[[As GourmetDan points out above, I’m about as dumb as they come, and so try as I might, I just can’t find a definition for “macro-evolution” in your words above.
Nor can I see some way to distinguish micro- from macro-evolution.]]
No, you’re not dumb Joe, You just have an a priori belief that gives a blind spot.
[[Macro-evolution is nothing more than the sum of micro-evolutionary processes over long periods of time. That’s it.]]
Yup- that’s the claim- but it’s an apologetic extrapolation where one should not, scientifically, exist because hte two processes are scientifically different.
Here’s a thread on FR discussing the differences- although I haven’t read through it- I suspect though that the biological differences between the two processes aren’t discussed- so I guess I’m goign to have to delve into the subject myself probably tomorrow or next day- I’m wiped out hpysically right now- but give this thread a quick read- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2202955/posts
Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.
(as for no ‘real scientists’ beleiving htere is a difference) In 1980 about 150 of the world’s leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled “Macroevolution.” Their task: “to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species” (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
http://www.icr.org/article/what-difference-between-macroevolution-microevolut/
[[Macroevolution is not just a whole lot of microevolution accumulated over a long period of time. Microevolution involves expression of recessive genes by removing dominant genes from the gene pool. Macroevolution would require the creation of new genes from scratch. They aren’t the same thing at all.]]
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v8i2e.htm
I'll take this as a brief summary of your lengthy argument in post #153.
Remember, my question from the beginning has been very simple: can you define for me precisely the line which separates micro from macro evolution?
Here, finally, you mention something about "new genes." Is that it? Are "New genes" all that make the difference between micro and macro?
So you'd say: as long as there are no "new genes" then micro-evolution is still A-OK. But, if ever a "new gene" appears, that would be "macro-evolution" and is forbidden by the laws of Intelligent Design Creation Science, right?
And just how, precisely, do you define the term "new gene"?