[[And yet, if real scientists tell us that “macro-evolution” is nothing more than “micro-evoloution” over the long term, Dan will insist that is necessarily false, because, even though he can’t define what “macro-evoloution,” is; he is certain by the laws of ID-Creationism, it’s not that, right?]]
I see you ig ored my post- so I’ll repost it for you since you seem to be continuing on with your argument despite have had the info you requested handed to you:
-—And for htose who try to insult Creationists for coining a term that they were not responsible for:
“The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first used by evolutionary Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in a 1927 book titled Variabilitat und Variation. He asserted that micro- and macroevolution were processes involving different mechanisms and caliber. The terms were later introduced to English-speaking biological community in 1937 by Filipchenko’s former student Theodosius Dobzhansky in Genetics and the Origin of Species.”-—
Woops- Macroevolution is NOT a ‘creationist term’ after all Woopsie- It seems that “Real scientists’ dissagree with BoJoek- It seems that it’s only hte apologists for Macroevolution, the ‘psuedoscientists’ if you will, that try to conflate microevolution to mean macroevolution- Can’t make that arguemnt anymore (although I’m sure the accusation will still be htrown at Creationists despite htisfact)
[[Now the great hew and cry of anti-evolutionists is: “micro-evolution” is A-OK, but “macro-evolution” is forbidden by the “scientific laws” of intelligent design creationism, right?]]
Nope- Bzzzzt! Wrong! (once again, but don’t let that stop ya) Macroevolution is forbidden by science- not ID- you know, the very science you hold dear thinking it supports Macroevolution but in actuality doesn’t?
Let’s review and see if BroJoek’s assertions that microevolution leads to macroevolution ‘over time’
[[Despite the acceptance by some evolutionists that macroevolution is simply an extrapolation of the process of microevolution, many hold strong reservations, and assert that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be explained by processes observed at the level of populations.]]
Nope- once again, we see that it’s only hte apologists for macroevolution that assert there is no biological difference- when clearly there is- as outlined in my previous post to BroJoek and repeated here:
[[“The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.”]]
Different biological process? You betcha- changing info isn’t hte same hting as creating new non species specific info out of htin air or aquiring the needed non species specific info from a foreign source- without either- macroevolution can not happen and indeed does not exist because it’s not a process which occures in nature- it can ONLY briefly occure htrough intelligent manipulation in the lab, but presents it’s own problems which prevent it from workign as planned, and keeping hte species fit. Breeding experiments have proven time and time again, that the ONLY thing we witness in nature is microevolution- Cats reamin cats, fruit flies remain fruit flies despite billions of years worth of mutations artifically thrown at them which supposedly represented billions of years worth of ‘evolution’- Macroevolution doesn’t occure in the lab, doesn’t occure in nature- but we’re to beleive it occured on a regular basis millions of years ago in billions of species trillions of times? All in nice neat little consessions? Without producing myriad transitionals despite our having discovered myriad fossils which show no such macroevolution happening?
Who is appealing to the supernatural again? Tell me- I love that little story
Let's see if I understand what you're trying to tell us... In 1927 a Russian (Communist?) bug scientist expressed his opinion that micro- and macro-evolution might involve two different mechanisms, and you CottShop, think that's the final scientific word on this subject?
Well I don't read old communist manifestos for scientific information, indeed, I've never seen the subject of "macro-evolution" even mentioned by scientists, except in response to anti-evolutionist arguments.
Every real scientific discussion I've seen says evolution is a process which, continued over millions & billions of years, has produced all the diversity we see today. Nothing about micro or macro. That's just ID-Creation anti-evolution talk, imho.
But you obviously know a lot more on this subject. So let me ask you the question that stumped poor GourmetDan: scientifically speaking, precisely when does acceptable "micro-evolution" cross over the line into the forbidden "macro-evolution" zone? Can you cite an example?
I'd say you are either very confused yourself, or trying your best to confuse the issue.
No scientist I've read uses the terms "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution," except in responding to their use by anti-evolutionists. To real scientists, there is only one evolutionary process, continued over millions and billions of years. Exactly what all causes evolution is a matter for considerable study and debate, but differences between micro and macro only refer to short versus long term results.