Replies

And where did these primates come from? Did not (according to evolution) they start out as a single cell and then a fish, and they became birds that became primates Nope, birds are a different branch. But besides even if a bird did turn into a human how do I know you wouldn't claim the change isn't macroevolution because "its still a vertebrate" Using the "its still a.." argument above the species level is wrong. For example if a newt turns into a hellbender that is macroevolution, even though both are salamanders. Saying "it is still a salamander" is just stating the obvious, and doesn't negate the fact that the change is macroevolution.

Now we are playing word games.

The 'macroevolution'that we are talking about is a vertical one not a horizontal one.

Macroevolution From CreationWiki

Unclean animals, such as the canines, existed as only a single species following the global flood. Most organisms on Earth have speciated numerous times (shown as branches), and now exists as many genera (shown as boxes) with several species.A common definition for macroevolution is the - "the evolution of higher taxa". In other words, it is long-term evolution that results in the formation of new taxonomic groups. The process of evolution, given enough time, will eventually lead to the development of groups above the species level (i.e new genera, families, etc.). Macroevolution is distinguished from microevolution, which is the lesser quantity of change that occurs within a population.

Macroevolution describes a complex evolutionary history, which includes many speciation events and extinctions. For example, macroevolution is used when describing the theoretical evolution of all arthropods from some ancient ancestral species. In contrast to this position, creationists believe that there are many baramin or created kinds within the Phylum Arthropoda. In such examples, evolutionists use macroevolution to propose an evolutionary relationship between organisms that are vastly different, and in fact claim that the process is responsible for the common descent of all organisms on Earth. Furthermore, they rely upon a non-catastrophic interpretation of the fossil record as their only real evidence for macroevolution.

Because of such claims by evolutionists, creationists are found to typically agree that microevolution happens, but proclaim that macroevolution does not. This may be true in relation to certain specific examples, such as those described above, but as a general rule of nature, this statement is incorrect. Based on the common use of the word, any evolutionist would also describe the evolutionary history of a created kind as macroevolution. Therefore, it is indeed more accurate for creationists to state that all organisms have undergone macroevolution since the creation. From the creationists perspective, macroevolution describes the entire evolutionary history of each created kind, which includes speciation events and adaptions after the Fall, then again after the flood, and a great many extinctions as well.

While the typical use of microevolution vs. macroevolution by creationists might be true for some specific examples, as a general rule, this classic distinction should be avoided. Most creationists agree that the created kind is most closely synonymous with the Family level of the taxonomic hierarchy. It is also readily accepted that only a single species, from some kinds, was spared from the flood. Each species from the ark has evolved since the flood into a great many distinct genera, each with many new species. This history is best described as macroevolution.

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/inde...=Macroevolution

Well now you know you should accept speciation. The CreationWiki tells you to. It says you should accept macroevolution is possible at a limited level. It also says that the statement that macroevolution is impossible is incorrect.

CreationWiki: Most creationists agree that the created kind is most closely synonymous with the Family level of the taxonomic hierarchy

Well that isn't really true. I would say from experience that most creationists don't accept evolution of new species at all. Other creationists put the created kind as synonymous with the Genus of the taxonomic hierarchy. Others put it even higher at the Order level. Others avoid Linnaean heirarchy entirely and try to personally define created kinds. Others say that created kinds cannot be determined at all. I would say this last one is more honest as if it were possible to define kinds then there should be a list somewhere of all species on earth and the kind they are in.

One major problem for the CreationWiki's kind concept is that it has no genetic basis. At least speciation was a real barrier - it is a unique event with unique mechanisms that causes a sub population to become incapable of interbreeding with the main population making it a new species. All you have to do is deny these mechanisms are possible. Once CreationWiki accepts those mechanisms and also accepts a certain level of genetic divergance (evolution above the genus level) then it is on a slippery slope.

The question is what is the barrier that prevents divergance continuing above the family level? There is no such barrier proposed.

Humans and chimpanzees are in the same family, and are genetically similar enough that some people have proposed they should in fact be in the same genus. Making an arbitary exception for humans and chimpanzees doesn't seem very objective but it is what CreationWiki would have to do.

Another problem is that many transitional fossil series contain gaps below the family level. For example the reptile to mammal series does have gaps, but these gaps are smaller than the family level. Ie any two neighbouring fossils in the series are similar enough that they could be classified into the same family if they were both living.