Micro vs. Macro

[LiveFreeOrDie]

I found this feedback dialogue on talk.origins most interesting. It addresses particularly well the charge by creationists that macroevolution is somehow unscientific because it cannot be observed directly.

Feedback question:

It has been mentioned that evolution is a fact as is an apple falling. I understand how you can demonstrate that an apple falls, thus being a fact. What I need help on understanding how evolution over millions of years can be called a fact, since you can't demonstrate actual evolution over millions of years. I understand that there is evidence that shows that evolution occurred.

The talk.origins response:

An apple falling is only an observation of micro-gravitation. It is macro-gravitation that cannot be, due to scale, directly experienced. It is "merely" a clear and logical inference from a wide range of data (some of which is "micro-gravitation," some of which is indirect). We call it a "fact" that Pluto orbits the Sun as a result of the Sun's gravitational attraction. Even though Pluto's existence has been known for only a tiny fraction of one orbit (so we haven't watched a full orbit), and nobody has ever been to Pluto to observe it directly.

(The full web page is available here)

 

[jon1101]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I found this feedback dialogue on talk.origins most interesting. It addresses particularly well the charge by creationists that macroevolution is somehow unscientific because it cannot be observed directly.

Feedback question:



The talk.origins response:



(The full web page is available here)

Intriguing.

-jon