I'm not even sure what this means. This is probably because you didn't get this information from a reputable scientific source. I can tell this because "macro-evolved" and "lower species" are not terms used within the scientific community. That, and "science" doesn't "believe" anything. Science isn't an entity, and belief is not relevant in scientific circles. Evidence is relevant. I'd like to make a respectful suggestion that I hope you'll find helpful: If you hear something strange or incomprehensible about something "science believes," it's a good idea to try and find an actual scientific source on the topic, as that is likely to yield much more accurate information.
On what do you base this assertion? I'm curious.
Uhhh... Macroevolution is a real term. Lower species is implied by the fact that other human-like creatures at the time were incapable of cmpeting with us and essentially died out.
And I also base this on science.
It is believed by many scientists that all humans have one common female ancestor:
"According to the Out of Africa Model, developed by
Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews, modern
H. sapiens evolved in Africa 200,000 years ago. Homo sapiens began migrating from Africa between 70,000 50,000 years ago and would eventually replace existing hominid species in Europe and Asia.
[38][39] The Out of Africa Model has gained support by recent research using
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). After analysing genealogy trees constructed using 133 types of mtDNA, they concluded that all were descended from a woman from Africa, dubbed
Mitochondrial Eve.
[40]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
Of course at the time she was not the only living human the article goes on to state but I really do not see
It is all hotly debated -- some believe that humans evolved a bit and then we interbred with other groups:
"Instead, they suggest that archaic non-African groups, such as the Neandertals, made significant contributions to the genomes of modern humans in Eurasia."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070112104129.htm
It is unknown.
and macroevolution is a term...
You know that.
Genetic diversity may have indeed been achieved through interbreeding with what are essentially different groups.
I am not sure what I said that you had such a big problem with -- it sounds like you are just conceited and want to try to talk down at Christians.
You're right, it's not like that at all. Evolution is a process of gradual change over time. One generation of a population will be very, very similar to the one immediately preceding it, but small changes accumulate over the course of many generations. If you compare one generation of a population to their great^10000-grandparents, you are likely to see far more significant changes. By way of analogy, consider the movement of the continents. The distance that tectonic plates travel in a single year is negligible, but over the course of millions of years, the accumulated result of all those tiny shifts renders the surface of the planet almost unrecognizable. For a more immediate analogy, consider your own hair and fingernails. The amount that they grow in a single day is barely noticeable (I'm referring here to the hair on your head, not anywhere you'd shave, because obviously shaving makes the growth more obvious), but over the course of weeks, months, or years, that accumulated growth becomes apparent. Evolution, similarly, is about changes in a population over time; it has nothing to do with one generation spontaneously being drastically different than the one immediately previous.
Yeah but I do not understand a massive jump... I do not understand how eventually single-cell organisms get little by little bigger and then even evolve strange spots on them that can act like eyes, etc. ad nauseum.
I guess single tribes of human-like groups must have been isolated and together long enough to begin their evolution together and eventually spawn more and more and more human-like kids until eventually we got here.
There was probably a great deal of inbreeding occurring at thsi time. Although animals do sometimes have instincts against inbreeding many dogs don't. I do not know about human-like species (and apparently a lot of scientists don't).
Overall this could be just really irrelevant.
