"

Wikipedias sanctioned trolls: stop vandalizing and spreading your anti-Christian and anti-theism propaganda

Why are you hiding this edit?:

Criticisms of macroevolution

The term ""macroevolution"" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within animal kinds, which change is referred to as ""microevolution"", but deny that one animal kind can evolve into another, which change is called ""macroevolution"".

The terms macroevolution and microevolution as used in mainstream science relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as ""microevolution"" and denying that ""macroevolution"" takes place.CB902: Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution.

The Darwinists Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using ""strategically elastic"" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic. The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is ""any change at the species level or above"" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is ""any change below the level of species."" Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as ""just microevolution"".

Arguments often arise between creationists and so called evolutionists over evolutionists' failure to recognize the word ""kind"" in Genesis as not being equivalent to the word ""species"",http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0908.asphttp://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/two-of-every-kind
http://www.icr.org/article/changing-defintion-term-species hence arguments from evolutionists against the Bible, like, ""How could Noah have fit hundreds of thousands of species in the Ark?""****CB901: No Macroevolutionhttp://answers.yahoo.com/search/search_result;_ylt=A0WTZXrJgcxLYykAhwfj1KIX;_ylv=3?p=noah+fit+species+ark:

God makes the animals (Genesis 2:18) and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy.  But none seem to have what it takes to please him.  After making the animals, God has Adam name them all.  The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while, why Adam would still have to be living for we haven’t even discovered nor named all the species.  Also consider the idea of every living creature being brought to the Middle East, that would have killed many animals due to climatic changes.http://www.evilbible.com/absurd%20torah%20science.