RE: Creation vs. Evolution
March 13, 2009 at 2:57 pm
(This post was last modified: March 13, 2009 at 3:09 pm by Amanda.)
hey, we're back... as of right now. Becki is visiting her grandparents on the other side of the country. Hope is still down. And Ashlyn has not been able to post because she had an injury. She's in the hospital now, and it will probably be over a week before she is out. Maybe another couple months after she's out will she even be able to come back here. And me, I've just been busy balancing 6 different reports. And... There's a LOT of catching up. I'm going to a sleepover tonight, and I've still got ot get a gift and so I REALLY don't have time to look at much here but I didn't want you guys to think we deserted you.
No, Microevolution and Macroevoltuon are NOT the same. Not at ALL.
Microevolution is adaptation. Like the common example of the moths. They changed their color, but they did not actually gain ANY new information. Both colors were already in their genes. We see adaptation. Adaptation is a fact. What is NOT a fact, however, is macroevolution. One species can NOT change into another without gaining information. You can only lose so much. And even if you wanted to argue that it COULD, it would still contradict what you are saying. That would mean that each species gets more and more inferior. See?
No, Microevolution and Macroevoltuon are NOT the same. Not at ALL.
Microevolution is adaptation. Like the common example of the moths. They changed their color, but they did not actually gain ANY new information. Both colors were already in their genes. We see adaptation. Adaptation is a fact. What is NOT a fact, however, is macroevolution. One species can NOT change into another without gaining information. You can only lose so much. And even if you wanted to argue that it COULD, it would still contradict what you are saying. That would mean that each species gets more and more inferior. See?
