Sentences with phrase «macro evolution»

It is a term used by people grasping at straws to continue dismissing evolution even as the evidence builds faster than ever at the gene sequencing level (ie, most of you agree that drug resistant bacteria have evolved but the term MACRO evolution is misused intentionally so you could continue to dismiss science to save faith; pun intended).

Micro-evolution is very much real but macro evolution (aka single cell organisms through billions of years evolving into all the animals we see today is false).

B. I know what you THINK «macro evolution» means, but «macro evolution» is a red herring.

If that is not macro evolution, what is?

What is it that distinguishes «micro-evolution» as you (but no biologist) calls it from macro evolution?

What I'm saying is that to show macro evolution to be true, a demonstration of a change in kinds must be shown (for example: canine to feline).

This would be macro evolution.

I posted it because a world leading chemist does not understand macro evolution.

There is no functional or procedural difference in the so - called «micro and macro evolution».

The last I studied the subject there was still no proof of macro evolution.

Has science located proof of macro evolution?

Macro evolution continues to require a significant leap of faith!

I'm not an expert, but I haven't found any evidence for macro evolution.

Macro Evolution, baby.

(by the way, heat / energy from the Sun increases the entropy of a system) If Macro evolution is true, why don't we see any transitionary animals now?

You have been falsely taught that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

There is no macro evolution involved.

It's not by chance and nature, which breaks down and de-evolves can not accidentally produce the structures necessary for macro evolution.

That might be due to the fact that the micro / macro evolution is not a distinction that exist in science.

And, I believe in micro solution, not macro evolution.

There is no such thing as micro and macro evolution.

BUT, because we all can imagine small changes making something complicated we are supposed to swallow macro evolution on imagination alone.

Yet an atheist goes to great lengths to refute this theory while also subscribing to concepts such as macro evolution, that also lacks proof, yet is believable due to other laws of the universe.

Macro evolution has to exist for the theory of evolution to work.

There is no micro or macro evolution.

Nor has any type of macro evolution happened in recorded history, like where a alligator turned into mammal.

Once you get that through your thick skull, I can explain why your comments about macro evolution are ignorant.

Macro evolution has no evidence of happening.

macro evolution is a term used as a smoke screen by creationists.

Yes, I'm talking about macro evolution, as in one day monkey years down the road... we have a human... There is adaptation for sure but then there is a big drop off from that and new species evolving from single cells...

To make sense of the genetic data, one disbelieving in macro evolution would have to provide a much more convoluted and absurd mechanism.

uyour argument has no merit NO evidence whatsoever for macro evolution.

The Science behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

There is no micro or macro evolution, there is just evolution.

Technophobe,: Christians, Muslims and Jews do believe in micro-evolution (the evolution inside species) but none of these religions believe in evolutionist macro evolution, the evolution of organisms changing species (ie, fish turning into reptiles, then turning to humans)

In evolution, there is actually no concept of micro vs. macro evolution.

Macro evolution = micro evolution over lots of time.

You're talking about the type of «evolution» that we always knew existed and to make matters worse you're bragging about the advancements made by INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEINGS which still don't even come close to the complication of macro evolution but still required thousands of years of scientific advancement and knowledge and a team of researchers with high iq's working aroudn the clock with microscopes.

Jake - You have fossil evidence to prove macro evolution?

I can assure you, NO» next generation drugs, procedures and gene therapies» rely on macro evolution.

Macro evolution doesn't exist.

answer: macro evolution.

The evidence for macro evolution has been around for quite some time.

Not exact matches

From my experience in the beauty sector with brands such as Kiehl's, Mally, Evolution of Smooth, Kerastase, and more, I can say that the beauty industry has in fact incorporated social listening as part of its macro playbook by paying attention to user - generated content such as product reviews, unboxing videos, and makeup tutorials.

The same mechanisms that drive «micro» evolution also drive «macro» evolution.

I can assure you that the concept of «macro» evolution has no meaning outside of creationist circles.

But as for «Macro» Evolution which ASSUMES that one species can change into another species has NEVER been scientifically proven, or even come close to it.

There is no such thing as macro and micro evolution?

Evolutionary biologists don't use the terms «micro» and «macro» evolution.

«Micro» and «macro» evolution are obfuscatory terms made up by Creationists when they got backed into a corner and could no longer deny that evolution can be demonstrated.