• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Macro-Evolutionism and/or Theistic Evolutionism? Please Explain

Occams Barber

Newbie
Site Supporter
Aug 8, 2012
6,493
7,692
76
Northern NSW
✟1,075,328.00
Country
Australia
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Divorced
A natural difference I see between the two is that theistic evolution is not supported by the Bible which is wrongly used as a reference for theistic evolution.

Many Christians would say that (theistic) evolution is supported by the Bible..

Science has no opinion about Biblical justification.
Macro-evolution can hold enough contrast to be its own field and does not need to rely on the Bible at all, which I think macro-evolution is what I am leaning towards focusing on in my personal studies.

Micro-evolution is a term used for evolution up to the species level. Macro-evolution describes evolution beyond the species level. Scientific evolution includes both micro and macro-evolution within the one concept. The processes involved in micro and macro evolution are, scientifically, exactly the same.

Micro-evolution, without macro evolution, is a Creationist concept.

OB
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
8,548
6,729
✟293,653.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I used both terms in an attempt to reach a larger response group where users would relate more to one or the other.

A natural difference I see between the two is that theistic evolution is not supported by the Bible which is wrongly used as a reference for theistic evolution. Macro-evolution can hold enough contrast to be its own field and does not need to rely on the Bible at all, which I think macro-evolution is what I am leaning towards focusing on in my personal studies.
I don't really consider Macro vs Micro-evolution to be different things.
You don't have a single mutation (decent with modification) and then try to determine whether that mutation was micro or macro. All mutations are micro. So within a species you get some change over time, especially if there are changes in their environment, when the environment changes for generational periods of time, you then get species adapting to the new environment, it may mean darker colours for a moth to hide on darker trees, or faster predators to be able to catch faster prey, or tortoises with shells that angle upwards allowing them to reach tree branches.

But over many generations, and with lots of change occuring over lots of time, and with separation (isolation) of one group from another for long periods of time (i.e. lack of sharing of the gene pool) then all the collective changes add up to two groups (species) being incompatible to procreate (i.e being forever isolated with regards to sharing and intermingling their gene pool).
Macro evolution is just a consequence of lots of micro evolution, coupled with a seperation from another group which has evolved towards a different environment.

If you simply had a single continuous group evolving over vast amounts of time, over many generations, in a changing environment, you could see massive change in the form of the creatures within that group in comparison to their distant ancestors.

But for speciation to occur, you need that group to split into at least two groups and be isolated from one another (so as not to share their genetic modifications) and eventually the offspring of those two groups may become so different that they will not be able to procreate. So, in a way macro evolution is a relational thing where sub groups that have been micro evolving for a very long time have diverged so much from each other as to be incompatible.
 
Upvote 0