MICROevolution is all around me, species-to-species evolution is a delusion.
Microevolution ... is indistinguishable from macroevolution ... it's just a different time scale ... but it is going on now as well.
If you look at a movie frame by frame you don't see movement, it is only when you look at the frames flickering past that this becomes apparent.
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
This has been observed and it is a fact that this happens all around us.
If we look at the continued effects of evolution over many generations, the accumulation of changes from generation to generation may become sufficient for individuals to develop combinations of traits that are observably different from the ancestral parent population. This lineal change within species is sometimes called
phyletic change in species, or phyletic speciation. This is also sometimes called arbitrary speciation in that the place to draw the line between linearly evolved genealogical populations is subjective, and because the definition of species in general is tentative and sometimes arbitrary.
The process of
phyletic change in species with the accumulation of changes over many generations, is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.d
The process of
divergent speciation involves the division of a parent population into two or more reproductively isolated daughter populations, which then are free to (micro) evolve independently of each other.
The process of
divergent speciation with the subsequent formation of a branching nested genealogy of descent from common ancestor populations is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis.
This means that the basic process of "macroevolution" is an observed, known objective fact, and not an untested hypothesis, even if major groups of species are not directly observed forming (which would take many many generations).
But that
is species to species evolution, Faith ... it has been observed.
Yeah, well you made up your god, he says what you want him to say. Mine inspired 66 written testimonies of Him by at least forty men over 1500 years and He says the earth is young. He also said His Creation was "good."
Love your tolerance, especially when you whine about intolerance for your ideas.
No it is not the bible that tells you the earth is young -- that is an invention of people, and the people that make this interpretation can't agree on time and age ... because they make it up with massive assumptions.
But after the Fall and the increasing wickedness of humanity He destroyed the entire earth with water. I take a lot of abuse for believing Him but I believe Him and I'm not going to stop believing Him. Since I know what He has said is true I know there has to be physical evidence of the Flood and it's an interesting challenge to try to find it. Some of it is really quite obvious, but that doesn't make it easy to get across to someone who refuses to see it.
You take a lot of abuse for making stuff up, stuff that has nothing to do with Jesus and stuff that is not specified in the bible.
Your posting on the Grand Canyon is typical of this: there is no mention of the Grand Canyon in the bible -- that is all you.
Curiously I have no problem with people believing in gods and their kin, but I do have problems with people spouting ignorant and false concepts as if they were blessed truths instead of fabrications made to fit the world into a man-made fantasy.
And so, no you have not explained how the chalk beds have the depth of deposits seen at Dover, nor have you explained the magic sorting into layers of different species with transitions from species to species as you travel through the layers.
Enoy.
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2
