DNA Proves Existence of a Designer

[Paleophyte]

Here's the link from CARM since you don't believe Nakara's definition:

Macroevolution is evolution on a large scale, above the species level, over a long period of time that results in new species and/or new body plans. Microevolution is evolution on a small scale, below the level of species.

The paper you posted is all about how macroevolution happens. Congratulations! You win!

Nope. You are so ridiculously ignorant, it is scary. And there is no paper or anything else that definitively proves that one species has turned into to an entirely different species. You are only fooling yourself.

Tell it to the paper about the mechanisms of speciation that you cited.

That should tell you that ID isn't science. It's religion.

No kidding. That does not mean science cannot be as a tool used to prove it is true.

Clearly you do not understand science.

Do you understand complexity yet?

I understand that you are going to defer to a strawman argument instead of attempting to answer the question.

No, I am simply making sure that you understand the words that you have used to ask the question. If you don't understand what complexity is then you may as well have asked how glomerocrysts coalesce in a trondjhemite. And if you don't understand your question then there's precious little point in wasting my time answering it is there?

Try this link instead.

Stoekle and Thaler's biggest problem is probably that they aren't actually observing speciation. They're tracing a single gene (COI) in the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed down solely through the maternal line. The result is that they keep bumping into "mitochondrial Eve", a statistical effect whereby a female ancestor eventually becomes the single female ancestral lineage for an entire species. Human mitochondrial Eve was alive 120,000 to 150,000 years ago, which agrees perfectly with their data. They're likely seeing the same phenomena in all the other species. No population bottlenecks or speciation events required, they just traced the last matrilineal most recent common ancestor. That's actually a bit disappointing.

Citation please?
And are you claiming to be smarter than they are? The article explains their findings well.

Paleophyte (2018). I'm not claiming to be smarter than anybody, I'm just offering one interpretation of their data. I'm certain that you're capable of clicking on that link I posted and learning about mitochondrial Eve and how it's just a statistical effect within populations. Alternately, you could employ Google to find your own sources of information.

https://popular-archaeology.com/article/...l-kingdom/

I particularly enjoyed the section titled, "Evolutionary bottlenecks: the fresh new beginning of a species" Do you read anything that you cite?