by cappytan 6 Replies latest jw experiences
Is Macroevolution a word made up by evolutionary scientists and darwinists, or did creationists come up with that word?
Because, from my understanding, there is no such thing as Macroevolution. An ape didn't give birth to a human, for instance. It was all gradual and microevolution.
Where is the macro and micro in this illustration?
Ditto.
It's always fun asking creationists to define "species" and even more to ask them what a "kind" is.
One thing to note is that "Micro" and "Macro" evolution is one of those terms that Creationists (including JWs) have hijacked from their original correct scientific context to an incorrect use to make their ideas sound legitimate and "sciency". Kinda like Depak Chopra uses the word "quantum" to explain some fuzzy and unproven idea. Or the way some people use the word "Theory".
Its good to remember that evolution makes no distinction between the two. They both rely on the same established mechanisms of evolutionary change. The biggest difference between the two is probably time.
When Leavitt suggested microevolution in 1909 it was to address the mystery of formlessness while describing development biology. However in 1927 the theory reshaped itself to widen the hypothetical with variations under the heading of macroevolution by a Russian entomologist. and then brought into mainstream in English in 1937.
It is only mainstream writers to argue how evolution should be perceived by creationist. Theology in itself aligns to the core value of what a Heavenly God is and attributes there in.
Evolutionist such a Darwin made this compelling argument to satisfy the science community how such differences would apply to the onset forecast within the logic of creationism.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change: mutation.
There are two possible sources of the genetic variability that must be introduced into a population for change to take place: mutation and genetic recombination. Mutations are random nucleotide alterations such as copying errors or changes induced by external mutagens. In contrast, genetic recombination is performed by the cell during the preparation of gametes (sperm, egg, pollen) which are used for sexual reproduction.
The genomic differences between any two siblings are tremendous, and with rare exception all of those genetic distinctions were specifically created recombination. Both recombination and mutations can contribute to the evolution of an organism, but genetic recombination is the primary source of the genetic distinctions between individuals in a population, and must therefore be the principal driving force behind evolution
While one holds upon expansion, Creation descends from inception, i.e. point of origin. (LIFE) however complex these theories are, both cannot find an actual point of origin of life.
For this purpose they both inherit the same standards by canceling each other theories as speculation. While one can be answered physically under man made proven hypothesizes the other can be proven by simple physical archeology.
The inference that evolutionist writers conspire to suggest that a millennial amount of generational people somehow conspired to develop or orchestrated the ultimate lie of transition, would be in itself ludicrous.
