Christians do you believe that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false?

Did you know that macroevolution comes about after many microevolutions occurring over a time period of various lengths?





Do you understand or do you still have grievances with this fact?Christians do you believe that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false?
Hi, Astro K:





Kinda... but macro evolution does not alter DNA profiling, for example, bacterial resistance is formed by the DNA altering the gnomes that already exist, but not altering the basic structural DNA sequencing.





Evolution explains the SURVIVAL of the fittest, not the ARRIVAL, and more and more scientists realize this.





Did you know the Bible code proves Jesus is the Messiah? http://abiblecode.com





Shalom, peace in Jesus, Ben YeshuaChristians do you believe that microevolution is true and macroevolution is false?
I accept that adaptation is true...why would the Creator not include the ability to adapt to new environmental changes in his creatures?- but that molecules-to-man evolution is false and illogical.





The idea that tiny gradations , due to the selection of the best replication errors over time, can turn a fish into a frog, or an ape into a man is just not supported at all.





Note that bacteria have been mutating and adapting for billions of years and are still, last time I checked, bacteria, and even of the same species.





ANDY: There are huge genetic barriers to macroevolution...why don't you take the time to study genetics?





ANDY: There are several:





1) Genetic redundancy


2) Genetic linkage


3) Epistasis


4) Polygenic/ Quantitive traits





Go to wikipedia and learn....I am tired of spoonfeeding you.





ANDY: Stop whining and start learning for a change....the problem is people like you who think they know about evolution theory ,having studied ecology, but not genetics which is the fundamental basis for it according to the Neo-Darwinists.
actually...





1. Microevolution and macroevolution are different things, but they involve mostly the same processes. Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population. There is no argument that microevolution happens (although some creationists, such as Wallace, deny that mutations happen). Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed.





Creationists have created another category for which they use the word ';macroevolution.'; They have no technical definition of it, but in practice they use it to mean evolution to an extent great enough that it has not been observed yet. (Some creationists talk about macroevolution being the emergence of new features, but it is not clear what they mean by this. Taking it literally, gradually changing a feature from fish fin to tetrapod limb to bird wing would not be macroevolution, but a mole on your skin which neither of your parents have would be.) I will call this category supermacroevolution to avoid confusing it with real macroevolution.





Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct. The isolating factor need not be biological; a new mountain range or the changed course of a river can qualify. Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.





Supermacroevolution is harder to observe directly. However, there is not the slightest bit of evidence that it requires anything but microevolution. Sudden large changes probably do occur rarely, but they are not the only source of large change. There is no reason to think that small changes over time cannot add up to large changes, and every reason to believe they can. Creationists claim that microevolution and supermacroevolution are distinct, but they have never provided an iota of evidence to support their claim.





2. There is evidence for supermacroevolution in the form of progressive changes in the fossil record and in the pattern of similarities among living things showing an absence of distinct ';kinds.'; This evidence caused evolution in some form to be accepted even before Darwin proposed his theory.
You can't believe macroevolution doesn't occur unless you can provide a biological mechanism that would prevent it occuring. If something ';adapts'; then it stands to reason it must keep on adapting until such time as it has ';adapted'; into a new species.





Edit- Pastor. On this one I've got you absolutely nailed. What is the biological mechanism that limits the degree of micro evolution? You should tell your creationist fans on here that the only sources you ever cite to support your genetic arguments are from evolutionary biologists who accept the reality of species evolution not creationists. That seems very perverse to me if you yourself don't accept that evolution is a reality. I'm well aware that you're being disingenuous and deliberately using your genetic theories as a means of avoiding actually debating evolution. It all sounds great to the layman but you know and I know that it's all complete crap- why not just be intellectually honest and come clean?
Actually, there are genetic limits on how much a creature can vary from the next.


Darwinism sounded great to the average layman until genetics was discovered. Then, neodarwinism came about which completely changed from the aspect of slow, developmental changes produced by the environment, to genetic mutations which were selected as beneficial by the environment.


The biggest problem with macro-evolution is genetics and the fact that it's never been observed - it's a believe.


Because of genetics, you can breed dogs and get anything from a chihuahua to a great dane, and you can even mix them with wolves to get more DNA, but in a million years of natural, unguided breeding (or even guided), you could never possibly get a non-dog.


There are limitations. It's easy to sit in your living room and imagine a bunch of random changes similar to what you're used to seeing with modern CGI affects. However, Genetics and DNA is much more limited than our imagination. Genetic limitations are what makes macro-evolution impossible.





Evolution is a tricky word, and for someone who's obviously uneducated, like yourself, it's easy to make the mental leap from minor changes to major changes given enough time. This is because you see micro and macro as simply different ';levels'; of evolution. To make it easy for you, change the terminology from micro-evolution to minor variations in genetic traits. ';Evolution'; as you understand it doesn't really start until you get to macro.


Technically, a blue-eyed parent having kids with green eyes could be considered micro-evolution, but that's a much different sort of change than you would need to see for evolution to be scientific. It's a genetic variation based on DNA information that's already present in the parents. Every variation we observe comes from genetic information that's already in the parents. Evolution requires the miraculous injection of new genetic information into the genome.


I for one, find that miracles have no place in science. That should be reserved for the religion class room.
Sheesh - what an array of special pleading and intellectual squirming is here! The process seems to be:





o Yeah, OK. Grumble grumble. I accept 'microevolution' because it's obvious, demonstrable and irrefutable.


o But I'm not going to accept that many micros make a macro, because that conflicts with the Bible. I'm going to hold out until I see a crococduck. So there.





What do such people make, I wonder, of the obvious, demonstrable and irrefutable fusing of the two proto-chimp chromosomes that has resulted in our chromo #2?





If they'll accept wolf-%26gt;chihuahua, what's so odd about ape-%26gt;man? They're clearly the same 'kind' in their narrow definition.





In just a few decades, looking back on this period of mass stupidity will surely be a cause for much %26lt;facepalm%26gt;, alas.
I understand that people think that ';macroevolution comes about after many microevolutions';. But that isn't the whole of the theory of evolution.





http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_m…





The theory of evolution says that a hypothetical first living cell (like a bacterium) evolved, over billions of years, into a human being. But such a process meant finding a way to generate enormous amounts of genetic information (DNA), including the instructions for making eyes, nerves, skin, bones, muscle, blood, etc. Thus, the total information content of the genetic code (DNA) must have continually increased with the emergence of new genes (or instructions).





What mechanism could possibly have added all the extra genetic instructions required to progressively transform a one-celled creature into a human being? Evolutionists believe it was something called genetic mutations.





Evolutionists believe that over the last 4.5 billion years, an accumulation of trillions of these hypothetical “good” copying mistakes have continuously improved the genetic code, adding enough new information to transform a bacterium into a human being.





Dr. Ian Macreadie, winner of several scientific awards for outstanding contributions to molecular biological research, affirms that “all you see in the lab is either gene duplications, reshuffling of existing genes, or defective genes (with a loss of information). . . . But you never see any new information arising in a cell . . . we just don’t observe it happening. It’s hard to see how any serious scientist could believe that real information can arise just by itself, from nothing.”





Today, there is a growing realization that the presently accepted concept of natural selection and mutations really explains nothing of evolutionary significance. One leading creationist summarized the situation well: “All of our realworld experience, especially in today’s ‘information age,’ would indicate that to rely on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking, not science.”[35] In everyday experience, information never arises without an intelligent source.
No. You answered your own question. I understand it perfectly. As a matter of fact, I explained it to my mom, and now she accepts evolution for the most part.
Huh! Next you'll be saying that you could eventually travel a whole kilometre by only ever moving a centimetre at a time. Which is patently impossible!
no yes and no