So in response to my recent comments on the implausibility of the theory of macroevolution, an atheist who identified himself as having a doctorate wrote, claiming that if I accept microevolution, then I must accept macroevolution, because they are essentially the same thing, being only different in magnitude. Now, that isn’t true, because they are entirely different in process, not just scope. Microevolution happens from one generation to the next in creatures as a result of rearrangement or loss of existing genetic information. For macroevolution to exist, there would have to be ADDED genetic information over the generations, which is impossible, hasn’t ever happened, and is not happening in the modern world. It must be accepted on faith alone, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
But even if the doc were right and the only difference between micro and macro evolution was the amount of change that happens and the amount of time it takes, to suggest that this means accepting one proves the other exposes the cloudy thinking necessary for one to become an atheist. It is like saying, if you believe there are men who can run 8 miles per hour and men who can jump 6 feet off the ground, then you must accept that there are men who can run faster than an indy car and men who can jump over the clouds, because the process of running and jumping is the same, only the magnitude changes.