Replies

If you think macroevolution is any different than the process of microevolution, you are a creationist.

There is no evidence for macroevolution, so to get people to believe it the scientists say it is the same process as microevolution. It is the classic bait and switch, and really not becoming of the scientific community, since they should deal in facts. But the evolutionary sciences have been taken over by rabid atheists who push this on us.

If macroevolution is so based in fact, why did Gould have to come up with punctuated equilibrium in the 70s to try to save it?

I believe we werer created but I do not believe in studying it as a science. Science is a tool, good for some things, bad for others. It is bad at explaining the origin of the universe and the origin of life. Those theories may be useful for scientists but really involve much more speculation than theories that can be scientifically tested.

For example, the concept that since we have similar bone structures to earlier living things that we have a common ancestor is an inference. It is either true or false as an inference independent of the evidence. Since there are many possible explanations for these similarities besides the concept of common descent, I find the inference highly speculative; it certainly cannot be logically proven.

"There is no evidence for macroevolution"

I don't think you understand what the definition of macroevolution is. Many have been deceived by the charlatans at ICR or AIG.

Here is the conclusion of an article on the subject:

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species).

The idea that the origin of higher taxa, such as genera (canines versus felines, for example), requires something special is based on the misunderstanding of the way in which new phyla (lineages) arise. The two species that are the origin of canines and felines probably differed very little from their common ancestral species and each other. But once they were reproductively isolated from each other, they evolved more and more differences that they shared but the other lineages didn't. This is true of all lineages back to the first eukaryotic (nuclear) cell. Even the changes in the Cambrian explosion are of this kind, although some (eg, Gould 1989) think that the genomes (gene structures) of these early animals were not as tightly regulated as modern animals, and therefore had more freedom to change.

Here is a link to the article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Here is another article on 29 evidences for macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is no evidence for macroevolution,
[...]

and I have read all 29 of the supposed evidences of macroevolution.

The astute reader will note that microgood directly contradicts himself here. So which statement is a lie? Or are both?

There is no evidence for macroevolution, so to get people to believe it the scientists say it is the same process as microevolution.

There are no secular skeptics of evolution who think there has to be a separate mechanism for "macro" and "microevolution," or that evidence for one is not evidence for the other. You see, the "micro" lawyers are saying that there are some N original "created kinds" like the lists in Genesis and "microevolution" is the allowed variation these baramin can have.

It keeps turning out your science is YEC science.