Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-27718380-20151219182616/@comment-26295802-20151219192522

Heartgold1234 wrote: I will start us off with my first argument in favour.

The proof of macroevolution lies in microevolution. As giraffes get longer necks, some move on and this is no longer useful in a new climate with smaller trees, so they get shorter necks. Now let's consider them moving to a boggy climate with these small trees. They get stubbier legs, with more surface area touching the ground. Perhaps webbed feet develop. At this point they have changed so much so as they are hardly giraffes anymore, so after many, many, billions of years, they become so different they are a different species. The example I gave here is highly hypothetical, so please feel free to point out discrepancies in it. (Don't expect me to live on this thread, but I'll throw in a word now and then)

The difference between Macro Evolution and Micro-Evolution is that while Micro Evolution only allows a species to vary within it's genetic code whereas Macro Evolution requires the ability for an animal to add information to its genetic code, something which has never been observed in Science firsthand.

To Christains, Micro Evolution represents the God-given ability for animals to adapt to their environments. Macro Evolution is something entirely different. In my opinion, Macro Evolution gained its popularity in the scientific community before we had the technology to know better.

To recap, Micro Evolution is a well documented theory, but Macro-Evolution is, at best, an unconfirmed hypothesis.