Original sentence: " 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".) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species.Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity.Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.Its occurrence, while controversial with the public at large, is not disputed within the scientific community.Nicholas Matzke and Paul R.Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.The consensus of the scientific community is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution.The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually brandished 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.These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past
Edited sentence: Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity in many universities and colleges.However, its occurrence is controversial with the public at large.Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that evolutionary biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".The consensus of some scientists is that the alleged micro-macro division is an artificial construct made by creationists and does not accurately reflect the actual processes of evolution.The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually mentioned 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.These arguments are rejected by some scientists, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past