GourmetDan: "No, I said that the fact that you can apply a methodology to increase your vertical leap does not mean that you can continue the process until you can jump to the moon."
Arguing metaphors. It's entirely possible to reach the moon, on foot at a time, if you start with the right methodology -- i.e., a large rocket. Indeed, given the right start, each succeeding foot becomes EASIER than the one before.
So the obvious question is, at what precise point does "micro-evolution" become "macro-evolution," and are the recognized processes of evolution adequate to explain such changes?
Seems to me they are, but that's the debate...
Obviously. That was the point. Metaphor is useless, yet a foundation of evolutionary 'thought'.
"It's entirely possible to reach the moon, on foot at a time, if you start with the right methodology -- i.e., a large rocket. Indeed, given the right start, each succeeding foot becomes EASIER than the one before."
Of course it's possible to reach the moon. That has been scientifically-proven.
"So the obvious question is, at what precise point does "micro-evolution" become "macro-evolution," and are the recognized processes of evolution adequate to explain such changes?
I see that you have a firm grasp of the obvious.
"Seems to me they are, but that's the debate..."
Where was this scientifically-proven as was your 'rocket' at metaphor?
Or are you simply mis-using metaphor like the other poster and proving my statement above about metaphor (not science) being the foundation of evolutionary 'thought'?