Creationists: here is some proof of macro-evolution?
"In evolutionary biology, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another."
"A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, more precise or differing measures are often used, such as based on similarity of DNA or morphology."
And voila. The evolution of non-interbreeding species:
The evolution of new DNA (in humans and animals as well):
The evolution of drastically different morphology, to the extent of new organs:
So what exactly do you mean when you say that there is "no evidence" for evolution?
- Sam GLv 51 decade agoBest Answer
Facts don't work on them. They've developed an immunity.
- Roberta BLv 64 years ago
Macroevolution is so named because it is literally different from microevolution in this respect -- we haven't seen it happen.
Microevolution happens all of the time, even with humans, which is why there are different colors and bone structures, etc, of humans, which have been influenced by the environment in which they have settled.
Humans have even caused microevolution - in chickens, and dogs and cats, and cattle and sheep and horses, and many other animals that are deemed useful to humans for some reason.
Macroevolution is not just a change above the species level. It is a major change in morphology, DNA, etc. It is just like a person saying that just because a child can write something on paper, then it means that he is automatically capable of writing a world class encyclopedia.
This isn't a matter of the child growing up, it is a matter of the addition of information and the ability to use it. If that child does not learn how to write encyclopedias, he cannot do so, it doesn't come naturally.
So in order for an organism to change its DNA in the drastic way that macroevolution implies, it requires the addition of information. DNA does not change from fins to wings or to hands without an infusion of information which it did not have before. DNA has limits to changing, based on how much information and alternatives it already has. White moths to grey moths, ok. Straight finches' beaks to curved finches' beaks, ok These changes can result in different species. But fins to wings? or to hands? NO one has seen the transitions.
Another thing, creationism is not the only source of criticism of macro-evolution. In fact, creationism is a term that was appropriated and defined by specific religious groups as including the unscriptural belief that the earth or the universe was created in six 24-hour days.The Bible, specifically the first two chapters, define the word "day" as 12 hours, 24 hours, or the creative period. This indicates that the word day is a fixed period of time, not necessarily 24 hours long. In fact, The earth itself could be billions of years old. What Genesis describes first is the creation of heaven and earth, and his spirit moving on the formless earth in Genesis 1:1-2, and then the preparation of the already existing earth for life, divided into 6 "days".
A person could believe that the universe and life was created without being a creationist. A person can also believe that macro-evolution doesn't make sense without being a creationist. The reason why, is because it does not make sense, and is full of scientific and logical flaws. Many explanations of this concept will take the current suppositions of various members of the scientific community, and will present them as fact. They are not fact, they are suppositions. For instance, textbooks will picture a line of organisms, implying that there is evidence that this is how the last organism evolved. There is one famous line of organisms that ends with the horse, but there is absolutely no evidence that the intermediate organisms that are pictured have anything to do with one another.
So, saying that something that is a supposition is a fact is still misleading and unscientific. The gaping holes in the concept of macroevolution are large and embarrassing to those who present it as something worthy of acceptance.
- Martin SLv 71 decade ago
I don't have time to read them all but here are some comments for you.
Ring Species: Salamanders
In Southern California, naturalists have found what look like two distinct species ...One is marked with strong, dark blotches in a cryptic pattern that camouflages it well. The other is more uniform and brighter, with bright yellow eyes, apparently in mimicry of the deadly poisonous western newt. These two populations coexist in some areas but do not interbreed -- and evidently cannot do so.
Yeah, because they are in fact two distinct species that resemble each other. The rest of the article..
The evolutionary story that scientists have deciphered begins in the north, where the single form is found. This is probably the ancestral population. As it expanded south, the population became split by the San Joaquin Valley in central California, forming two different groups. In the Sierra Nevada the salamanders evolved their cryptic coloration. Along the coast they gradually became brighter and brighter.
Really? How do they know this is true? Do they have frozen fossils where they can see what colors long past generations had? Or are they doing what so many supporters of the theory of evolution do?
They see some evidence and then they come up with a plausible sounding explanation for how it supports the theory of evolution while ignoring other explanations like the species are found in the areas that they are found in because that's where they were designed to live and thrive?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
There's no such thing as macroevolution and microevolution.
They are just terms that the creationists invented so as to be able to reconcile some evidences of evolution that are obviously irrefutable (like MRSA) with their belief. They can believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution, and that allows them to both accept things like the development of MRSA but still claim to deny evolution.
Evolution is evolution. There is no macro or micro.
It's unfortunate that they've used such intellectually dishonest terms so much that they have become vernacular.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- LindaLv 44 years ago
ERVs are the single most important piece of evidence for common descent. I have yet to see a Creationist explain this away. Most of the time they just ignore it and hope that it goes away. (Sorta like Franhusda up there)
- ?Lv 51 decade ago
that's stupid the first line in your first link sayss
The various Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast all descended from a common ancestral population.
That's what mirco evolution is about differenced within a species,
your blue lobster? even they say it's a genetic mutation, that's true, but it's still a lobster.
what is your point with all this stuff your trying to push as evidence?
- CirbrynLv 71 decade ago
Nice. Here's another one. Just came out today:
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I find it sad that creationists have spread the word "macroevolution" around so much that it is acknowledged like it is. There is no such thing as micro or macro evolution, just evolution.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
scientists say we evolved from monkeys over millions and millions of years. BUT HOLD ON! monkeys don't live for millions and millions of years.
check and mate!Source(s): just kidding.
- 1 decade ago
The word is evidence, though. "proof" is a concept in math and logic, not science.Source(s): Yes, I'm nit-picking.