I don't like the terms "creationists" or "evolutionists", I can make an entire post just on that. We are so gang oriented, I'm a "democrat", I'm a "republican", I'm a "liberal", I'm a "conservative", I'm a "this", I'm a "that". So first of all, let me state that although I earlier expressed that I share some "creationists" like views, that I do not define myself as a "creationist" as it is traditionally defined.
These aren't necessarily my arguments, but these are common "creationists" arguments that are made that I haven't seen anyone make here yet.
About the thing between micro and macro evolution. It is true that the word micro is meant to describe something on a small scale and that the term macro is meant to describe something on a larger scale, as you see with micro and macro economics. the argument though is this: First, it's about what is science and what is philosophy. The argument is that micro evolution happens and is observed, and that macro evolution is the premise that if micro evolution kept on happening that you would end up with a result that some call macro evolution. I believe someone earlier gave the example of the water drops seeming small at first, but if you have enough time and they keep on going, you would have an ocean.
The argument here is whether or not the water drop premise or the long walk premise is a scientific argument or a philosophical argument. I believe in evolution myself, but I believe that macro-evolution is mostly philosophical. Hear me out This is to say, I believe that it's 10% science and 90% philosophy when everything is looked at into overall context. I personally believe that the 90% of the philosophy part and the 10% of the science parts are a little bit different than what most "creationists" say. It could very well be true, but it can't be called science over philosophy when there are too many if's and could's, and would's to be allowed.
Yes, if you saw a snowball rolling, you can conclude that if it kept on rolling for 10 years that it will be the size of a large building. But you are taking the observed notion of a rolling snowball getting bigger and then using that observed notion to proclaim a philosophy of what would happen if such and such event kept continuing. That's all well and good if all we know is that the ball is going to keep on rolling, but if we were to later find out that the ball is not going to be able to keep on rolling, then we run into serious problems with concluding that the ball will be "such and such" size in "such and such" years. Even if it does make sense to explain your way around it, it would still be philosophical based off of science. There's nothing wrong with that, just say what it is. it would be philosophical proof that the ball will be "such and such' size in "such and such" years. "Creationists" don't argue that this philosophy doesn't make any sense (for the most part), they argue that it isn't science, and that it is equally as legitimate as their religious interpretations of science.
Although I myself have some differing views from most "creationists", I am going to, from here on out, speak on the behalf of "creationists" with the real arguments that they make, and hopefully overcome the incorrect bigotry being put on them.
About micr vs macro, the argument is that macro IS NOT just large scale micro, and that we have sinse observed some vast differences as to what it takes to make micro-evolution work and what it takes to make macro-evolution work. The argument is that maco-evolution could very well be a GREAT philosophy, but that it is just that, a philosophy based off of the science of micro-evolution., not so much that the philosophy is wrong and that they need to be taught why it makes sense because they don't understand how it's supposed to work.
Now, let me attempt at trying to explain why creationists say this. First it's because now, there are about 9+ different definitions of "evolution", and this comes by way of science changing (as it always does, and should do) from what Dawrin observed from what we observe today.
One definitions mean:
-#1:"change over time",
-#2:"increasing from simple to complex"
-#3: "adapting to your environment", whether it be more complex or less complex (by way of "beneficial" mutation) which is distinct from "simple to complex".
Now, from a "creationists" perspective, back in the day, proving #3 would thus prove #3, based off of the understanding that they are the same thing, which is to say, that it takes increasing in complexity in order to adapt to your environment. But today, it is much different becaue we know that this is not true. So from the creationists perspective, proving #3 will not prove #2. Now, #3 can very well happen BY WAY of #2, but because there are over a million ways that #3 can happen, and most of them negative, it does not necessarily prove #2. It works like tis for all the definitions of "evolution".
Over the years, the definition of beneficial mutations have changed from meaning a mutation that results in more information and greater overall complexity to a mutation that happens to benefit you in your environment, even if they are breaking something down. This happens in light of the understanding that mutations are 99% destructive, meaning, that they break you down. Most beneficial mutations happen in the following way: Say you have a mutation where you have no arms. Now, you are held captive in a room where gunmen are walking around and they are shooting and killing people after they cancuff them. There are others in the room with no arms as well, however, the gunmen only kill the ones that they handcuff, and sinse you have no arms, you can't be handcuffed, and therefor, you will not be shot. You're mutation was beneficial to your environment, and therfor, you survived and everyone else died. After breeding and spreading the gene and having this mutated gene take over the poulation (which is debatable), the fact still remains that the human spiecies, that has now survived, is still less than what he was before. the same thing can happen all over again except with the feet.
This is the starting premise that most creationists biologists state. Now, the argument is that,yes, this is possible to happen, but, it is also possible to GAIN information too, and that this same process can result in more and more complex species. However, over time and observation, we observe that the first example happens way more then the second one. Sinse it is random, you adapt to your environment, but it is almost always by way of a "trade off" or "losing something".
For example, when a human being goes from dark hair to blonde hair, it isn't because they are gaining something, it's because they are losing something. When a human being goes from brown eyes to blue eyes, again, without getting too technical, it is because they are losing genetic information and not gaining genetic information. Now, when you DO have a mutaion that results in gaining information, that's all well and good, but the problem is that it happenes mabe 1 in a million mutations, sinse "good' mutations are rare and bad mutations happen millions of times every day. So, the same exact process that happens when a "good" mutation happens, and natural selection allows for the survival of the new species, is also the same exact process that happens when you get a "bad" mutation and then natural selection allows for the survival of that new species as well. the thing is, is that scientists are observing that natural selection selects species with "bad" mutations to survive more than it does for the species with the "good" mutations to survive millions to 1. Proof of this that we can make predictions of is You would expect the biggest, the baddest, the most complex, and the most terrifying creaturs to ever walk the earth to be in the distant past, and you would expact today's strongest creature to pale in comparison. Instead of there being huge creatures walking around right now that are vastly superior to the past and finding small feeble fossils in the ground from millions of years ago, we should expect most of our current current lizards to be small and feeble 90% of the time and big dragon like beast 10% of the time, and we should expect ti find fossils in the ground of lizards who were 90% huge monsters and 10% small and feeble, and that's exactly what we find.
So the argument is this: Yes, It is possible to move 2 steps forward, but current evidence suggests that you have to move 100 steps backwrds in order to move 2 steps forward, and that this process results in a continuous 98 steps backwards.
Now, creationists for the most part, aren't necessarily setting out to say that macro evolution is wrong (though they could and will), they are saying that when you have evidence to support AND reject it, when you choose opne side it goes from science to philosophy, a philosophy based off of the science of one part micro-evolution, and a philosophy ignoring the other parts of micro evolution. That is to say, that micro-evolution doesn't just go 1 way (that is "up), but that it goes "every which way", it goes up, down, left, right, forward, and backward, and that natural selection can allow the survival of micro-evolution to survive in ALL of these states, and that macro-evolution now becomes the philosophical argument that IF micro-evolution kept going "up", you would have something alot more complex and would see a new brand of totally different species and thus show macro-evolution.
The problem is, is that you can show that it's possibl;e to move 2 steps forward all you want to, but you have to be able to show that you can move forward MORE than move backwards, and we don't see that just yet. Micro-evolution was once viewed as going in 1 direction, and therefor it made sense to say that if this process continure you would have "such and such" result (even though this is still a philosophical argument). But things change when you observe that micro-evolution also has about a million other ways to survive a species by way of natural selection that are not moving forward, but backwards, because we know now that all a mutation has to have to be beneficial is to be able to survive in it's environment at that given time. It's as if you were to make a graph, it would look like a constant "checkmark", meaning that it would go down a long way, but then it would peek back upwards just a little bit, and over to the right or left. But because you are always moving downwards consistently (because you are moving down alot more than up) there is only so far you can go down, and therefor, only so far you go to the right or left.
People usually give the example that people in Africa who have single cell amenia are less likely to get maleria. Well that's exactly what the creationists are talking about. This is the argument that "creationists" always hear. This is like saying that if I don't have breasts I can't get breast cancer. It's a trade off, you are immune to 1 thing only because you are deseased. It's like If you had 10 stacks of blocks made up of 30 blocks each, you can make one of the stacks 45 blocks high, but it would take removing 15 blocks from one of the other stacks to make it happen, and thus you are now stuck with a level 15 block stack making you more vulnerable to certain things. There are certain situations where you would develop the immunity first, and then got another disease based off of the process that it took to make you immune in the first place. You always have your 300 blocks, but then during all of this you will have your mutations where you lose a black here, and a block there, and you go down to 250 blocks. yes, you may gain 1 block, but it's after losing 100, sinse there are alot more destructive mutations than there are progressive ones, and they are both bound by the same natural selection process. This is why a "creationists" will argue for the possibility that a lion will "devolve" into a house cat over time, but they will argue against a house cat evolving into a lion. The "creationists" will admit that back in the day it was a valid insight to say that when you see a mutation in a cat that appears to be beneficial that it would result in a lion over millions of years, but that is based off of what they knew of genetics back then, as opposed to people making the same claims today.
the bottom line, is that we can have a nice, civilized discussion if we properly define what it is that we are trying to talk about, as the "creationists" hold that there are now clear differences as to what different types of the word "evolution" can be used to mean. No "creationists" is against a wide range of change over time, they are for what they see to be observed notions of limitations within thise ranges.
I'm not making all these huge "creationists" arguments here, I'm just giving basic premises with nothing specific. it would be a nice conversation though if we could just easily define what we are talking about. So if you are an "evolutionists" and you only have one meaning of the word, just state in a nice way what meaning you use anyway to avoid confusion. A "creationist" will tell you that one "evolutionist" may use the word in exclusively one context, but another would use it differently.
So, when we say "evolution", we have to be sure we are properly defining what we are talking about here, and this is the only way we can have a logical discussion. It would be good if for every time someone said the word "evolution", they followed it up with "in the sense that......" and fill in the blank with "change over time, "adaptation", ect..
