Isn't it like arbitrarily accepting "micro-plate tectonics", but refusing to believe that the continents have ever moved more than a couple of inches from where they are now?
Eleven answers:
anonymous
2007-03-15 16:15:31 UTC
Evolution is evolution. No micro. No macro. All correct.
"Can you explain scientifically the genetic mechanism which permits all manner of 'variation' within a 'kind' but somehow slams the door shut at the 'kind barrier', preventing one 'kind' from 'varying' into another kind'?" -- Ian Wood, responding to creationists chanting 'micro but not macro'.
anonymous
2007-03-15 16:15:26 UTC
Yes, it's nonsense.
In biology and the other sciences, the term doesn't exist -- superstitious christian apologists for creation myths invented it. For a very long time (nearly 150 years), they claimed there was NO evolution of any kind. Finally, even they had to give in to the overwhelming evidence of ongoing evolution as they had no leg to stand on...so they came up with "micro-evolution" -- to mean small changes within a species can happen, but big changes and changes from one species to another can't happen. There is no evidence of any kind to support that position...they just made it up, and eventually they'll give up on it and accept all evolution, just like they did when they claimed it didn't happen at all.
Is it really so hard for them to grasp the fact that what they call "macro-evolution" is just "micro-evolution" over a long period of time? There is no micro or macro, just evolution. Period.
Of course, superstitious people never let facts get in the way of a religious myth...
Peace.
anonymous
2007-03-15 16:12:02 UTC
I think all evolution is 'microevolution'. Just that over an immense amount of time change will accumulate and accumulate and bob's your uncle. We're talking deep-time evolution, billions of years of evolution. What we call 'macroevolution' for convenience and which causes creationists to drool about gaps and whatnot.
The problem is people are ill-equipped to think on this timescale. Most creationists seem to demand seeing evolution happen in a flash. They should start considering geological timescales, but that is really hard if you think everything started 6000 years ago.
Last Ent Wife (RCIA)
2007-03-18 03:30:35 UTC
No Tik, I think there is plenty of evidence to support why "micro evolution" and "macro evolution" should be distinctive things.
Micro evolution, which I like to call "adaptation" has thousands of pieces of evidence for it that we can see within our lifetimes.
Macro evolution does not. I have yet to see a fish become a lizard, despite your cute picture.
anonymous
2007-03-15 16:16:39 UTC
It's like saying "I have to believe in the evolution that we can see taking place right before our eyes in order for us to not look like complete and total fools, but I'll still deny the whole thing on a grander scale in order to remain consistent with my Bronze age Jewish Man's Holy book."
..........and like my earlier leading questions, they obviously do have to admit to "micro plate tectonics" though I'm not sure if they even know what causes earth quakes. Though on a grander scale, they have to deny Pangea, there is simply not enough time in <10,000 years. to fit in with their jewish holy book.
anonymous
2007-03-15 16:13:29 UTC
You fail to understand that there exists well documented scientifically a magical process by which god prevents small changes from ever accumulating to large ones.
STEPHEN J
2007-03-15 16:12:23 UTC
Microevolution involves the loss or, at best, rearrangement of genetic information. However, macroevolution, changing from one kind of animal into another, requires new information to arise, and it never does.