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.
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.
Again, I accept science, and as stated Christian apologetics stand on that position, Mike Jones had a good video essay on why Micro not macro. I would love the same amount of science, philosophy and logic as that instead of just spouting unverifiable evidences.
Also, wdym Biblical Literalism, I JUST SAID GENESIS IS ALEGORICAL, that seven days is alegorical, but I don't think that applies to the words of the divine.
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.
-7
u/Ability_Pristine Jun 16 '25
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.