Macroevolution vs Microevolution: Whats the difference? lol

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, @EvoFaith.

In your first two examples you are involving somehow a human component. My question was more specifically directed as to what role does God play in your point of view. Please let me rephrase it like this:

Are mutations and natural selection the driving processes of evolution? Are these processes directed or undirected by God?

Again, I would like to point you guy to BioLogos, especially you EvoFaith as they deal with the intersection of faith and science (specifically evolution). Here is an excerpt from their website on the definition of the term coined by Dr. Francis Collins (founder of Biologos and current Director of the National Institue of Health), “Evolutionary Creationism.”

“Evolutionary Creation (EC) is a Christian position on origins. It takes the Bible seriously as the inspired and authoritative word of God, and it takes science seriously as a way of understanding the world God has made. EC includes two basic ideas. First, that God created all things, including human beings in his own image. Second, that evolution is the best scientific explanation we currently have for the diversity and similarities of all life on Earth.”

“So what are the central ideas that define EC? ECs believe that God created and sustains all things. We believe that God acts purposefully in creation, just as he does in our lives, and that he continues to actively uphold and sustain creation. We believe in the Trinity, the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ, and the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. We believe that all humans are made in the image of God and all humans have a sinful nature. We believe in salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.”

“ECs accept evolution as the best scientific explanation we have for how life on Earth has changed over time. In biology, evolution refers to “descent with modification,” which includes the idea that all species are descended from a common ancestor over many generations. We therefore accept the scientific evidence that all life on Earth is related, including humans—which does not negate the image of God in us.”

“EC is neither science nor theology, but an explanatory system that seeks to incorporate the best scholarship from each. It also includes some ideas about how theology and science relate to one another. For how EC compares to other views on origins, see How is BioLogos different from Evolutionism, Intelligent Design, and Creationism?.”

Just a little excerpt from the website and that is just the tip of the iceberg. They have all sorts of great theological and scientific resources in the forms of articles and videos. If you look at their staff and contributors you will see that is a very legitimate organization that is fully committed to the best science and the best theology.

Yes and no. Evolution, as the theory is stated, is based on some kind of selective pressure. Something about an organism’s environment places a pressure on the population. Variability in the population means some individuals do better than others, reproductively speaking, and their offspring become a greater proportion of the population until they largely take over. That selective pressure can be natural (biological/behavioral or environmental) or artificial (man-driven). From the perspective of the evolutionary theorist, there is no effective difference, the end result is the same. Mutations would be an example not of a driving force of evolution, but a driving force of the variability within a population on which selection works to cause evolution.

AS to part B;

I don’t know. My current suspicion is “both.” Some is driven by man via the ability to choose God gives us (i.e., new dog species). Some is driven by God’s will for nature and the path it will take. There may be a combination of the two from the molonist perspective, but I don’t know how I land there.


Thanks, @Johnnyutah! I actually read Francis S. Collins’ “The Language of God” 2 years ago and very much liked it. I know he is a big part of BioLogos. I don’t know if I buy everything he’s selling, but I think they are on an interesting track of investigation: a synthesis between what we’ve observed in re evolution, and what the Bible teaches.

After all, if evolutionary theory is correct, or even partly correct, there has to be a common answer to it and the Biblical story of creation.

I am familiar with Biologos. Their beliefs vary within the organization. I highly recommend a book called “Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation?” This is a book that contains a dialog between Biologos and Reasons to Believe on the different aspects of this topic. A very readable book.

We are all in the search for Truth, so I appreciate your sincere answer to that question. Thank you. In your view:
How do you account for the origin of life?
How do you account for the origin of humanity?

First, thanks for recommending Old Earth or Evolutionary Creation. I’ll check it out too.

Put simply: God did it, and I don’t know. That’s all I got, lol.

I really enjoy reading the scientific ideas behind how life could have begun. They really are some of the best examples of how human ingenuity can take the smallest, barest piece of information and construct a cohesive narrative to explain something. And I’m not being derisive, I felt the same way before I was a believer. That said, I am not persuaded by the “chance did it,” or it happened “by chance” concepts. R.C. Sproul’s video breaking down this concept from a rational perspective I think is instructive:

The same holds for the “it came from outer space” arguments. These are poor grasps as straws, IMHO.

But (and this is a horrific thing for a biologist to say), I don’t think I care much. On one hand, the mechanistic explanation for the “origin of life” would be nice to know (and we’ll all eventually know it, I assume) to satisfy my curiosity, but it simply doesn’t impact me in any real way. If God created the world, with fossils and petroleum, and Grand Canyon intact 5000 years ago for us to explore and enjoy, or if he took his time over billions of years, it doesn’t really matter. If one or the other is the truth, the message of the bible, my scientific understandings of the world, and my faith are unaffected.

As for the creation of people, I (currently) adhere to the “Genesis as parable” school, vis. William Lane Craig and others, based on my appreciation of their application of “literary genres” as a tool to interpret the Bible. I think it’s an honest approach that doesn’t obviate the content, while enforcing the message.

I was a bit surprised to read that the issues with the origin of life don’t impact you in any real way given that evolution requires an initial life form to exist. I can see your struggle in the synthesis of evolutionary biology with your faith. I share with you the fact that God is central to these processes and that God as a God of truth synthesizes these issues in a way that we have the privilege to discover. I know that the fearless pursuit of Truth can only yield invaluable treasure.

I had shared this video in a different thread. I think you will find it interesting.

1 Like

@Francisco_Delgado Yea, there are a lot of scientists who get their selves real bound up in their work, and lose sight of the bigger picture: i.e., the application. I’m perfectly satisfied with being able to observe and describe evolutionary forces in our world without delving into realms of conjecture for which we have no real data.

For sure! And that’s been one of the most valuable aspects of coming to my faith, circa 2015-2016. For the longest time, I had this preconception that I had to abandon all that I learned over 8 years of schooling, plus my own research. But coming to the realization that, as Ben Shapiro says, “two things can be true at the same time”, I was able to focus my concern not on which was true (God’s creation and evolutionary processes), but how each could be true. It’s been a much more rewarding experience, and (at least so far within my own realm of exploration) smacks more of truth than the previous faux conflict society set up.

As for your video, I’ll start listening to it during my commute over the next few days and will report back. The first slide is VERY encouraging!

Well this turned into a productive thread. Keep posting cause I’m using some of this stuff in my notes lolol


@Francisco_Delgado great video. I had a passing glance with organic chemistry in under grad and grad school, so I was able to follow most of it. A great break down of how modern science has a blind spot for the origin of life, and gets away with some handwaviology.


1 Like

@Francisco_Delgado, I am a fan of James Tour. I am glad you shared that in this thread.
@EvoFaith, Your knowledge, and approach to this thread are honest and informative. Sometimes I wish I had taken up Biology instead of Chemistry :slight_smile: given how popular the “evolution” topic is.

HAH! @nkaravaki, you are braver than I! Chemistry was the bane of my existence in undergrad. I always hated the “here’s the rule, now here are the 3 pages of exceptions” I always felt followed. I went into organismal/evolutionary biology instead. Limited the chemistry exposure.

But now I’m an attorney (albeit a life sciences attorney) so…

But the Tour video was fantastic. I had enough exposure to the material to follow along, and I’ve found some other YouTube videos of his I’ve got queued up.

1 Like

@EvoFaith , I literally tried to watch every James Tour lectures I can find online. His points on origin of life and its problems from pre-biotic earth is spot-on. The fact that Sythetic Chemists do not contest his position is problematic for anyone who wants to posit chance and time as helpers in origin of life.

I know this is a thread on micro and macro-evolution, so the pre-biotic points by Dr. Tour might not be completely on topic here. I wonder though if you have come across the book by Stephen Meyer - “Darwin’s Doubt” or any of his work at all on the Intelligent Design theory. What I understood from his interpretation of the Cambrian Explosion is that God possibly created more again at that stage. How do you view that if you have any view on it?