Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

[Student Nurse]

Last semester I took Microbiology. Before then I was a Christian and believed in creation, but what I studied and what I saw undoubtedly proved evolution - hence the "switchover" or "atheistic conversion" or whatever you want to call it.

I hear a lot of Christians say "the microbiological world proves microevolution" (i.e. evolution on the small scale such as bacteria adapting to new hosts/environments and incorporating plasmids into their DNA in order to become resistant to antibiotics), "but that doesn't prove macroevolution" (ie human evolution)

If this isn't true, then what does it prove to you? How can something be true on the small scale and not on the large? (give examples please)

[McCulloch]

I think you'll find that there was a significant amount of preparation for multicellular organism before the Cambrian. As I understand it, it took Cyanobacteria several billion years to transform the Earth's atmosphere into one containing significant amounts of Oxygen.

But here's one question for evolutionists to ponder. If Cyanobacteria transformed the Earth's atmosphere, that'd require a lot of them little critters. Where is the evidence of the massive gobs of them in the fossil record?

Hasn't anyone done a rough calculation of how much cyanobacteria would be required to do the necessary atmospheric transformation in the time in question?

[Goat]

I think you'll find that there was a significant amount of preparation for multicellular organism before the Cambrian. As I understand it, it took Cyanobacteria several billion years to transform the Earth's atmosphere into one containing significant amounts of Oxygen.

But here's one question for evolutionists to ponder. If Cyanobacteria transformed the Earth's atmosphere, that'd require a lot of them little critters. Where is the evidence of the massive gobs of them in the fossil record?

Hasn't anyone done a rough calculation of how much cyanobacteria would be required to do the necessary atmospheric transformation in the time in question?

There aren't that many stones from the proper time frame, but in Australia, there are matts of them that are of the proper age. The earliest of these date back to 3.5 billiohn years old, so between the start of the oldest fossils of them, and the cambrian age was a pretty damn long time. (3 billion years is a long time, don't you think)???

It took that long for the oxggen to 'rust' out the iron in the water.

[QED]

I think you'll find that there was a significant amount of preparation for multicellular organism before the Cambrian. As I understand it, it took Cyanobacteria several billion years to transform the Earths' atmosphere into one containing significant amounts of Oxygen

I'd be willing to debate this in another thread.

But here's one question for evolutionists to ponder. If Cyanobacteria transformed the Earth's atmosphere, that'd require a lot of them little critters. Where is the evidence of the massive gobs of them in the fossil record?

That'd be Stromatolites.

Prior to 2.4 billion years ago, the earth's atmosphere was rich in carbon dioxide. However, the Precambrian air lacked the oxygen that sustains the complex multicellular life that has evolved since the "Cambrian explosion" 540 million years ago. Stromatolites in the fossil record decline sharply in both diversity and number during the late Proterozoic eon, although they are present, but not common, in Paleozoic era strata. Today, stromatolites are quite uncommon in marine environments. As a result, they have become valuable "living fossils."

There are a number of different ways to estimate the atmospheric oxygen content and the results all place the first accumulation of oxygen in the atmosphere at more than 2 billion years ago. I suppose we could imagine that the presence of photosynthesising organisms at around this time was a coincidence, but all the data would seem to suggests otherwise.