Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.

[Esquilax]

@ Esq

You did a good job rebuting HM opening statement. You could of made a stronger argument against macro evolution. For example,

1. HM thinks "macro" evolution allows for a fish to go to a non-fish. Such a process would be a violation of evolution because it would be a jump from one branch to another branch on the evolutionary tree.

2. Once two groups of a species can no longer produce viable offspring, the micro evolutionary changes between the two groups will grow more pronounce until they are two very different looking species even to a creationist.

Also, I would of demanded a definition of what a kind is. Not examples, but a definition.

That's good advice, some of which I was already planning to use, but saved for the first response round where he pressed the macro point real hard. I'll save the rest for my second round though... assuming it even happens. For whatever reason H_M doesn't seem to get how this works.