Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan
Cephus is wrong.His,and others like him, game is to make false distinctions between micro and macro evolution and to misuse the terms.In truth there is no difference.Macro evolution is merely microevolution over vast periods of time.They are not distinct and different types of evolution.
Again,try thinking for yourself.
|
Time to dust off this sucker:
As used in antievolutionary writing (young earth or ID varieties),"microevolution" is "evolution I accept" and "macroevolution" is "evolution I reject." That is what it boils down to. This conveniently conceals the vast disparity between evolution accepted by, e.g., Wells (about none) versus AIG and ICR (within a "kind", suggested to be about a family in conventional classification) versus Behe (full common descent). It also allows any particular example of evolution to be dismissed as mere microevolution.
In biological usage, macroevolution tends to refer to the idea that different processes are involved at the species-level and higher than the ordinary, everyday population-level evolution. Thus, someone who thinks that standard population-level evolution over 3.5-4 billion years is enough to account for all organisms might say they reject macroevolution, whereas someone like Gould would argue that there are some different things that play a role at higher levels. However, both would reject the micro/macro difference as it appears in antievolutionary claims.
Although the most prominent young earth groups seem to accept evolution of species and genera, this is rejected by a number of ID advocates who persist in claiming that no species can arise from another species.
Even examples of change within a species, such as the peppered moth, are frequently attacked by antievolutionary advocates, so the claim to accept "microevolution" is not entirely credible.