Macro- vs. Micro-Evolution

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@anon46279830

I think the normal gate-keepers for the meaning of such terms would be the scientific community which eschews them. This naturally leaves a vacuum and uncertainty. A definition which is as clear as many other distinctions in science could be made, but its not being made because the gate-keepers don’t like the terms, even those like you who are fair-minded enough to know the extremes of what evolution is believed to be responsible for have significant differences.

Except, I have been clear about this:

@swamidass

Defining evolution correctly as just common descent is really helpful. There is nothing intrinsically atheistic about it. CD [common descent] is also the most historically and scientifically consistent and correct definition. To be clear, also, I am not adding to this definition abiogenesis (origin of life) or universal common descent. These things are up for debate in the scientific community, and not part of evolution proper. One group of scientists thinks that life arose multiple times (so they do not believe in universal common descent). Another group of scientists severely doubts any natural mechanism for abiogenesis could ever be found. Regardless, evolution is just common descent of all life to a few (or one) ancestor.

So ‘macro-evolution’ or ‘evolution’ is common descent between species under question, and:

1. Does not deny God’s action, but is silent about it.
2. Does not include abiogenesis.
3. Does not include a universal claim about species that are not under question

As I’ve explained, the key lynch pin here is the common descent of man and the great apes, which is perhaps the most well established example of evolution. There is just so much evidence for this, and if its true, objections to most of the rest just evaporate.