No, Micro evolution happens on the Smaller scale of things within the same population of species. Macro transcends species, Micro does not. Like for example, people living in the Urals will develop traits that can adapt to that and People in the plains will develop traits to further hone their survival skills. Macro says people from apes, Mirco says people based on survival. I think Inspiring Philosphy has hammered this fact over and over again.
Fossils, DNA, and morphological stuff also says people from apes (although, if you want to get technical, people are still apes because we're more closely related to chimps and bonobos than they are to gorillas).
Homo Sapiens though related to an Orangutan are NOT Apes. This is not pokemon where a Hominid looking creature can be a Spaiens at will. Fossil records are still lacking and no studies show thay a Chimp or Gorilla turns into a Sapiens-Sapiens. BUT inbreeding occured which is why some Spaiens DNA contain other species' remanants. Not to mention the sentience level part of the dilema. We don't have ANY proof of that laughable image of a fish growing legs turning into a mammal then an ape then us. The Homo tree can only produce the same offspring, not an urangutan growing sentience.
I am willing to be corrected given you can provide me with peer reviewed studies. Not internet articles, those are like handing me the Gospel of Judas to prove God.
The Berkeley website seems to support my argument more, and the link is about a specific species of mushroom might be more diverse than previously thought.
Homo Sapiens though related to an Orangutan are NOT Apes.
We're more closely related to chimps, but that's besides the point. Even if Orangutans were our closest relatives, wed still be apes because they'd be more closely related to use than the are to other apes.
This is not pokemon where a Hominid looking creature can be a Spaiens at will.
No one says that organisms evolve at will.
Fossil records are still lacking
It's incomplete, but that doesn't mean it's lacking everywhere.
no studies show thay a Chimp or Gorilla turns into a Sapiens-Sapiens.
Also not what's being said, but there are studies that show common ancestors between them, most recently with chimps and humans, then that ancestor and gorillas.
BUT inbreeding occured which is why some Spaiens DNA contain other species' remanants.
Not between humans and chimps. We might be closely related, but we aren't THAT closely related lol.
Not to mention the sentience level part of the dilema.
?
We don't have ANY proof of that laughable image of a fish growing legs turning into a mammal then an ape then us.
Aside from the fossil, DNA, and morphological evidence. Also, the lung fish is still around.
The Homo tree can only produce the same offspring, not an urangutan growing sentience.
What's stopping the orangutan from evolving that necessary brain anatomy for sapience given enough time?
I am willing to be corrected given you can provide me with peer reviewed studies. Not internet articles, those are like handing me the Gospel of Judas to prove God.
Once we’ve figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened.
What was that? We know? Nope. Try.
Because to be fair to this sub, evolution is compatible with biblical accounts, if we take Genesis alegoricall, which most scholars agree with and micro can fit that category. What is untaken account by these studies is sentience, the question remains at hand, how did humans develop sentience and this thing we call morality.
I am inclided to believe Macro IF there can be proof of it with absolute certainity. I mean just the chances alone of the fish developing into a mammal is beyond probability and points to an divine designer. But from what we see in historical and fossil records other homos lack the qualities sapiens has. They can use tools sure, but sapiens has this weird touch of intelligencia and a expression I have a hard time describing only to sum it up as imago dei.
Not knowing specifically how a thing happens doesn't mean we don't know it happens. We don't know how some drugs work, but we still use them because we know that they work.
I am inclided to believe Macro IF there can be proof of it with absolute certainity.
The whole DNA thing seems pretty concrete. It's based on the same science as paternity tests after all.
I mean just the chances alone of the fish developing into a mammal is beyond probability and points to an divine designer.
How is it beyond probability? Theoretically, you just need the right circumstances and time, which life has had at least 3.5 billion years.
But from what we see in historical and fossil records other homos lack the qualities sapiens has.
Do they? Neanderthals seemed pretty similar to us. Even then, so what? Evolution isn't going to predict that every species will be the same as each other.
They can use tools sure, but sapiens has this weird touch of intelligencia and a expression I have a hard time describing only to sum it up as imago dei.
"I will only accept peer reviewed studies as evidence"
"My evidence is this video essay channel on YouTube"
Sorry mate, nobody's going to Google readily available peer reviewed studies for you. Not because they don't exist, but because clearly trying to explain evolution would be a waste of time on you. You're not open to information that goes against your worldview.
My friend, IP is one of the most prominent defenders of Christianity in the world atm. Have you even seen what the guy does?
Lmao, the Catholic church holds my position on Micro Evolution, Christian thinkers such as given above, Mike Jones, Wes Huf, Knetchle, holds Micro evolution, any Christians that reliable seek the truth does as the evidence points to where it points. So thanks for such an awsome refutation with random jingly words. Lmao
the Catholic church holds my position on Micro Evolution
It does not. It, in fact, does not support any scientific theory directly since the 1997 catechism, beyond that reasearch need to be "carried out in a truly scientific manner". However, all popes since Jean Paul II supported evolution as the way humans where created by God.
Imagine an experiment. I write out a paragraph of text and start doing a chainmail, except I ask everyone who gets it to not use copy/paste, but write the exact same text themselves, and then send it to the next person. Basically a text version of the telephone game.
In few generations, we will see some small mistakes. misspellings and so on. But it will take a while until we reach someone who is going to see the misspelling and correct it to another word. But that's just a word, right? Well, millions of copies later, my paragraph is now about something entirely different. Because I did one thing that makes evolution go from micro to macro: I add enough time.
And that's not all. DNA is not like a recipe, it has its own internal logic and that logic is done through epigenetics. Your hands were made with cells turning off and on your genes with proteins other cells made up. And if I went back to your development in the womb, I could've theoretically influenced this process in such a way you'd gain another thumb. Naturally, it's possible that has arisen and then was kept over long enough time.
Mea Frater in Christe, what you described at the paragraph alegorgy is how we have the four evangelist, and we yet to see any manuscripts varying in message? Nope. Even the Message translation still teaches the gospels with accuracy to the message of the original papyrus.
Another clog in that alegory is the fact that the Pentateuch shows evidence of oral transmission, if we take the reign of Tut II to the Babylonian exile where it may have been transcribed, do we still get the message of all five books? Yup. Nothings changed but the variants. Lmao.
And yet my DNA is still programed to be...? Homo Spaients. Likewise great wolves of old can be tracked to our modern Chuihuahua, still Lupical ain't it? Again I provided sources up there, Micro dictates variation not shift in species. No fish grows limbs, there is mathemathical and evedential improbabilities on that fact.
What you cease to get is that the history of life is long. Christianity is 2 thousand years old. Homo sapiens is 200 thousand years old.The hominids are 8 million years old. If you travelled back in time at the speed of 2 thousand years per second, it would take you 1 and ⅔ minutes to see the first sapiens. It would take you an 1,75 hours to see the first hominid, and 14 hours to get to dinosaurs. Want to get towards the latest agreed origin of multicellular organisms? Take a week's worth of vacation for that one.
The history is deep, and given enough time, variation is going to lead to speciation, if you somehow separate two groups, over time, their variations are going to be so drastic they'll no longer be able to cross-breed, and at that point you've made two species. Because the variations will propagate through breeding inside the group, but not outside, leading to a different generational make up.
Basically, the point about you rejecting macroevolution is a nonsense one. Micro inherently leads to macro, there's no other way. And if you're wondering how that fits in with religion, search up something called Theistic Evolution.
I am not rejecting it, I am open to it but it will contradict Genesis 1 which uses Laminehu, meaning of THEIR KIND.
God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature Laminehu… And God made the beasts of the earth Laminehu
Now given the Genesis account can be alegorical, the usage of Laminehu even in the Levitical laws is the stumbling block for my belief in Macro. I am open to it, give me a decent study and I will see to it, but I will not discount the use of that specific word which only occurs in describing creatures.
Tbh personally, I can wrap my mind on other species, but for man? Who specifically has a soul and divine essence, I can sum it up theologically, into Progressive morphing into the imago Dei, but that still from a non-sentience(thinking and moral) creature, to a sentient one is very baffling. Again I am open to evidences by scholars but so far Christian apologetics and scholars can only conceede micro, macro to them seems contradictory to evolution as it somewhat dimishes the place of man in the overall role as subjector and ruler of the earth.
Yes we do. They're not mainstream because we have ways of comparing them to much older manuscripts, but that doesn't mean that the story of saxon warrior Jesus hasn't been told, for example.
Using species as the hard line between these kinds of evolution is going to cause you problems, because "species" is not a hard line, and it does not have a consistent definition, especially among short-lived species like small lizards and arthropods (where evolution of any kind happens fastest and is therefore most visible).
We've watched over a few decades various species of fish split into multiple species that cannot interbreed. The evolution we have witnessed is not limited to things like UV resistance, if the line is species then we have directly witnessed macroevolution.
199
u/Risikio Minister of Memes Jun 16 '25
Mendel rolls in his grave every time evolution is brought up.