I have said it many times the evolutionist created terms to support the theory. I simply prefer calling a group of animals by the name of the breed or family name. Genetically different, that sounds kinda funny coming from your side when that is a major argument on your side because they believe similarity is just more evdence of evolution ,when they say the genetics of a chimp are only 2% different from a human they're using that argument as support of the theory. How can a member of a dog family be so different ? I am a creationist and my presuppositions are just a littlle different from yours.
No, no one created terms to support a theory, that is just not the truth. See in science parameters have to be defined. Biology is the science of living organisms and biologists define these parameters for the study of living organism. For the study of evolution, a biological science, the acceptable definition of species is a breeding population. Of course before the theory of evolution there was no need to define this parameter because there was no modern biological science. People thought about it and wrote about it, but since there was no real need to define it, there was no agreed upon definition. This is just how science works and can be useful in a practical way. All the variation you see in dogs today is not enough to separate them from a breeding population. All dogs are capable of interbreeding with each other. Even wild dogs, though ecologically considered to be different species, can still successfully interbreed with domestic dogs. The chimp thing is a little more complicated than that. All living things are so obviously related and genetic variation today is amazing. The really amazing thing is you can follow genetic changes from species to species, by looking at both their chromosomes and the genetic nature of their proteins. The obvious relatedness between certain extant primates and humans is overwhelming on every level. You look at the big picture and think you cannot understand how the theory of evolution is possibly the answer. I look at the intricate details and cannot understand how anybody could believe what you believe.
Then why did they need two different terms to define evolution and when one of the terms has very little evidence to support it they just call macro-evolution micro-evolution.
They merged the two because they knew all they had was micro-adaptations.
Similarity proves nothing. I have read the closer number is actually 5% DNA difference between humans and chimps. Well when you do the math 5% of 3 billion base pairs is a 150 million base pair difference. That is huge when you figure in how many beneficial mutations would have to take place to make a chimp a human. We know at the current rate of mutations it would have taken 6 billion years for a chimp to become a human.
But that is not the only problem, there are many more neutral and harmful mutations then there are beneficial mutations. That is a problem when you need a major number in the net gain area for beneficial mutations being the engine of macro-evolution.
The rearranging of the information in mutations tend to be more harmful. We have over 4,500 genetic disorders and you can only name a few beneficial mutations. copying errors is not helpful to any equation.
