[E=MC2]

Not my original work:

While biologists do draw a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution it really is a distinction without much difference. Or to put it another way, the distinction is a rather artificial one imposed by biologists. The simple answer is that the process at work in macro-evolution is precisely the same one at work in micro-evolution.

So to say you believe micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution may sound erudite to the uneducated, but to those who are familiar with the topic you sound like a boob. It is like saying I believe in molecules, but not in atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons.

So please, if you don’t like the idea of evolution and evolutionary theory makes you feel slightly ill, fine, but don’t use the argument about micro vs. macro evolution. Please. Simply say, “I just can’t bear the thought that I am a descendant from a primate that roamed the African plains.” I might disagree with you. I might think

[so_real]

Who's original work was it? And, more importantly, do you agree with it?

I believe the author's statements are completely at odds with the majority of the evolutionist crowd. It's meant to be insulting and attempt to silence the speaker, but adds nothing to the conversation. (Hey! Ironically, that would be dogmatic!)

The 'Origins' website, a staple in evolution-advocacy, clearly identifies the distinction between micro and macro evolution. The citation is here (click) where you'll read, in addition to the proper definitions themselves, that another "way to state the difference is that macroevolution is between-species evolution and microevolution is within-species evolution".

I certainly do not feel like a boob for knowing the difference. Nor, I'm sure, do others that know the difference (scientists in the field!) feel like boobs. And I am positive that the evolution-advocates do not feel like boobs. It is nothing at all like believing in "molecules, but not in atoms, electrons, protons and neutrons".

I'm afraid whomever passed that tidbit on to you is flat out 'wrong' whether arguing in support of, or against, the ToE.

[jimmyray]

So to say you believe micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution may sound erudite to the uneducated, but to those who are familiar with the topic you sound like a boob.

I don't believe in micro-evolution. However, genetic variation within kinds and natural selection are intuitively obvious to even the casual observer. The leap from these simple mechanism however, to the rise of a new genus is one of faith, not science. No evidence has been observed that is proff positive. e.coli are still e.coli, and fruit flies are still fruit flies, after thousands of "controlled" mutations and generations.

The crevo debate has forced a differentiation between micro and macro, with the evolutionist keen on defining both.