I 'believe' in Evolution

[Brunitski]

Hang on, are you still trying to support this stupid canard? There is only evolution. This has been comprehensively shown by a number of well respected scientists in a variety of peer reviewed journals. I can find references for you if you insist, but probably the best way forward is for you to stop taking your definitions from dubious Creationist retards. The use of the terms were hijacked by Timothy Wallace and latched onto by dickheads who want to teach their favorite magic mans creation myth in our schools.

Here; maybe this will help:

Now I know that you are probably go to wikipedia and look up Micro-evolution - just make sure there is no cherrypicking when you triumphantly report back.

How about you go study biology and then come back? Until then, you really just come off as a typical American. Also throwing the word creationist where it obviously does not belong just makes you look stupid.

Whateverist. Evolution is gradual, but what many try to pass off as evolution given the variables of microevolution is not evolution. Mainly they just end up at the same point cycle after cycle, which is not evolution but just simple Darwinism like the representation of moths during the Industrial Revolution. It resembles evolution, but it is not evolution. Eventually certain traits in microevolution may lead to actual evolution, but such is currently beyond the realm of human understanding....maybe if were like the Asari, but our lifetime limits keep us from really grasping such a breakthrough in evolutionary theory.

Plus most of what happens in microevolution is actually just cancelled out anyway. It's a combination of Darwinian and Mendelian theory that accounts for that...sure the changes may survive a few generations, but they end up killing off the individuals with those traits so it leaves pretty much no room for evolution...even when some do survive, these traits are not represented and therefore there still is no evolution for the most part. Only a small percentage of changes in the microevolution realm if want to call it that carry through enough to be seen as actual evolution.

Sorry?
What was that? I'm sorry mate, but I can't hear your xtian misappropriation of science over the sound of many scientific papers pounding your useless arse gravy masquerading as knowledge back up the shitty fundament from whence it issued.
Ahem. Evolution. Is. Evolution.
Tell me, did you read the talk origins extract?
If you had, you would have seen these bits, which kind of fry your argument any way, to whit: " Microevolution is defined as the change of allele frequencies (that is, genetic variation due to processes such as selection, mutation, genetic drift, or even migration) within a population."
OK? got that?
Next : " Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth" - Also commonly referred to as "speciation".
Ok? Yes? Following?
A smart person - I.e., one who may have studied biology, or just be good at paying fucking attention, may have twigged already, but lets just carry on reading for those who haven't.
"Speciation is distinct from microevolution in that speciation usually requires an isolating factor to keep the new species distinct."
Which refers to any mechanism which can separate members of a species (mountains, islands, biological agents) Please note "usually" in bold. It's not really important, because this next bit is the important bit that you should have paid attention to:
" Other than that, speciation requires no processes other than microevolution. Some processes such as disruptive selection (natural selection that drives two states of the same feature further apart) and polyploidy (a mutation that creates copies of the entire genome), may be involved more often in speciation, but they are not substantively different from microevolution.
I have bolded the bits that you missed, Polaris, perhaps you could pay a bit closer attention to what was written rather than making dumbarse assumptions about people's level of education or their country of origin.

For the record, I'm Australian, you mong.

And can I just defend the use of Creationist, while I'm here? The tripe you are trying to pass off as biology, is a well known and well debunked CREATIONIST canard. I apologize if you did not realize that fact, but it does not change the fact.

I can't help it if you don't like reality though, Polaris me old china!

Let me know if you need more, y'know, actual science, mate.