Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yelof
Ok the creationists TRY a come back and we get the first signs that this discussion is inevitably going nowhere.
Macro evolution vs Micro evolution.
Micro evolution is normally defined as the shift due to selective pressure of a gene or group of genes in a population of living organisms.
Macro evolution is normally defined as the formation of new species or taxinomic groups due to selective pressure.
As I explained earlier and as a few of us have been at pains to point out evolutionary theory doesn't gives us much clue on how the whole thing got started, however creationists keep banging on the point claiming it a weak point to the theory it is not a part of.
|
This is of what I speak:
Quote:
Evolution
Evolution, of the fish-to-philosopher type, requires that non-living chemicals organize themselves into a self-reproducing organism. All types of life are alleged to have descended, by natural, ongoing processes, from this ‘simple’ life form. For this to have worked, there must be some process which can generate the genetic information in living things today. Chapter 9 on ‘Design’ shows how encyclopedic this information is.
So how do evolutionists propose that this information arose? The first self-reproducing organism would have made copies of itself. Evolution also requires that the copying is not always completely accurate—errors (mutations) occur. Any mutations which enable an organism to leave more self-reproducing offspring will be passed on through the generations. This ‘differential reproduction’ is called natural selection. In summary, evolutionists believe that the source of new genetic information is mutations sorted by natural selection—the neo-Darwinian theory.
|
Would this, in and of itself, be a correct assertion?