Macroevolution

[dorkmaster]

So I'm watching a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens, and they start talking about macroevolution vs microevolution. I have read the page on the main site concerning the two, and science isnt my forte, so a lot of it didn't really click. If anybody could give me a good explanation of the differences between the two(in laymans terms) I'd really appreciate it. Every other site I've tried reading has different definitions.

[Canuckster1127]

Microeveolution is evolution that has been observed. Macrevolution is evolution that is assumed by evidence and inference other than direct observation.

That's it in a nutshell.

[Gman]

Just to reiterate... Micro-evolution deals with changes in the gene pool of a single population. Macroevoution simply “considers” broad patterns of evolutionary change over long periods of time and includes the origin of new groups.

So what is all the fuss with this? Well, it depends on how it's all interpreted. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are sciences AND they can be easily be thrown into philosophy.. Well, by default anyways. For the record, micro-evolution can be observed, macro-evolution can't but is "assumed" via micro-evolution.

For those that believe that God does not exist or creates in the world (better known as atheists) and cannot be proven in their science, believe in micro-evolution and macro-evolution or even call them one of the same or just "evolution." However agnostics can believe this way too.. So, you really don't have to deny belief in God to believe this way (in micro/macro evolution).

Creationists can also believe in micro and macro evolution, better know as "theistic evolutionists" but not entirely either. Progressive creationists, like me, also believe in micro-evolution but not entirely in macro-evolution.

Anyways, both atheism and creationism require micro-evolution for their theories. Where they really differ is how they interpret macro-evolution. Atheists absorb it as fact into evolution, creationists don't.

It's tricky stuff as you can see...

[Gman]

The problem here is how it is absorbed into one's philosophy.. Which it most certainly will, especially around origins.. That is where the battle is..

[apostle_warren]

Microevolution focuses on very small genetic changes that occur over a relatively short period of time. If you are a creationist, you're still a "microevolutionist", since these changes are directly observed. I've never heard anyone try and say that, no, there is no such thing as mutation or that gene pools do not change at least some amounts based on natural or artificial selection (selection just means that genes that cause a species to survive and reproduce more successfully win out, whether by natural or artificial means).

To a scientist, macroevolution is simply taking a step back and asking, "What are the implications of these observed modifications to gene pools on a vast timescale" and then answering, "Clearly, living things continue to diverge and eventually become quite different than their ancestors". Macroevolution is simply what happens when mutation, selection, genetic drift, and genetic flow keep happening for a long time.

Creationists tend to reject or only partially accept macroevolution, though the reasons for doing so will depend on the brand of creationist. Clearly, people who claim the earth is 6000 yrs. old are going to have a different take than intelligent design creationists who simply claim that some divine force was necessary for certain changes to have happened. My take is that, as difficult as it is to imagine the huge timescales that are required for macroevolution to take place, it is a much more daunting (and thus far fruitless) task trying to play Cosmic CSI to figure out when, where, and at whom Yahweh waved his magic wand.

[dorkmaster]

These are all gpod answers. Thanks and God bless

[shernajwine]

The problem here is how it is absorbed into one's philosophy.. Which it most certainly will, especially around origins.. That is where the battle is..

That is EXACTLY where the battle is! If macro evolution is true then God is not needed because man could exist by completely random natural causes. Atheists can argue the non logic and hypocrisy of scripture all day, but when it comes down to it, if evolution on the macro level can be proven false, they are left being "intellectually unfulfilled". Cosmic and biological origins is where they fail. And if macro is false, then you have to re ask the question...how did we get here?

And macro evolution is assumed DESPITE the fact it requires a mechanism of evolution that is capable of creating information. Micro evolution is natural selection acting on random mutation. No new information just re organized information. No such mechanism can be found and never will because all information requires an intelligence to create it. Macro evolution is a philosophy in every way, be it absorbed by a theist or non theist. Because it is not fact, it has not been observed and cannot even be tested.