ICANT writes:
"Micro"evolution is a fact.
"Macro"evolution is an assumption.
It was not observed and no experiment can be run to reproduce the claimed results. Thus there is no empirical evidence.
Then give us the definition of these words and we'll go from there.
You got a good example there if the sword evolved into the fighter jet. Instead of the jet being created by mankind.
Are you seriously this dense or you're lying for jesus here?
The analogy wasn't about who created what. It was about lots of small changes that accumulated into large changes over time.
Do you or do you not agree that the romance languages started out as Latin? Do you or do you not agree that it took thousands of years through very small accumulated changes in those languages in different regions to result in the romance languages today? Do you or do you not agree that we don't have documentation of all the small changes that took place between Latin and modern day Spanish? Do you or do you not agree that no controlled experiment has ever been performed to "prove" that a language can indeed change by thousands of years of small accumulated changes to become another completely different language?
The analogy is about your objection that we have never seen macroevolution happen. I'm simply using your objection to show that we don't have to see or prove in the lab of something that will logically happen from things that we can already prove. Small changes can and do happen from one generation to the next in biological populations just like small changes can and do happen in the spoken language of a population. Through time (lots and lots of time), these small changes accumulate that result in a population with completely different genetic make up just like through lots of time small changes accumulate in a language that result in a completely different language in a population?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.