[Quote=DeeJayInphinity] No it's not; there is no macro or micro. There is variation, speciation, adaptation, etc.

I will repeat myself, just for you:

"Macroevolution" is, in fact, not a term coined by Creationists or anything close to them. It is, however, a fairly recent term so I can see where many people did not hear it mentioned in your high school Biology textbook.

For examples of scientific usage of this term, see the writings of Carl Zimmer, the famous science essayist (and a hard-nosed evolutionist). He even uses the word in the title of his book:At The Water's Edge: Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life. The Free Press 1998.

For more information on Carl Zimmer, see http://www.carlzimmer.com/. His works are often cited as some of the best in evolutionary science. He writes extensively for National Geographic and Science magazines. If he is referencing Macroevolution, believe me, it is a main stream evolutionary term.

Also, see this link on the conference put on by the American Association for the Advancement of Science which took place at Chicago's Field Museum in 1980 to discuss explanations of Macroevolution. In fact, that was the very name of the conference (see the February 20, 1981 edition of Science Magazine).

If this term was first used by creationists, then I suppose evolutionary scientists found it accurate enough to use it themselves? I hardly think so. More than likely, you are hearing a popular rumor of creationist "propaganda." Just try and research these terms next time.

[Quote=DeeJayInphinity] If you knew anything about evolution, you'd know that it does not preach superiority of any kind, even on the species level. It even goes against it by suggesting that there are differences amongst ALL organisms on earth, but that they ALL also share a lot of similarities due to our common ancestry and our origins. Understanding evolution is one of the many paths to realizing that none of us are superior, we each have our strengths and weaknesses, and that we are all part of one family. If that doesn't **** over the Nazi worldview, I don't know what does.

Wow, I am afraid that really has nothing to do with what Captainfork was talking about. Whether evolution is true or not, one undebatable fact is that the Nazi eugenics program was based on evoluntionary theory. Now that is not to say Hitler didn't twist it around to serve his own ends, but the program was undoubtably influenced by Darwin. And, not only the Nazis took part in eugenics, it occured around the world. There were several programs in the United States itself. For an example of how Darwinian evolution and eugenics intersect, see Genetics and Eugenics: A Textbook for Students of Biology. It was written in 1916 at the height of the eugenics campaign. You can see a full view of it on google booksearch. Also, The Social Direction of Human Evolution: An Outline of the Science of Eugenics is on google booksearch's full view and was written in 1911. I encourage you to read at least some of these works. If nothing else, you may be surprised at how strange people's ideas of what they could do with evolution were. They certainly raise some interesting questions.

Thanks!

Wow, there is quite a heated discussion! I will not bother to argue many of these points further, but let me point out a problem some of you are having over the origins of terminology. "Macroevolution" is, in fact, not a term coined by Creationists or anything close to them. It is, however, a fairly recent term so I can see where many people did not hear it mentioned in your high school Biology textbook.

For examples of scientific usage of this term, see the writings of Carl Zimmer, the famous science essayist (and a hard-nosed evolutionist). He even uses the word in the title of his book:At The Water's Edge: Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life. The Free Press 1998.

For more information on Carl Zimmer, see www.carlzimmer.com. His works are often cited as some of the best in evolutionary science. He writes extensively for National Geographic and Science magazines. If he is referencing Macroevolution, believe me, it is a main stream evolutionary term.

Also, see this link on the conference put on by the American Association for the Advancement of Science which took place at Chicago's Field Museum in 1980 to discuss explanations of Macroevolution. In fact, that was the very name of the conference (see the February 20, 1981 edition of Science Magazine).

If this term was first used by creationists, then I suppose evolutionary scientists found it accurate enough to use it themselves? I hardly think so. More than likely, you are hearing a popular rumor of creationist "propaganda." Just try and research these terms next time.

Furthermore, has anyone here ever heard of Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Elderidge, or Punctuated Equilibrium? If not, you really need to google those terms, irregardless of your stance on the issue. Basically, Punctuated Equilibrium is the idea that: "species are generally stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is 'punctuated' by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species and that leaves few fossils behind." (See PBS for the source of this definiton) The development of the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium is proof in itself that the fossil record is not displaying signs of Darwinian gradual Macroevolution.

If you really feel the need to understand the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, perhaps you could even read Gould's book on the subject of modern evolutionary theory: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Belknap Press; March 21, 2002).

If you have any questions message me, or research some of this stuff yourself!