From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: nz.soc.religion,aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: The old age of earth argument (was Women teaching in Church)
Date: 29 Apr 1999 22:42:58 GMT

Allistar Melville <> wrote:
> Macro evolution and micro evolution are constructs of creationists.
> The only difference between macro evolution and micro evolution is the
> amount of time involved. If you prove micro you also prove macro.

I am in the process of composing a more careful reply to Darren.
However Allistar's input, particularly given it is from someone
trying to defend evolutionary theory, needs a quick reply.

The above is false, in several particulars.

Most importantly, macro and micro evolution are not exclusively
constructs of creationists. Their use of these terms is certainly
idiosyncratic; but the terms have a good pedigree.

My reference "Macroevolutionary Dynamics" (McGraw Hill 1989) by
Niles Eldredge. That name should ring bells -- it was Eldredge
and Gould who coined the term punctuated equilibrium, and both
remain very influential scientists in the field.

Second, the assertion that the only difference between micro and
macro evolution is the amount of time remains a matter of debate;
and perhaps of emphasis.

The extreme view is that macro evolution is nothing more than
cummulative micro evolution. This is excessively reductionist; and
runs the risk of avoiding serious examination of larger sweeps of
time and processes for speciation which may only really be apparent
over long durations; but on the other hand it is true that there
is no indication of additional mechanisms of evolutionary change
involved in large scale evolution.

The other extreme view often cited for historical reasons is
Goldschmidt's hopeful monster hypothesis (1933), of a singular
step from an ancestral to descendant species by a systematic
mutation. There is no evidence for this; and it stands today
as an example of a refuted hypothesis.

Third, the proof of macroevolution is definitely not the same as
the proof of microevolution. I'll have more to say on this point
under considerations of fact and theory and process in my reply
to Darren.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart