I cannot fathom that one species evolves into another. Roughly speaking,
variations within a given species or kind is what I consider microevolution.
Changes from species to species would correspond to macroevolution. There is
some sort of leeway within a species. Of course, a large disturbance may be
said to be necessary to transform a species into another. However, a large
disturbance is more likely to destroy what is there rather than transform it
into another species. It seems that transformation of species is more a
discontinuous rather than a continuous transition. This is all being viewed
at the macroscopic level. The problem can be more complex when viewed at the
From: Jonathan Clarke <email@example.com>
To: Moorad Alexanian <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Brian D Harper <email@example.com>;
Date: Tuesday, May 04, 1999 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
>We progress! Please explain what what aspect of macro evolution you find
>to swallow. transformation between species, genera, families, orders,
>classes? Or something else?
>Moorad Alexanian wrote:
>> Radical evolutionary theory is the limiting theory that people are lead
>> when they believe that science can explain the origin of man. I am very
>> comfortable with microevolution. However, it is macroevolution that I
>> cannot swallow. Is it because I am a Christian? I do not know. I can't
>> think like a non Christian anymore!
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jonathan Clarke <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> To: Moorad Alexanian <email@example.com>
>> Cc: Brian D Harper <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
>> email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Date: Monday, May 03, 1999 5:45 PM
>> Subject: Re: Phil Johnson on Focus on the Family
>> >Greetings Moorad
>> >Moorad Alexanian wrote in part:
>> >> But radical evolutionary theory goes beyond that and
>> >> makes unsubstantiated claims about explaining everything and claiming
>> >> the revealed truth in Scripture is nonsense.
>> >Please define "radical evolutionary theory". Is there a theory of
>> >evolution with which you are comfortable?
>> >God Bless