@ Esq
You did a good job rebuting HM opening statement. You could of made a stronger argument against macro evolution. For example,
1. HM thinks "macro" evolution allows for a fish to go to a non-fish. Such a process would be a violation of evolution because it would be a jump from one branch to another branch on the evolutionary tree.
2. Once two groups of a species can no longer produce viable offspring, the micro evolutionary changes between the two groups will grow more pronounce until they are two very different looking species even to a creationist.
Also, I would of demanded a definition of what a kind is. Not examples, but a definition.
You did a good job rebuting HM opening statement. You could of made a stronger argument against macro evolution. For example,
1. HM thinks "macro" evolution allows for a fish to go to a non-fish. Such a process would be a violation of evolution because it would be a jump from one branch to another branch on the evolutionary tree.
2. Once two groups of a species can no longer produce viable offspring, the micro evolutionary changes between the two groups will grow more pronounce until they are two very different looking species even to a creationist.
Also, I would of demanded a definition of what a kind is. Not examples, but a definition.
