How do you define the word Evolution?

But, of course it is still just "species" that are evolving, by the same process, "microevolution". Only now it is two or more daughter species microevolving.Macroevolution is just the continuation of microevolution in the daughter lines. Macroevolution is not a separate process.

No he didn't, he's just attempted - and singularly failed - to do what you're attempting and also failing to do; define macroevolution and common descent out of evolution for purely religious reasons.It's a hopeless task as there isn't, in fact, any difference between them; macroevolution simple being a consequence of multiple microevolutionary events. You might as well say that adding water in 100ml cups to a 1 litre jar can never fill the jar.Find us some non-creationist scientists and you might get a bit more traction.

That's one big thing I've learned in my short career (nearly 30 Years as a Geologist). Anyone asking for or providing professional, definite, short and precise definitions for any of the very complex phenomena is quite delusioned. Basically a crank.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Nope, he tried to define reality out of existence.

quote:

---

The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a ‘grand scale’, or microevolution + 3.8 billion years. It has never been observed, ...

---

As I said above, the "evolution above the species level" would be misunderstood (misinterpreted or misused).Unfortunately it does not matter how he defines it, because science gets to define the terms used in science (and if you want to debate the science you need to use the scientific meanings, not something made up).In science macroevolution is anagenesis and cladogenesis, and both have been observed and documented. Thus Macroevolution -- the scientific version -- has been observed and Kirk Durston is simply wrong.Enjoy

Just as you have admitted there is not one scientific definition of the Theory of Evolution, neither is there one scientific definition of Macroevolution. You don't get to define it either.So it seems that in the debate about evolution none of these major terms are precisely defined;
Theory of Evolution
Microevolution
Macroevolution
Evolution
Species
Kind

Ah, now I see where you're going. You want the ToE to involve Universe formation, star formation, planet formation and everything.Unfortununately for you, the ToE is an explanation of the mechanisms involved in how the first forms of life (difficult to exactly define), prokaryotes as the oldest examples, changed into the variety of forms of life we know today.The ToE doesn't involve Universe formation, star formation, planet formation or anything like that. The ToE only involes life; nothing else.But, again, I'm not a biologist or anything like that by any means. I leave it all to the experts.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

A complex and broad theory can not be condensed down into a short definition. If chimps and humans share a common ancestor, and both species evolved from that common ancestor, would you accept that as an example of macroevolution?

When creationists state that macroevolution does not occur, what are they saying does not occur?

They're saying, "I ain't no kin to no monkey!"

Well, what I say is that genetic change stops at the boundary of the Kind when you run out of genetic diversity in the genome. Purebreeds are the model.

Even in purebreds there are new mutations that emerge in every individual in every generation which increases genetic diversity. Is this macroevolution?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Hi Ringo.Lighter than air flight could of been inspired by spiders.http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/...piders-fly-without-wind

Evolution is phenotypic change in a population at least and MACRO evolution would be change beyond the Kind. And your mutations in a purebred are either superfluous or detrimental. People want to preserve their breeds, they don't want more change. In any case in order to GET more change you'd need a lot more than a few mutations. You need them in the sex cells and you have to get them selected, they have to become characteristic of a new breed or population, and for that to happen means you have to lose competing traits. You don't get evolution without a cost. And at the rate implied by this scenario there is absolutely no way you could ever get evolution past the Kind.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That should be telling you one of the many reasons why purebreeds are a bad model: Nature doesn't have wants like that.

You defined kinds by an exhaustion of genetic diversity. This means a new kind is produced with new genetic diversity, which is exactly what new mutations produce. Evidence, please. Then new mutations produce new alleles that replace those alleles. Keep repeating this process and you have macroevolution. All we need is a single mutation to produce a new kind, according to your definition.