Macroevolution examples

[Delta9 UK]

Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts.

From Wikipedia:

Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past

Basically when creationists use "macroevolution" they mean "evolution which we object to on theological grounds", and by "microevolution" they mean "evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds".

Delta9 UK Reviewed by Delta9 UK on 08-19-2007. Macroevolution examples Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts. From Wikipedia: Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species Rating: 5

[Delta9 UK]

There are several examples that prove common ancestory (something creationists don't generally believe in) and this is simply the idea that different animals share the same common origin so for example all dogs and all cats share a common ancestor.

Creationists have a bit of a probem though when evolutionary science predicts and proves parts of macroevolution.

Example 1: Endogenous retroiviruses.

Endogenous retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Basically what happens is that a virus leaves some of its Genetic material (DNA) inside the genome of the animal infected. This bit of genetic code becomes part of that animals genome (its own genetic code) and is passed on - especially if it is an egg or sperm cell.

Us Humans can have as much as 1% of our genome made up of these old viruses. This means we are carrying around about 30,000+ of these old virus artifacts. As this genetic material is passed on for many years it can provide a clear line of descent.

Guess which other animals share the same virus sequences as us?

From Monkeys to Humans we all have the same Virus DNA
The attached pictures shows how particular virus (HERV-K) code has been found in several primates from Monkeys to Humans. This is strong evidence for a common ancestry as the genetic material is the same after being passed on from the original infection.

[Delta9 UK]

Cats provide another example.

The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. All of these 'small' cats evolved later and broke away from the larger cats. Only these small cats share the same virus dna (retrogene)

In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene.

[Delta9 UK]

I am trying to make this accessible by the way so that the majority of people interested in understanding these facts will be able to with some limited scientific knowledge.

If anyone thinks I'm dumbing anything down then I'm sorry - I just want as many people to understand the implications of such scientific evidence.

[BlueDevil]

Allow me to join Delta's admirable attempt to 'dumb things down' concerning evolution and address the single most common criticism I hear in these kinds of threads.

*clears throat*

Don't listen to creationists who thrive on misrepresenting the scientific perspective in an attempt to cloud the waters of debate. No one is claiming we evolved from apes - we evolved from a common ancestor!


Sorry, I had to get that out of my system, everytime I hear some yokel get uppity and proclaim "I didn't come from no monkey!" I just wanna puke.

[BlueDevil]

Be patient Delta, I'm sure someone will be a long shortly with links and quotes from, I dunno, Paula Abdul to illustrate in detail just how wrong you are.

[Lankan Lion]

"And God said to Peter: I shall make monkey and I shall make man and never the two shall interbreed, until the age of extreme fetishist internet pornography"

Oxford Professor of Theology, Paula Abdul

[sam44]

bravo delta9! :thumbsup:

[couch-potato]

Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics

[natureisawesome]

delta 9 uk:

Supporters of Creationism believe that there are no example(s) of Macroevolution - put simply most supporters of creationism don't believe that living things have become more complex over time. This is a broad generalisation but it will fit most peoples understanding of the concepts.

From Wikipedia:
Some Creationists have also adopted the term "macroevolution" to describe the form of evolution that they reject. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). These arguments are rejected by mainstream science, which holds that there is ample evidence that macroevolution has occurred in the past
Basically when creationists use "macroevolution" they mean "evolution which we object to on theological grounds", and by "microevolution" they mean "evolution we either cannot deny, or which is acceptable on theological grounds".

That's just slander. There are detailed scientific differences between macro and microevolution. They are two different processes. completely different. One is a natural part of life, and one is nonexistant and has never been observed. Oh and by the way, creationists didn't invent either term. That would be self defeatist. The evolutionists infented the terms and when we point out that they're totally different, they don't like that.

Macroevolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

According to Talk.Origins, the terms macroevolution and microevolution were first used by evolutionary Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in a German-language book in 1927, and were introduced to English-speaking biological community in 1937 by Filipchenko's former student Theodosius Dobzhansky. They have continued to be used by evolutionists, although many evolutionists argue that there is no real difference between the two terms. However, the terms appear to be used much more by creationists than evolutionists, probably leading to the false belief held by many evolutionists that creationists invented the term.

On herv's Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)—evolutionary “junk” or God’s tools? :

Contrary to being â??junkâ?� DNA, HERVs are thought to play at least three major roles. One role is to control the regulation of genes (the expression of proteins from genes).1 Members of the HERV-K family are typically found in areas near genes.1 The regulatory role of HERVs has been demonstrated in the liver, placenta, colon, and other locations.1 It was recently reported that an endogenous retrovirus in sheep was necessary for maintaining pregnancy, as it was important in the formation of the placenta.3 HERVs also play a role in disease, and have been linked to various cancers and male infertility.1

How do biblical creationists view the roles of HERVs?
Obviously, there is no problem understanding that HERVs have roles in regulating genes (a God-designed function) and causing disease (due to mutations in HERVs as a result of the Fall). It has been suggested that HERVs and other transposable elements played a role in rapid genetic changes that occurred post-Flood to allow humans and animals to adapt to different environments, as suggested by the AGEing (altruistic genetic elements) mechanism.5 One article states, â??Whether these repeated sequences [referring to transposable elements] are now â??junk DNAâ?? is a complex issue.â?�4 Biblical creationists do not think that HERVs are â??junkâ?� DNA, but much work needs to be done to gain a greater understanding of the role of HERVs in the past and present. The difference is our starting pointâ??the Word of God versus the word of man.

Cats provide another example.

The small cats (e.g. the jungle cat, European wildcat, African wildcat, blackfooted cat, and domestic cat) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. All of these 'small' cats evolved later and broke away from the larger cats. Only these small cats share the same virus dna (retrogene)
In contrast, all other carnivores which have been tested lack this retrogene.

This is microevolution. Not increase in information. This is genetic variability. Creationists believe in this. They believe all cats came from a common anscestor - a cat. They don't believe that cats and dogs came from a common anscestor - that's magical fantasy land.