4 ms·
Is it wrong to believe at this point that instead of macro evolution, we could be looking at several differing extinction points?
by not_a_cop75 7y ago
Is it wrong to believe at this point that instead of macro evolution, we could be looking at several differing extinction points?
- BurningFrog 7y agoI think the point is that we know so little that we might look at a huge number of wildly different scenarios. So... keep digging!
- subsaharancoder 7y agoOr..that we need more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in creation
- bigbluedots 7y agoMaybe, but creation has zero evidence in its favor
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- dwaltrip 7y agoI believe "macro evolution" is a bit of a controversial term, as it that term and the corresponding "micro evolution" have been co-opted by creationists, who obtusely claim that there is no evidence for macro evolution, but that they accept micro evolution. I'm reading "The Greatest Show on Earth" (which is a fantastic book for a broad overview of the evidence for evolution. The evidence is truly astounding and awesome). Dawkins spends a bit of time arguing that the distinction between micro and macro isn't that meaningful. However, I just skimmed the Wikipedia pages and it seems the terms may have some legitimate usage? Perhaps his unfortunate dealings with creationists have simply spoiled the terms for him.