Funny, I don't recall being nasty to you. Perhaps you should take your own admonitions against ad hominem to heart.
That said, was I somehow wrong in my assessment of your stand on the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution? If so, perhaps you could correct me (as opposed to simply ducking and dodging).
atlaw: "Funny, I don't recall being nasty to you. Perhaps you should take your own admonitions against ad hominem to heart."
Unless you are able to quote me where I made a personal attack against you as "being nasty" or any other such thing, we will just have to assume that you suffer from paranoid perceptions.
atlaw: "That said, was I somehow wrong in my assessment of your stand on the difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution? If so, perhaps you could correct me (as opposed to simply ducking and dodging)."
You do have your "perceptions", don't you? Not only did you perceive me to be accusing you of "being nasty", but now you're accusing me of "ducking and dodging".
If I post all the links to my dealiings with you on this thread, the intellectually honest reader will have to admit that if there was any "ducking and dodging" going on, you were the one engaging in it.
If you don't get it this time, please pick on someone else, OK? Here you go one last time:
The theory of biological evolution maintains that living things (plants, animals, humans, etc.) have descended with modifiction from shared common ancestors.
[1. Macroevolution (Darwinianism) refers to large-scale changes - where one species transforms into another completely different species.
For example, birds are said to have evolved from dinosaurs.
This process would require the addition of new information to the genetic code. [DNA]
[NOTE: It is IMPOSSIBLE for "new information" to be naturally added to DNA, so that should end it right there for rational people who don't have an agenda.]
[1.-a] Gradualism refers to the theory that macroevolution proceeds through the slow and basically constant accumulation of many small changes in order to effect large changes. This theory predicts that the fossil record would provide abundant evidence of intermediary life forms as one species is progressively transformed into another.]
[2.] Microevolution refers to changes in the gene expressions of a given type of organism but does not produce a completely different species. This is perfectly normal and natural and is indeed what occurs.
For example, through selective breeding, dogs ranging from Great Danes to Chihuahuas have been produced from wolves. That process doesn't require new information because the changes are a function of the genetic makeup [DNA] already present in the gene pool of the species. [Note: No "new information" in the DNA is needed].
The general public seems blithely unaware that no transitions from one species to another [known as macroevolution / Darwinianism) exist, even though it is common knowledge among paleontologists. That's why novel theories ---[ involving Archaeopteryx (false links between reptiles and birds), pro-avises (pure figment of someone's imagination;science fiction), and punctuated equilibrium (a new species appears all at once fully formed aka the theory of the "hopeful monster") ]--- are constantly "evolving".
Hahahahaha