hmmmm- whoda thunkit? Even Mendel ADMITTED the obvious (at least he was itnellectually honest enough to admit the FACT)- Making philisophical leaps from genetic limits, which are OBSERVED in nature, to genetic limit violating process that are NOT OBSERVED, is not science but rather faith. pointing to microevolutionary process such as genetic drift, recombination and other such microevolutionary events and extrapolating BEYOND the actual evidence is, once again, not science, but philisophical faith
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."
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.”
Please allow me to show that quote in the correct context:
“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microevolution is totally decoupled from macroevolution. The two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.” ~ Roger Lwein
http://shell.dim.com/~jambo/evolution/lewin.html
Looks like that is saying just the opposite of what your asserting.
Quote mining, I thought you were better than that.