Sentences with phrase «does macroevolution»
Are these the cumulative outcome of the same processes that drive microevolution, or does macroevolution have its own distinct processes and patterns?
https://www.newscientist.com/ Not exact matches
Father Oakes does not see the issue involved in the distinction between micro «and macroevolution.
Some experts do not believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution).
My faith honestly does not hinge on whether or macroevolution is proven to be false.
Michael Behe (in The Edge of Evolution) points out that there is abundant evidence for «microevolution» (smaller population change), but there is a boundary at which the evidence for microevolution stops and evidence for macroevolution either doesn't exist, or any clues that do exist are beset with problems so serious that explanatory attempts boil down to «just - so - stories.»
... I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened.
The bigger point is that there are numerous scientists saying they agree evolutionary theory explains macroevolution but those very same people do not understand how.
On Professor Tour's Website, there's a very revealing article on evolution and creation, in which Tour bluntly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have happened, from a chemical standpoint (all bold emphases below are mine — VJT):
... Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution?
As I said, he raises a point that I think science minded atheists would want to explore: Why does he not understand macroevolution?