First of all, let's clarify how we can use macro-evolution in my argument...
Macroevolution and modern evolutionary synthesis said:
Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, macroevolution is thought of as the compounded effects of microevolution. Thus, the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is not a fundamental one – the only difference between them is of time and scale. However, it should be noted that time is not a necessary distinguishing factor – macroevolution can happen without gradual compounding of small changes; whole-genome duplication can result in macroevolution occurring over a single generation - especially in plants. One of the most significant applications of this is found in the evolution of the vertebrates, which was mediated by duplications of the hox gene complex.
Important quote, right here. Macro-evolution is a term that is often coined to fit into the argument a person is trying to explain to a more general public, when in and of itself, the word could range widely in both time AND scale. You could call a macro-evolution the way humanity has evolved from one species to the next, just by looking at a chart that shows the amount of changes the organism in context has underwent in a set period of time... Differences between each
Homo and
Australopithecus member can be seen clearly, but looking at the amount of changes undergone in a set period of time (a bigger concentration of small changes in a period of time, within a large group of the species under study) could be a better definition of the term macro-evolution... Simply put, a lot more changes in a period of time, than in other equal periods of time. These are called micro-evolutions, when there are only small-scale detailed changes within a species, like the ability to change from being cold-blooded to warm-blooded due to atmospheric changes, in order to survive.
The literal definition of
macroevolution:
WordNet Search 3.0 said:
macroevolution (evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups).
Notice that no set timeline has been given to the word to tie itself to, it could be an evolution cycle that lasted over from 10,000 years to 1 million years. The dramatic changes between uni-celular organisms, to multi-celular organisms, to complex systems, to vertebrates... These are all common examples of macro-evolution.
Now, for
creationism, it speaks for itself... That we have all been
created, part of a great design by a greater being, as what we are now. Most creationists have accepted evolution because of overwhelming scientifical evidence, but still deny the existence of periods of time where macro-evolution occurred.
Until this day, heated debates between macro-evolution and creationism are still happening because neither side has supporting evidence on which to back up their claims. It all boilds down to your personal beliefs, religion is generally followed by creationists, and macro-evolution is generally followed by atheists. (
Generalizations used here)
I, myself, am at a conflict between the two:
1) Because I'm a scientist, it makes sense that large groups of organisms would evolve to adapt to new environmental factors, and given the many different fossils found that date millions of years before the dawn of man, it wouldn't surprise me. From the extinction of previous dominant species (like dinosaurs) to the lack of an important resource (desert animals vs tropical animals), there are quite a number of reasons why so many gene pools would be mutated during enough time, so the species could adapt to the constantly-changing environmental factors (transition between the last dinosaur era to the Ice Age's dominant species).
2) As a christian, I cannot deny the word of the Bible because it is God's word. I can't really say my spiritual health is at it's best right now, due to me studying all sorts of scientific branches, expanding my knowledge and feeding my curiosity, and lots of what I read aren't in accordance with the Bible's usual highlights when creationism is mentioned... But what happens after death? What REALLY happened at the start of time? For all we know it could be some
deistic view of reality, and God created the universe and set it in motion for evolution to occur.
There are so many different theories that have to do with the start of life, the course of evolution, and the design of the universe and organic physiology in general. But if I had to choose between macro-evolution or creationism by the book, I'd have to go with
macro-evolution due to all that I have read up on so far, and what I believe is what has actually happened. I don't think there's been solid, scientifical evidence that Jesus Christ existed, nor has there been any old records that point to the existence of his own self... The closest, most accurate recordings are the Bible's pages, and without enough evidence, it falls on deaf ears to the vast majority of atheistic scientists.