Rian wrote:No, it's not - that was only PART of what you said - you also said that it was "not a separate natural phenomenon." The article (and pretty much every reference I've come across) refers to it both ways.
That's interesting, because I've never heard a biologist use the word "macroevolution" to refer to a separate natural phenomenon.
It's used that way at TalkOrigins, which every evolutionist I've ever come across loves to reference, as well as in university sites. I just don't get why you haven't seen it used that way - I see it used that way a lot. But whatever ... these things happen
The problem here is that words like "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are just words.
Which describe phenomenon, among other things.
When the word "planet" was redefined, Pluto's composition or orbit didn't change, we just put it in a different human-created category.
Agreed - and is my point about speciation.
The concepts that scientific words like this refer to do not exist as distinct parts of nature. You can define "macroevolution" as "evolution which takes place at the species level or higher", but you then run into the same problem one level up, since "species" is also a human-created category.
Correct, which I've pointed out.
To be honest, I don't see what the big controversy is.
The site I referenced does.
It seems pretty simple to me to say that if a law of nature is correct, then it's correct over all scales.
How can you believe this? There are a zillion examples against it. The one that pops into my head first is the old one about if a young boy lifts a young calf every day, then in a year he'll still be able to lift it. There are zillions of examples of things in nature that hit limits. If a bee can fly across a pond, can it fly across an ocean? If I can hear a whale call underwater half a mile away (which is waaaayyyy cool!!! lemme tell ya!! ) can I hear it 500 miles away? The list goes on and on.
If gravity works at a human scale, then its effects should scale up as masses increase to satellites, planets, galaxies and so on.
Doesn't it run into other things that affect it at these larger scales? Not that it matters, because I can still give a zillion other examples of things hitting limits.
If evolution works on human timescales, then its effects should scale up as timelines increase to species, clades and so on.
It's a possibility, but we sure don't see any actual evidence of this, a difficulty that that article (again, a non-religious university) points out.
I think that the onus is on those who don't believe in "macroevolution" (whatever that means) to define precisely what they mean by this in a way that can be tested (whether in the lab or using the genetic/geologic/etc record).
Hey, get the evolutionists that use the term to agree on a definition first! But I'm happy with the generally-used definition that most people that I've come across know. And how can you prove a negative? You can just show that it doesn't seem to happen in a way that we can see with tests. Surely you'd agree with that? And since when has science made a claim and then said it's true unless proven negative? Shouldn't the people that claim it happens be able to show it? Yet most evolutionists that I've come across say (as does that article) that the time-scale factor prohibits showing the larger-scale macroevolution events.
I'll let the next few points go, because I think we're closer than we appear, but could you please tell me how agriculture would be changed?
Pseudo wrote:If natural selection doesn't work, then artificial selection shouldn't work either. We'd have to come up with an alternative explanation as to how it works.
This is a great example - for me. Artificial selection works - whether or not evolution is true - right? If someone discovered that evolution wasn't true today, wouldn't artificial selection still work tomorrow? Of COURSE it would! Do you really think it wouldn't?
Nonetheless, the equations that explain nuclear fission are the same ones that explain radioactive decay. If radiometric dating of rocks doesn't work, then we need to come up with an alternative explanation as to how nuclear power plants work.
You seem to be talking as if we suddenly lost an explanation for a phenomenon, then the phenomenon would stop until we have another explanation
If something works, it works. Something that explains it can be right ... or wrong - the old "bears go into hibernation during football season - hmm, maybe they don't like football?" thing. It always works - but their hibernation patterns have nothing to really do with football season - if football was suddenly moved up a few months, their hibernation wouldn't change along with it.
Balderdash. How do they do that?
Pseudo wrote:Anti-viral medicines need to be carefully tailored to the specific combination of strains of virii that a patient is infected with. It's only by closely modelling viral mutations that we know what specific cocktail of anti-virals to put a specific patient on.
And this has nothing to do with evolution itself - it has to do with mutation theory, which would remain the same if evolution were proven wrong. Do you agree?
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion
Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.