Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Mister Agenda]

You prove the OP's point. You do not understand the Theory of Evolution.

I disagree. I quoted TalkOrigins, which is a fairly well-respected site on evolution. IMO an article on TO carries more weight than the opinions of you or Exlax.

That means you understand how to copy and paste, not that you understand the subject. Demonstrating understanding means using your own words.

The piece said straight out that "The word evolution has a variety of meanings." If you just want to go with their first definition - Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time - then I accept evolution. I fully accept that the gene pool of one generation is not an exact duplication of the generation before it.

Like so. It's clear you have a good general understanding of this part of evolution.

According to TO, that includes some biologists: "Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change."

Who are these biologists? Why do they think the mechanisms of macroevolutionary change are different from microevolutionary change? Different how? These are very important things to understand before choosing which biologists to agree with.

As noted above, I accept the first definition, as it is demonstrable.

Whereas as macroevolution only has overwhelming evidential support.