Future of Christianity in US

[watchamadoodle]

Macroevolution is a snake-oil term cultivated by creationists who have absolutely no intent to address the theory of evolution properly, and instead want to co-opt the verbiage of the scientific realm in order to prop up their own baseless predrawn conclusions or drag scientific theory down to their own level of sloppy false-equivalence and inaccurate representation of reality.

If you think there is any real fundamental difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution", you really are relying on the worst sort of creationist shill. I'd ask for some sources to back up your claims, but hopefully none from Answers in Genesis, CARM.org, whyevolutionisfalse, or some other such nonsense site that contains a mission statement asserting the acceptance of biblical accounts of life regardless of what current science might say.

I used to have difficulty imagining how a mutated gamete and a non-mutated gamete could successfully match-up if the mutation changed the length of the chromosome (especially in the middle). That is how I classified macroevolution.

As I dug down into the details of mitosis, meiosis, proteins, etc. I started to feel more comfortable that the proponents of evolution were not pulling the wool over my eyes.

I was imagining DNA more like a program executable when in fact DNA is more like a library of functions (for making proteins). These functions can be rearranged in the library and new functions can be added without catastrophic results. (Unfortunately I know almost nothing about biology and biochemistry, so I must use computer analogies to visualize. But I feel more comfortable with evolution now.)

My sister's PhD is in developmental microbiology and she is suspicious about macroevolution. So even smart and educated people can have trouble understanding evolution unless they make a special effort. Many people are too busy with other responsibilities to invest that effort.