Re: Icons of Evolution

From: Todd S. Greene (
Date: Thu Jun 14 2001 - 23:39:22 EDT

  • Next message: "Re: Icons of Evolution"

    Hi, guys.

    Just butting in for a second, to make this tangential point:

    The alleged distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution"
    seems pretty muddled by those who advocate that those biological
    theories which are developed to explain "microevolution" are somehow
    inadequate to explain "macroevolution."

    Is the development from Hyracotherium to the modern horse to be
    considered microevolution or macroevolution. I have seen various
    creationists, even various young earth creationists, describe it as one
    or the other, thus contradicting themselves. How about the transition of
    the mammal-like reptiles to reptile-like mammals? Is this microevolution
    or macroevolution? How about *Acanthostega*? Was that creature on a
    microevolutionary path, or a macroevolutionary one? Is the development
    from *Homo ergaster* to *Homo sapiens sapiens* macroevolution or

    What is it about "macroevolution," what are the characteristics of this
    evolution that are the cause for raising some kind of distinction from
    "microevolution"? Is this a distinctive kind of evolution recognized
    through scientific observation? Or is this concept something in the eye
    of the creationist beholder?

    Todd S. Greene

    ###### George Murphy, 6/14/01 7:28 AM ###### wrote:

    > george murphy wrote:
    > .............................................................
    > > I think you minimize the extent to which mutation & natural selection can
    > > explain macroevolution but it wasn't my point to compare how well evolutionary
    theory &
    > > general relativity explain phenomena in the domains in which their applicable. My
    > > point in bringing in GRT was to illustrate the way in which an observation can be
    > > supportive of a theory without ruling out competing theories.
    > I agree with this point. And I concede that there is no competing
    > scientific theory to darwinian evolution. But I still maintain that this
    > neodarwinian theory of genetic variation and natural selection does not
    > explain macroevolution, although it neatly describes microevolution. For
    > macroevolution, there is not just one theory available, but none at all.
    > It is the huge extrapolation into a transastronomical configurational
    > space that is minimized by most people, and I think that often the
    > motivation behind this is the belief (or an unconscious supposition -
    > nourished by an atheistic philosophy?) that it is the only feasible
    > possibility. A theistic scientist, too, will look for a natural
    > explanation, but he is not sold to the belief that there must be
    > exclusively natural explanations for everything.

            Macroevolution by variation and natural selection is certainly a theory, albeit
    that extent a very general one. Whether or not it is adequate to explain the necessary
    phenomena is another matter.




    George L. Murphy
    "The Science-Theology Interface"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 14 2001 - 23:33:31 EDT