Evolutionary Adaptation

Hi, new guy here, I'll jump around a little here, I just browsed some of the posts and am making a broad reply.I have been on countless forums like this one and I have found one constant. Both evo/cre seem to forget that they both stand on theories.I am a creationist who rejects religion and has certain issues with evolution, although I do not think it is impossible. I also fail to see how evolution threatens creationists.I have also noticed that evolutionists, in assuming evolution is fact, tend to confuse adaptation with evolution. Adaptation is a necessary step in evolution, borrowed by evolutionists.Adaptation is fact, evolution is theory. There is a solid line between the two. They are different. Adaptation varies a species according to it's needs/environment. Evolution is the journey/process from one animal to another.Creationists tend to rely heavily on word of mouth and not fact. If a "christians" pastor, for example, tells them such and such happened and gives a biblical scripture to support it, (there is one for everything, although they tend to contradict other scriptures because they are usually taken out of context), then they hit the net preaching it as gospel and expecting science to support them.All creationalism aside though, I would have no problem accepting evolution if it was proven. It in no way refutes a Creator. I would however, like to get some opinions on my two fold problem with macro evolution.

Thanks mate!

quote:

---

You are right that mutations coupled with selection is a fact. It is also evolution. That is the basic definition of evolution.

---

I see your point. Still, I have reservations about referring to a fact using the heading of a theory. The basic definition of the ToE is adaptation. But the definition of adaptation has nothing to do with evolution. This is because adaptation is a proven scientific fact, while evolution,(sort of)like creationism, is still a theory.

quote:

---

The variations within a species are called by some biologists "microevolution". That is, all the changes and selected changes that end up sticking in the species (adaptations) that stay within a species are microevolution.

---

Again, microevolution, although easier to swallow that macro evolution, still is only a way to tie in a fact (adaptation), to a theory (evolution). ToE is borrowing a proven fact because it is essensial to ToE.My beef with referring to adaptation as microevolution is that it is conditioning people to accept evolution for a fact as the word we are trying to replace (adaptation) is a fact.We really can't replace the word adaptation, which is a fact, with macro, micro or just plain evolution, which is a theory.I think you can see my point here.

quote:

---

Above, I have defined macro-evolution as it is used in biology. Do you have a different defintion?

---

Not a different definition. I just posted a new thread in the "intelligent design" section of this forum entitled "Codes, Evolution, Intelligent Design". This Will explain the first part of my two fold problem with macro evolution.Edited by tdcanam, : No reason given.