Macroevolution is the development of the biblical 'kinds' from one cell to
the myriad creatures that inhabit the earth today. This is metaphysical
in the sense that it has never been seen to happen but because of the fact
of existence of varieties of creatures it is assumed, especially by
atheists, to have occurred. IMHO, It is a religion every bit as fanatical
as the most fundamentalist of Christians.
Microevolution is the development of varieties within the biblical 'kinds'.
It has been empirically viewed and has a most definite scientific basis.
A great leap of faith occurs, however, when an Darwinian Evolutionist
assumes that because this can and does happen, the parameters can be
breached and macroevolution occur, given enough time.
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth
shall make you free. John 8:32
Ron Chitwood
chitw@flash.net
----------
> From: Brendan Frost <Brendan_Frost@cch.com>
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
> Subject: Greetings and a question or two
> Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 10:24 AM
>
>
> I would like to introduce myself and ask a few questions about
> the terms, assumptions, and scope of this list. For all the bickering
> I've read (and started to delete w/o reading), there have been some
> excellent points made in the month or so I've been reading it. In
> particular,
> Steven Jones' post on Sir William Owens and the least-action principle
> was welcome.
>
> I'm Brendan Frost, a health care reporter in Washington, D.C. and history
> undergrad.
>
> Let's see--some of my questions may be of the FAQ variety, so off-list
> replies from any of you would be fine...
>
> 1) there has been a distinction made between micro- and macro-evolution.
> I have been thinking of micro- as, for example, the development of
> different
> types of dog from wild stock. Is this fair or accurate? What is the
> definitional
> distinction between the two?
>
> 2) it occurs to me that the descent from wild stock to Great Danes and
> chihuahuas, if "evolution" in any sense, is also a prime example of a
> non-metaphysical
> "creation by design," in this case, by humans. Is this a fair conclusion,
> and if so are there
> any analogies to this evolution by design and a metaphysical evolution by
> design?
>
> 3) evolution is a concept that applies to more than species diversity.
For
> instance,
> language is often said to evolve--I believe Dawkins would call a cultural
> trait that
> perserveres over time through transmission through descent a "meme." Is
> there
> an overarching rejection of evolutionism as an idea, which might say in
the
> example
> of language that it was created ex nihilo by God, or are the criticisms
> basically directed
> toward the biological aspect?
>
> 4) what are the historical interactions between the old science of
taxonomy
> and evolutionary
> (or anti-evolutionary) theory? To me, this is my most interesting
question.
>
>
>