[PatrickHenry]

The "how" [macroevolution] in this case is a theory that is unsupportable by any objective experimentation. While the macroevolution theory remains unsupportable by experimentally reproducible data, it is validly subject to dispute by any competing theory which explains the "what" as well, or better, than the theory of macroevolution. (i.e., Intelligent Design).

This has been beaten to death over dozens of threads. What you call macro-evolution is nothing more than the cumulative effect of numerous instances of micro-evolution, which I assume you accept. You accept micro-evolution because you can literally see it happening from one generation to the next. You can't live long enough to see the cumulative effect of tens of thousands of generations -- except in the case of bacteria.

But macro-evolution doesn't need to be experimentally reproducable, any more than the history of France does. There's an enormous body of evidence that these things have happened. And I doubt that we'll make any more progress this evening.

[Lucky Dog]

You can't live long enough to see the cumulative effect of tens of thousands of generations -- except in the case of bacteria.

Then you admit that there is no reproducible, scientific, experimental evidence of macro-evolution. Do I have your meaning correctly?

But macro-evolution doesn't need to be experimentally reproducible, any more than the history of France does.

The history of France had eye witnesses who wrote about it contemporaneously. Macro-evolution has no such witnesses. There is only evidence which is subject to differing interpretations.

Good night.