[betty boop]

What’s your understanding of the mechanism that causes microevolution, and how would that mechanism differ in the case of macroevolution?

Jeepers atlaw, before I take your proffered hook here, might I ask you a few pertinent questions?

Why would you think there's a "common mechanism" as between micro- and macroevolution involved here in the first place?

I ask because microevolution has proved testable; simply put, macroevolution has not. So logically this implies that the properties and processes of known quantities (i.e., those obtained by direct observation, which is pretty much confined to microevolutionary observation and testing) cannot be extrapolated to unknown quantities (which cannot be obtained by direct observation — that is to say, macroevolution and its suppositional properties).

Since we are speaking of two distinct epistemological or categorical orders here, on what basis do you rely to defend your allegation that they have a "common mechanism" between them in the first place?

Just asking.

Thanks so much for writing, atlaw!

[atlaw]

Why would you think there's a "common mechanism" as between micro- and macroevolution involved here in the first place?

Because that's the starting point of the inquiry. It's called the theory of evolution.

I ask because microevolution has proved testable;

I agree. And, according to you, accretion of microevolutionary changes halts somewhere short of macroevolutionary change. I'm just asking you to explain why (and in doing so, maybe throw in some definitions of microevolution and macroevolution).

So logically this implies that the properties and processes of known quantities (i.e., those obtained by direct observation, which is pretty much confined to microevolutionary observation and testing) cannot be extrapolated to unknown quantities (which cannot be obtained by direct observation — that is to say, macroevolution and its suppositional properties).

Since you categorically reject inductive and deductive reasoning (not to mention forensics and all forms of circumstantial evidence), I take it that you also categorically reject, for example, plate tectonics.

Since we are speaking of two distinct epistemological or categorical orders here, on what basis do you rely to defend your allegation that they have a "common mechanism" between them in the first place?

See above.

[whattajoke]

Jeepers atlaw, before I take your proffered hook here, might I ask you a few pertinent questions?

Jeepers why do all creationists answer questions with questions, even when asked straight-forward questions?

Since we are speaking of two distinct epistemological or categorical orders here, on what basis do you rely to defend your allegation that they have a "common mechanism" between them in the first place?

1. Describe what/where the "epistemological order" distinction between of so-called micro and macro evolution is/occurs.

2. Same for the "categorical order," please.

As for the "the basis" of atlaw's "allegation"... Of a "common mechanism" I think that can be answered with a simple, "because that's the foundation of evolutionary theory" and only creationists have invented - but have never defined nor described - this magical dividing line between so-called micro and macro evolution.

Note: the acceptance of so-called "micro" evolution represents a big step for creationists, showing that even they simply must accept at least some evidence from time to time. Baby steps. Or rather, "micro" steps. (Which become walks, then jaunts, then hikes, then exoduses over time... Though I've yet to define where a walk becomes a jaunt or where a jaunt becomes a hike. I'll work on it.)