(May 9, 2014 at 1:44 pm)Chuck Wrote:(May 9, 2014 at 1:11 pm)coldwx Wrote: "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."
Microevolution obviously does not explain THE history of life. But it does fully explain why there is A history of life at all. If there wasn't microevolution, then the forms of life can not interact with any changes in environment and all life would be much the same for all time through time and there would be no history of life to speak off. But if there is microevolution, then life would interacts with changes in environment, and this inevitasbly leads to changes in forms of life through time, leading inevitably to a history of life.
(May 9, 2014 at 1:11 pm)coldwx Wrote: "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."
No, speciation is not a direct consequence of changes in frequencies of alleles in A population. Speciation IS a direct consequence of independent changes in frequencies of alleles in what is formerly a population, but has for a variety of environmental reasons been separated into two or more reproductively separated populations.
Those quotes were used to rebut your assertion about what the article's point was. You stated, and put into quotes, "while cumulative micro-evolution alone is already sufficient in itself to cause macro-evolution, other factors also contributed to the actual path taken by macroevolution". I asked where in the article that was stated. You did not answer. I never argued for or against any position, I simply pointed out what I though was a pertinent article by a biochemist. I firmly believe the evidence of gradualism is sound, however there are differing viewpoints, not on macroevolution itself, but within the nuances that deserve attention. My argument with you was regarding what the article's point was.