Macroevolution vrs. Microevolution

Discussion in 'Science & History' started by Christiangamer, Apr 15, 2007.

  1. Christiangamer

    Christiangamer Registered Member

    When people speak of evolution they are usually referring to macro evolution. Macro evolution is when a person believes that over a long period of time animals had mutations that caused animals to grow new things. First mutations are harmful to the organism or its lethal or sometimes it takes away but it never gives new genes. Evolutionists like Darwin believed that the squirrels in the grand canyon were from evolution but really they were in the process of micro evolution this is where the animal adapts to it new surroundings because of the information already stored in its genes when God created it. We saw this in the grand canyon squirrels when half moved to one side of the canyon where it was more grassy and they became a lighter color to blend in with their surroundings. On the other side the squirrels there were in a more desolate and Barron place, there fir turned to a more darker color. This may seem like evolution but it isn't in is simply adaptation and variation. For instance when Noah's flood happened the dogs got on board (probably like today's wolves) and after they got off they had more and more offspring which moved to different places and climates, which they adopted to creating the different variations of dogs we see today.

  2. Doc

    Doc Trust me, I'm The Doctor. V.I.P.

    Macro-evolution is a series micro-evolutionary changes, hence why we tend to refer to both of them when we say "evolution". The small changes eventually lead to splits in the genus, and new species are created. So yes, you are correct, but you left out that eventually micro-evolutionary changes lead to one serious, or several serious, changes in a macro-evolutionary chain.

    P.S., I added the -'s to help distinguish between the two a little better.
  3. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Assuming the earth is millions of years old then perhaps that would explain why we aren't seeing signs of Macro Evolution today... however, I do not believe the earth is millions of years old. I also do not believe humans evolved from monkeys.

    The concept of random perfection is one that too many people assume as fact and take for granted.

    There really are only two ways to look at this. Either A.) The universe and all that we know as reality was created by a divine power, or B.) Everything exists as a result of a random biological or chemistry related burst of molecules and energy.

    It's hard to argue for or against macro evolution without getting into religious debates. If you don't believe there is a God then what other choice do you have to believe other than macro evolution. Otherwise, you are almost certainly going to believe against it.

    It's tricky and touchy at times but we are all grown ups so I'll keep this conversation open. I enjoy a good deep debate now and then anyway. Let's just keep in mind that not everybody is going to agree with you and in some cases no amount of arguing can change their mind. So let's keep this thread open but as long as the participants are also open to the idea of disagreement. :)
  4. Christiangamer

    Christiangamer Registered Member

    yes I realize that I am opening this up to a very large disscusion but I am a firm beliver in god and am prepared to make legitimate disscusions oh Admin sorry mate but I'm 14 not exactly an aldult yet lol
  5. Christiangamer

    Christiangamer Registered Member

    Macro evolution is based on mutation micro evolution is based on adaptation they are both very very diff.
  6. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    Ok well maybe we are not all adults but you seem mature for your age at least. :) I suppose as long as everybody acts like an adult there will not be any problems. ;)

    And Steve, I think micro is assumed if you are talking about macro. If somebody believes and supports micro-evolution they do not automatically believe macro-evolution. The other way around is different though, where if you believe macro-evolution then you do automatically believe micro, since macro would be composed of tons of micro changes along the line.

    Macro says that new species are eventually formed after tons of micro-evolutionary changes.

    Micro evolution of course has been scientifically proven, and only refers to the changes in a single species such as multiple types of dogs, etc.

    Macro evolution is a theory. Science books in school teach it as a theory.
  7. Doc

    Doc Trust me, I'm The Doctor. V.I.P.

    My point, though, is that macro evolution is directly the cause of the changes created by micro evolution. This isn't the theory, this is my theory. I'm trying to say that the changes, which are proven by the laws that drive micro evolution, eventually add up to one change, not a mutation. A mutation is a random, freak change in DNA, and I don't believe you can base an entire species off of it. I'm sorry, but it's a series of changes, to adapt, that eventually stick in one species. Eventually that leads to a change, and that leads to an evolutionary change.
  8. Christiangamer

    Christiangamer Registered Member

    You put a very logical and stable argument but with micro evolution it is just adaptation I'm sure that you have heard of the canaries on the Galacopos Ilands right? that is adaptation now evolution would be going from one species to another but I am still confused that you think macroevolution is a bunch of microevolutionary changes??? there are usaully only 1 to 6 changes in a oranism life that those microevolutionary changes could happen mostly it is just one also there is the foxes in Alaska the foxs go tan in summer and white in winter to blend in with their surroundings but there is another thing if what you say is true how come we arn't seeing new species?
  9. Christiangamer

    Christiangamer Registered Member

    This is some evidence that I pulled out from another website that I made to show that all of these changes couldn't happen in such a short time becuase the Earth isn't billions of years old.

    Some people believe that they are Christians but yet they also be live that the Earth is billions of years old. To prove this theory incorrect the moon moves away from Earth 1 center meter per year if the Earth was that old then the moon would have been so close to Earth that nothing could have lived because of the gravitational pull. Also some people say that God must have froze the Earth in time so he could create the rest, two things prove this wrong. First if He did the plants would die from either no sunlight or to much sunlight and they would never reproduce. Second the comets we see today can only be about 7000 years old. why? Because they give off some of their dirt each time they orbit, if the planet was even 100,000 years old we wouldn't even see any comets today. Another thing is the silt on the ocean floor, if the Earth was billions of years old than the ocean floor should be totally covered with it! Also is the shape of our Galaxy slowly it winds it self up, if the Earth were billions of years old the arms would already be tight and it would be blurred but it's not. Notice how all these thing show not only that evolution is wrong but also that God only wants us to be around for a certain period of time, until the rapture!
  10. Doc

    Doc Trust me, I'm The Doctor. V.I.P.

    I told myself as soon as this got into a religious argument, I would leave, and I'm not going to be a part of a religious, non-nonscientific debate. Have fun.

Share This Page