Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.

[fr0d0]

@ 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.

To me this is the only really valid point in all of the discussion I've seen on this (and to be charitable I've by no means seen all of it). Micro evolution is the only claim made about evolution. Macro jumps are just a culmination of micro steps, are they not. No matter how fast they occur. The steps are also logical, if not thoroughly evidenced.