Macro-Evolution has nothing to do with one animal evolving into a different clade, rather it's a twin nested hierarchy that describes speciation events giving rise to new clades within it's parents pre-existing clade. It doesn't mean dogs evolving into cats, it means cats and dogs sharing a common ancestor (miacis) that was the ancestor of all carnivorans that evolved into both hesperocyon (the first dog) and proailurus (the first cat). And just as all the descendants of hesperocyon will be dogs and all the descendants of proailurus will be cats, all the descendants of miacis (including cats and dogs) will still be carnivorans.
Why do creationists say that macro-evolution means one animal evolving into a different kind as opposed speciation (which has been observed)?
Coming from a creationist perspective. I think part of it is that it doesn't make sense that all living things came from a common ancestor. Believing that all dogs came from an earlier version of a wolf that later evolved into the canine species we have today. Personally, I do believe in evolution since 'in the Bible' it says that for the Lord a thousand years is a day and vice versa, which could mean that one day of creation for God could've been however many years for us.
0
13 Reply
Asker
+1 y
By all dogs do you mean the Breeds of domestic dog or all living members of the dog family? Because if you mean all living species in the dog family, hesperocyon didn't look like a wolf, it would have looked most like the Grey Fox (Urocyon Cinereoargenteus) img00.deviantart.net/.../...by_jack_13-d4t4vdk.jpg
All living members of the dog family. All later on underwent different changes due to environment or interaction with other animals/species different from its own. Ex: A primitive dog/wolf and say a Homo habilis interacting with each other versus a primitive dog/wolf interacting against each other.
Also another thing, since back then (I believe) they didn't have a word for million, so they just use the largest number that appears reasonable. Since the word 'million' wasn't created until the late 1800s.
It does seem plausible, since both have similar characteristics. (Ears on top of head, sharp teeth, nose and eyes and ears all within same type of 'distance', claws, tail, hunting nature for similar prey) However, I wouldn't have the faintest idea on how the miacis <-(correct me if I am wrong) would later evolve into for say a lion aside from needing to be bigger from threats of other bigger predators and/or prey.
Interesting, which now leads me to another question. How do certain animals evolve with certain hair colors. Not restricting it to only cats & canines, but to humanity as well, since (as interesting as it is) typical blonde hair & blue eye combo is primarily found in Europe; excluding the Americas and Australia since they were settled by Europeans.
Then wouldn't most of the humans that had blue eyes mainly migrate to Europe since more are found there. Surely others could've gone to other continents but the blue eye gene was 'flooded out' by brown eye genes.
To put it simply: because they don't even care to understand it. It's not that they're only ignorant, they're also uninterested to actually inform themselves. Sadly, a lot of people prefer to believe in stuff that is somehow comforting to them but complete and utter bullshit rather than understanding actual reality.
Because they don't understand it properly. When you subscribe to one view, you tend to focus on being an expert of that and ignore the details of the other.
For example I could explain evolution alright but ask me to explain the Origen's of certain religious texts and interpret the mumbo jumbo, I can't do it.
for the same reason atheists think mainstream Christians think God is a man with a beard and who lives in the clouds or that Jesus is a myth: they don't associate with the people they disagree with anywhere near enough to know anything about the thing they're challenging.
The difference however is that evolution is a scientific fact. There are not 1000 different views of evolution that are all equally true. There is only ONE way evolution works and that is the scientifically correct way. Contrary to that, there are thousands, if not millions of different views of god all over the world and even within America. Ask 10 christians about who and what god is and you'll get 15 different answers. Christians like to believe that their religion is monolithic but the opposite is true. There are thousands of different christian denominations and every sect and every group and every denomination has its own views. Since nobody actually knows what this supposed god looks like, one opinion is just as good as the next. This is not the case with scientific theories. In science, there are absolute truths and clear errors.
Home > Other > Questions > Why do creationists say that macro-evolution means one animal evolving into a different kind as opposed speciation (which has been observed)?
Most Helpful Opinions