reddix wrote:My Buddy wrote:In the Evolution debate,
the places where there begin to be real contradictions have to do more with philosophical and theoretical stretches beyond where the evidence clearly leads. As such, many people (not just Christians) will have no problem with Micro-evolution; but will have many questions around Macro-evolution; simply because the evidence doesn't point clearly in support of it.
(my bold)Is that true? Are there areas where the theory of evolution goes beyond the evidence?
To be even more blunt. No, what it is is apologetic bullshit.
But thanks for bringing it up, because it is an excellent example of the creationism apologist mindset.
For starters let's go through those two terms used:
Micro-evolution and
Macro-evolution.
As is common, these are two terms from REAL science, co-opted and distorted by apologists of doctrine.
They are terms that are now largely antiquated in science, but that once had real meaning. What there are (were) are descriptions of areas of
study of evolution, not to be confused as different types or any such thing. They were regularly used until about 50 years ago or so, but have since dropped off as the distinctions between them blurred and became next to useless.
Micro-evolution is the study of evolution at it's finer levels of detail. The actual immediate processes involved. Variation, and as genetics came to the fore, and integrated (so perfectly!) into evolutionary study; mutations, and adaptation. And the various ways in which different traits and features became prominent, were "selected". Commonly understood methodologies for this are known as Natural Selection and Genetic Drift Right, which combined with mutation comprise the three prime and foundational features of evolution. All the way up to how such variation and adaptation leads to new and novel gene-pools, new species.
Macro-evolution is the study of the grosser effects of evolution. Of how reptiles evolved into mammals for example, of the evolution of wings and eyes and so on. Of how entire clades came to be and how they changed and adapted. Essentially it is looking at the bigger picture of evolution, of the effects of evolution over much broader expanses of space and time. Imagine it as akin to studying humanity in terms of population movements, through the examination of emigration numbers and the like, as opposed to the stories of individuals and families.
As a handy, and logical divide;
Species was taken as the dividing line between the two. As it is the only true distinction between organisms. Although "species" too is not so clear cut, there is one definition that is so; the definition of a species as an isolated gene-pool - in which it's members can interbreed, but none from outside can with that grouping. (such lines are hard to fine due to the very nature of evolution.) All the finer details, all the processes and adaptations occur within species. Once two (or more) groups are so divided through evolutionary change that they can no longer directly affect the genes of the other group, the questions and observations change from those processes to the "bigger picture" kind of things. Micro to macro as it were.
One major reason why these terms, and the largely separate scientific disciplines that worked within them, became largely obsolete, was the advances in the evolutionary science. As our understanding and ability to study increased, those lines rapidly began to blur. Such that in time hardly a single evolutionary biologist could be said to be studying purely micro OR macro-evolution, but crossed at least to some extent into both. (This is somewhat similar to the now less distinct divides between biology, chemistry, physics and geology - although at this point we have a middle ground of named cross discipline fields; biochemistry, geophysics and so forth.)
Okay then; onto the claim:
"In the Evolution debate, the places where there begin to be real contradictions have to do more with philosophical and theoretical stretches beyond where the evidence clearly leads. As such, many people (not just Christians) will have no problem with Micro-evolution; but will have many questions around Macro-evolution; simply because the evidence doesn't point clearly in support of it"There are two points of note with this:
1. The definitions.
For the typical creationist micro and macro evolution tend to be seen as a confused mix of the reality, and a notion of there being two
types of evolution. The reason for this confused nature appears to largely stem from the fact that they don't seem all that bothered to actually think about it closely enough to form a solid understanding or set of definitions, such that even they don't seem to understand what they are talking about. They certainly don't simply mean the levels of focus in which one studies evolution!
2. And this is more interesting. The science.
By the science and the evidence, they don't really mean that at all! Instead what is really being said is that some aspects of evolution, namely the local and immediate parts; variation, some "selection" which leads to differing breeds of dogs, and in "the wild" of cats and bear varieties, and the like - are,
not scientifically verified, but BLOODY OBVIOUS, to the common, layman observer, they have become "common sense" to such a profound degree that even the hardened (but not even all of them!) creationist can deny them!
You see it is not that they have studied the science, and on honest critical assessment found it to be solid, oh no, they have discovered that it is too obvious to even their own "flocks", to those believers they preach their rhetoric to. Such that they can't continue to deny it (note that they
did deny it for far far longer than was at all justified) without losing too many of their scientifically illiterate adherents, not with their claims flying directly in the face of that which even the "common man" can observe for themselves. And only then because it is realised that one can accept evolution to this degree, without really challenging their precious and fixed doctrine too much.
But "macro-evolution"; that's different. In there there is a great deal of science, and much of it so well supported by evidence as to be "beyond all reasonable doubt." Not
all of course, but enough to establish the evolution of major biological groups, and to strongly support the very large implication that all life evolved naturally from a single common ancestor! In fact so much that the only real questions now are
how certain features etc. evolved, and possible questions others ways/mechanisms of how it takes place, not
if, it's all down to the details (of which of course there are many.)
It is NOT, as asserted, a matter of
"philosophical and theoretical stretches", but very real science, supported by mountains of evidence, all corroborating one another beautifully. But rather that this equally valid evidence is not quite so readily available to the general public, and even less so to their largely scientifically illiterate audience.*
*And this is only exacerbated once their heads are filled with all kinds of creationist PSEUDO-SCIENCE nonsense!
And that is the crux of it: As those facts, theories and lines of evidence, are not so obvious, not without doing some serious study (made all that much harder with a resistant dogma erected to stifle and prevent just that from happening) this level of "doubtability", there is room to instil doubt and suspicion. Room to pretend that this is not so certain, that there is good reason to think it is not true after all. That the science doesn't "really"support what the experts in the relevant fields say it does
at all. Evolution is an established fact to a far far greater extent than such apologists assert. But the evidence that proves this is just that little bit more difficult to obtain and present, and as such that much easier to cast sufficient doubt on; if only for the scientifically illiterate with an inbuilt and indoctrinated cherished belief system to protect, in order to hold up the convictions of a religious world-view already long past it's "used by" date.
So in summation; when they say "This" is established science, and "that" is less so (Philosophising, stretching imagination and weak hypotheses beyond the evidence...) what is really being described (as is often evident in their wording and examples, to the experienced critical thinker) is:
"This" is common sense, obvious to anybody, even 'we' can't deny it without looking the fool, and
"That" is far enough beyond common observation that we can dismiss it as fantasy, at least enough to convince the scientifically illiterate believer with a vested interest in "keeping the Faith."
And that is all that really matters to them: Keeping the Faith alive, the truth be damned. Of course they cover over this uncomfortable truth by convincing themselves that what they already believe is the Truth
TM, which trumps any piddly truth that reality might try to impose upon them. This is what can all too easily happen when you
start with a established conclusion and only care about finding what facts one can use to support it, it's called applying Confirmation Bias, except is so much worse when it is done with intent (we all have the natural tendency to apply confirmation bias to some extent). As this closing image so aptly reveals:
by 
However, on a positive note, he has conceded in his last sentence that evidence is necessary to support certain empirical claims - here by maintaining that evolution is an empirical claim that has not been adequately supported evidentially (even if this position is held by a dubious understanding and representation of the terms and concepts as ADP has pointed out). 
I give up. It's just too much.