To: fish hawk
When I was a creationist, eventually I admitted that “microevolution” could happen. I figured that changes could happen within species, but it could never turn into a new species.
The problem is, as Carl Zimmer once said, “If you accept microevolution, you get macroevolution for free.” Macroevolution is just microevolution over time. Eventually, enough genetic and/or geographical drift occurs that they become new species — organisms that no longer breed with one another.
So if you believe in microevolution: Congratulations! You’re almost there!
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/08/12/microevolution/
44 posted on
11/22/2009 2:05:54 AM PST by
Ira_Louvin
(Go tell them people lost in sin, Theres a higher power ,They need not fear the works of men.)
To: Ira_Louvin
Fine if you believe “time” is a creator. Not a very substancial God though. Send me the proof just as soon as you get it so I can evolve.
47 posted on
11/22/2009 8:40:50 AM PST by
fish hawk
(It's sad that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. Isaac Asimov)
To: Ira_Louvin
Your belief depends on the definition of micro evolution. The term was introduced as an explanation for the variation in kind. Others have used the term to explain other events seen in nature. If you believe that micro evolution is variation in kind then there is not macro evolution as per the definition of micro evolution. In order to understand your leap from micro evolution to macro evolution we will need to understand your definition of micro evolution. I believe we can all agree that macro evolution is materialism through natural selection. The term micro evolution is more problematic. Thanks,tk
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson