to say, "I believe in evolution (and by that I mean micro-evolution ONLY". Do you agree?
2007-10-21 01:06:53 · 8 answers · asked by I'm an Atheist 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
don't quote Wikipedia as if it's a scientific journal... or I will ...
Some creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past.
2007-10-21 01:15:04 · update #1
Yes. There is only one evolution, and that is Evolution! Macro-evolution is basically the compounded effects of micro-evolution, and so the only real difference between the two is in time and scale.
And even if macro-evolution is independant of micro-evolution, macro-evolution still has plenty of evidence for its authenticity.
edit: lol. You caught me. I did quote wikipedia, i admit. But, it's just such a trustworthy source and so easy to look up.
But still. There is no base difference between micro- and macro-evolution. One comes from the other.
2007-10-21 01:17:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Macroevolution is actually Darwinism which does not exist, while microevolution does exist and is the change that occurs within a species. Macroevolution or Darwinism imagines that species can change from one kind of animal to another, which has never been discovered outside of the imaginations of those who would have you reject Jesus Christ.
2007-10-21 08:26:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Macro - Evolution is an accepted scientific term, it is a hypothesis about how Evolution works. It may have fallen into disfavor, but I bet that's only because Christians got a hold of it. Since very little about how we evolved is clear, if we even did evolve from anything, there's nothing wrong with considering all the possiblities.
Dude, I said there's nothing wrong with considering ALL possiblities. What exactly about the word ALL do you not understand? Macro, micro, I'll consider it all. I'm willing to consider a lot more about our origins than you are, so don't try to act like you've got some kind of superior mentality here because you don't distinguish between different hypothesis when in the end its probably ALL still bogus.
2007-10-21 08:12:45 · answer #3 · answered by Lucky S 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
There are many supposed forms of evolution so it's important to know of which you are speaking when discussing the matter. What term do you give to descent with modification that applies to animals changing from one form to another over time? Or the beginnings of life? Or how the universe began and came to be what it is today? Or how language and speech started? People generally ascribe the word evolution to all these things in that they were not created, according to evolutionists. You never hear of how the universe or life was designed or created, it "evolved"----you can't have it both ways.
2007-10-21 08:41:39 · answer #4 · answered by paul h 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Micro-evolution is the adaptation to our surroundings, plenty of evidence for that.
Macro-evolution is one kind giving birth to something else. A dog giving birth to a rat, or a horse producing a cow. This has never been observed.
2007-10-21 08:25:08 · answer #5 · answered by michael m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm sorry, but macroevolution is really just a misnomer for the compounded effects of "microevolution". Its al the same process.
2007-10-21 08:15:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, there is an actual distinction between the two. Just like macroeconomics and microeconomics. But you can't have one without the other.
2007-10-21 08:13:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you afraid of yourself.
2007-10-21 08:11:25 · answer #8 · answered by Robert S 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋