(May 9, 2014 at 12:14 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 12:05 pm)Tonus Wrote: Thanks for that link, that's a pretty interesting article and does a nice job of clarifying where the differences are between micro/macro evolution and why it's not accurate to claim that macro is just lots and lots of micro.

Uh, no. The point made in the cited article is "while cummulative micro-evolution alone is already sufficient in itself to cause macro-evolution, other factors also contributed to the actual path taken by macroevolution".

It does not say "micro-evolution" is in principle insufficient to explain "macro-evolution".

In essence, macro-evolution is a series of micro-evolution, guided by conditions and changes in conditions of the ambient environment.

Help me out, I am trying to find where in the article it states what you quoted. Here are some quotes directly from the artice:

"Nobody denies that macroevolutionary processes involve the fundamental mechanisms of natural selection and random genetic drift, but these microevolutionary processes are not sufficient, by themselves, to explain the history of life."

"Since speciation is not a direct consequence of changes in the frequencies of alleles in a population, it follows that microevolution is not sufficient to explain all of evolution."

Regarding the wall lizards, I'm trying to find whether the new population is able to breed with the original population, but can't find anything on it. I would think that if they couldn't, it would be prominently mentioned in the articles touting them as examples of evolution.

(May 9, 2014 at 12:58 pm)alpha male Wrote: I'm not rejecting all meanings of "evolution."

Nope, just the ones that put your god in the unemployment line.

His god would have to be shown to exist to get unemployement benefits first

(May 9, 2014 at 1:15 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 9, 2014 at 12:58 pm)alpha male Wrote: I'm not rejecting all meanings of "evolution."

Nope, just the ones that put your god in the unemployment line.

No, just the ones that can't be supported with scientific evidence.

Exlax insists that I don't understand evolution if I reject the claim that evidence for microevolution is necessarily macroevolution, yet we've seen that there are evolutionist scientists who also hold that position.

Some linked to TO's 29 evidences. I showed some of the problems with the first one, and no one has pursued it.

Try cutting the insults and showing the proof.

(May 9, 2014 at 1:18 pm)LastPoet Wrote: His god would have to be shown to exist to get unemployement benefits first

Not if he applied in New York City. :p

What the fuck is an "evolutionist scientist"? Doesn't he mean "unbiased scientists" or "actual scientists"?

(May 9, 2014 at 1:29 pm)alpha male Wrote: Try cutting the insults and showing the proof.

That is ironic coming from one who relies on zero evidence for the existence of his god.

The proof for evolution is there for you to understand. You simply wish to dismiss it because it conflicts with your nonsensical faith.