Micro but not Macro

[Dayv]

It's been awhile since I've been on here, but to make up for it I've discussed ideas with a number of people I know. One thing that I have heard far too often from creationists is that they believe in Micro-evolution but not Macro-evolution. Upon hearing this, I can't help but laugh outright.

For those of you who might not know the difference, basically, micro evolution is the adaptations that can generally be observed within our own lifetimes. These adaptations are not as obvious and don't generally result in the formation of a new species. Macro-evolution is long term adaptations over thousands, millions, or billions of years, basically the accumulation of Micro-evoltuion's affects, eventually forming new species. (sorry if my explination is a bit weird or off, I'm not the best at explaining the conscept, but feel free to give your own explinations)

I laugh because, if you agree with micro but not macro, where exactly do the adaptations end? Macro-evolution is just the combination of all the small adaptations, eventually they all add up into a new species, sometimes several from a single original. But when I try to explain this, that eventually all the little adaptations add up, whomever I am debating with gets all confused and usually mad, which is generally a good sign for me to move on.

Is it just me, or do creationists not seem to understand evolution at all, and too often aren't willing to actually take a minute and get to understand it?

 

[ChrisP]

It's not that they don't understand it. The premise is quite simple. Adaptation to conditions over time. Heck you can see that in your family if you keep your eyes open.

It's a case of there not being only one way to think about things, because that's just plain boring.

 

[michel]

It's not that they don't understand it. The premise is quite simple. Adaptation to conditions over time. Heck you can see that in your family if you keep your eyes open.

It's a case of there not being only one way to think about things, because that's just plain boring.

Couldn't have put it better myself!. Personally I often use the "micro" examples to explain point to children, simply because of their incomprehension of visualizing the the "macro".

BTW, Good to see you back!

 

[Mike182]

It's been awhile since I've been on here, but to make up for it I've discussed ideas with a number of people I know. One thing that I have heard far too often from creationists is that they believe in Micro-evolution but not Macro-evolution. Upon hearing this, I can't help but laugh outright.

For those of you who might not know the difference, basically, micro evolution is the adaptations that can generally be observed within our own lifetimes. These adaptations are not as obvious and don't generally result in the formation of a new species. Macro-evolution is long term adaptations over thousands, millions, or billions of years, basically the accumulation of Micro-evoltuion's affects, eventually forming new species. (sorry if my explination is a bit weird or off, I'm not the best at explaining the conscept, but feel free to give your own explinations)

I laugh because, if you agree with micro but not macro, where exactly do the adaptations end? Macro-evolution is just the combination of all the small adaptations, eventually they all add up into a new species, sometimes several from a single original. But when I try to explain this, that eventually all the little adaptations add up, whomever I am debating with gets all confused and usually mad, which is generally a good sign for me to move on.

Is it just me, or do creationists not seem to understand evolution at all, and too often aren't willing to actually take a minute and get to understand it?

you are right, i find the idea of agreeing with micro, but not macro evolutions a bit "fuzzy" - but with all due respect, i'd like to point out that your last statement is a generalisation, and while i do not have a fully comprehensive grasp of all the steps that have been involved in the evolutionary process, i understand the basic theory, and primarily agree with it!

 

[Rejected]

I can't speak for everybody but my great-great-ad-infitum grandaddy crawled out of the muck of a hostile planet billions of years ago. I come from the water.

One thing I’ve heard from creationists who try to argue out of evolution is the lack of a "transitional species;" one that bridges a gap between two biological families and show how evolution might have produced a modern species. They look for Bigfoot to prove man evolved from apes not understanding the concept that man didn't evolve from apes, but from a common ancestor.

 

[Halcyon]

Here's a quote from Richard Dawkins which pretty much sums up what you need to understand about Evolutionary theory as a whole, and the difference between micro- and macroevolution.
Here Dawkins is speaking about Evolutionary theory as a whole;

Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening.

Microevolution or adaptation can be observed in the lab and in the field. Macroevolution relies on palaeontological evidence, it cannot be observed happening.

Thus from a scientific point of view, although the theory that microevolution within populations and within species will over hundreds of thousands to millions of years lead to speciation, and even the evolution of entirely new forms of life, as evidenced by the fossil record is a sound theory. It cannot be proven beyond all doubt that that is actually what happened as it cannot be observed and recorded.

From my point of view it does seem daft to reject all the palaentological evidence for the gradual evolution of life, i believe 99.999 % that all life evolved from pond scum , but to be totally fair, the creationists are entitled to believe that the theory is wrong and that the evidence is insufficient. Macroevolution is technically only theoretical as we have no way to replicate it in a laboratory or semi-field environment.