007-10-16 03:30:15 · answer #3 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some Russian guy in the '20s, I believe.
These days the terms are only used by creationists, particularly those who don't understand biological classification.
No, I mean Yuri Filipchenko.
2007-10-16 02:44:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Micro leads to macro, People who don't accept evolution don't know anything about it.
2007-10-16 02:42:33 · answer #5 · answered by Pathofreason.com 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds like hokey malarky if you ask me.
Honestly, this sort of thing drives me insane (and I know LOTS of insane people who start their sentences off with "honestly")
Evolution is a word indicative of change that occurs SLOWLY.
It is the OPPOSITE of the word "revolution" which is a word indicative of change that occurs QUICKLY.
I blame the Americans. They make up word modifications that inject the English language with even less poetic flow than normal.
2007-10-16 02:41:06 · answer #6 · answered by Shinigami 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I can't answer that. But personally I use these commonly accepted terms merely to communicate the difference between changes within a species and the changing of one species into another completely different species...a HUGE distinction (especially in light of the reliability of the Genesis account)!
It astonishes me how so many wish to place these two terms together as if they were practically the same thing (or as if the former must naturally lend itself to the latter)....this is really irresponsible science.
2007-10-16 02:37:45 · answer #7 · answered by whitehorse456 5 · 1⤊ 4⤋
This hasn't finished yet - we've yet to hear of mini and mega evolution.
2007-10-16 02:37:36 · answer #8 · answered by cheir 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋