Man of Faith
Well-Known Member
Do you accept macro evolution?
Wikipedia says the following:
While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. 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".[18][19]
Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." 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".[1]
Again, definitions are changing, now macroevolution is merely speciation, but defining a species is elusive. When people say that speciation is evidence for macroevolution that is a misunderstanding of the creation model. The species level is below the family level in the taxonomic ranking system and creation usually draws the line at the family level of change.