Replies

I understand that fully, and I understand the 'hopeful monster' theory pretty well too, Gould was one of the best scientific authors at explaining things in lay terms.

Notice, though, when I talked of the archaeoteryx, I described it as A transitional species... One of many whose predecessors-and origin-are not known, and probably never will be. However, the "chicken from a lizard's egg" (Gould's playful description of punctuated equilibrium) is the idea that eventually the 'compound interest' of all the changes equals a new and different species, then, eventually, a different type.

So, using your description:

Microevolution = a change within a species, usually by means of mutation or population shift of the species, that changes the genetic characteristics or population trend of said species.

Macroevolution = the 'compounded interest' of the above described changes which, over an unspecified yet outrageously long amount of time, changes the characteristics of one species into a seperate subspecies. When given more time, the said species may change to a different type.

That makes sense according all I have studied on the evolution of species. The question I still have, though, is: Which of these above definitions represents good empirical science? Microevolution is observable. Small changes happen. But in the end, a dog is a dog, a cat is a cat, a bird is a bird, a lizard is a lizard, and a man is a man. None contain the genetic ability to become the other.

Ex: When subspecies of the species canine (type mammal) are crossbred, you eventually breed out a new subspecies of the dog (i.e., the rottweiler, the dacshund, etc). However, one will never get closer to breeding the dog outside of it's species into, say, a horse. Not in a million years, no matter the what traits you try to breed out of the dog. Thus, empirically, a dog can never become a horse. Good, observable science.

To say that a rat-like creature, over a matter of many million years evolved into a deer like creature with three toes, which in turn over many million years evolved into the modern horse is bad science. O.K., O.K., the fossil record shows that 'transitional' species existed. However, many of these fossils are contested as transitional creatures simply because the like traits are often so slim that they can be interpreted as similar, yet different traits. Also, using what one can observe, there are many creatures surviving today which have like traits that are used completely differently from species to species yet do not closely relate the species. Also, as eveyone knows, the gaps in the fossil record, the inaccuarcy of dating fossil to stone without using preconcieved notions of the age of the strata (i.e. archaeoteryx lived during such and such a time because we found this fossil [which we KNOW is so old] in the same strata), and the constant change of scientific ability makes the fossil record hard to use empirically, anyhow.

Extrapolation beyond what can be reasonable understood and observed is bad science. The idea that evolution is the means by which the species of today are as they are is fine. Trust that if you must. However, it has too many holes to be accepted as fact. The vast amount of evidence, as it is in any court case, can be interpreted in at least two different ways. What it comes down to is that evolutionists believe in that which they cannot observe, thus making it a matter of faith.

So, keep on beleiving it if it makes you feel better.