| dsister said: Microevolution is something I can get behind. Macro on the other hand, not so much. ^_^ *leaves topic to never return again* |
But they're exactly the same mechanism, it's just the scale that's different.
An analogy would be walking around your house and walking to Mexico. One is shorter than the other, but it's exactly the same mechanism. If you work out the total distance of all your walks around your house in your lifetime, then you will find that you would have covered the same distance as a walk to Mexico (and presumably more).
Micro evolutions are only small, but they do accumulate. And if you take into account all the micro evolutions that have occurred since the Cambrian explosion ~530 million years ago, then that has given plenty of time for micro evolutions to accumulate and become macro evolutions.
And there is plenty of evidence to show that life has been around for billions of years, and complex life for hundreds of millions of years.
In short, if you accept the fact that life has been around billions of years and you also accept that life micro evolves, you have to accept macro evolution.
I find the Macro/micro evolution argument often given by creationists to be a fallacy, purposely promoted by the likes of Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis.
