[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.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for this engaging sidebar!!!

betty boop: 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?

atlaw: And, according to you, accretion of microevolutionary changes halts somewhere short of macroevolutionary change. I'm just asking you to explain why

atlaw, there is nothing in the laboratory experiments to falsify any other explanation for what the paleontologist observes in his digs.

The "burden of proof" falls to those making the claim that it does.

As betty boop has pointed out, they are distinct epistemological orders.