Replies

But they claim they don't agree with so-called 'macro' evolution, even tho the only difference is 'time'.

This statement simply has not been demonstrated, in experiment or in nature.

The bugs have changed.

The bugs more resistant have reproduced, but the bugs are the same. This is natural selection, a fact of nature. No morphing into something else. Others on this thread have also already pointed out that no new information has been or is being added.

You are claiming that natural selection=Darwinism=belief in evolution. This is you big point that you've been making, and therefore asserting that everyone is an evolutionist. This is not the case, for Darwin makes the jump from natural selection to evolution, which are not the same thing.

From Macro vs. Micro Evolution
by David Skjaerlund

"Charles Darwin sparked a revolution in scientific thought with the publication of his book, The Origin of Species, in 1859. With his concept of evolution by natural selection, Darwin attempted to render invalid the biblical idea that "every living thing produces life after its own kind."
In the first half of Species, Darwin cited evidence for "micro-evolution," or changes on a small level between species. His discovery of the several different types of finches on the Galapagos Islands with similar characteristics, derived from a common ancestor, comprised his evidence for micro-evolution. The 14 different species of finches vary according to plumage, size (from the size of a sparrow to that of a large blackbird), beak morphology, behavior and environmental habitat. They were each very different, yet closely related.

From this observation, Darwin then extrapolated his explanation for the origin of life forms from a common ancestor, or "macro-evolution." He used the evidence from the first half of his book on micro-evolution to suggest that the same mechanism could produce all life forms. However, this concept of macro-evolution is not supported by modern scientific evidence. Although we can explain and understand the mechanism behind micro-evolution, we still can only theorize about possible explanations for macro-evolution - since it has no scientifically valid occurrences."

So the evidence of the morphing process-macro evolution as it's called, is nil. With this morphing process happening "every day" as you claim, we should see fossil evidence of transitional species everywhere. We don't.

You can claim that natural selection=Darwinism, but it's not true. Darwin made the case for evolution and morphing, which isn't supported by the fossil record or demonstrated in nature.

The bugs more resistant have reproduced, but the bugs are the same. This is natural selection, a fact of nature.

"This is natural selection, a fact of nature."

I rest my case. You believe Darwin, and agree with natural selection. You insult Darwinism for other reasons.

Just consider the obvious contradiction in you sentence above.

They're different, more resistant, which means they are not the same.

Fundamentally changed.

And a bunch of small changes to an object means you will have an object that is very different from what you started with. That is a simple, observable fact.