Always talking about micro-evolution?

Mike, that is hardly an unbiased viewpoint you are putting forward.For a start there WERE creationist moderators - it's not the fault of the site owner that they have left.Creationists are at least as bad as refusing to admit that they are wrong (in my view far, far worse) and often use evasive "arguments" (see the "no new kinds" and "no new information" arguments where creationists refuse to adequately explain what they are talking about so as to avoid the risk of being proven wrong).

Yes, the majority here are evolutionists. Creationists tend to be found on creationist-run boards which often allow far less freedom to express opposing views.

Mike, I said that creationists tend to be found on creationist run sites. I described it as a tendency - not an absolute - and so it is.And I didn't call you a dimwit.

In fact by the definition usually used by biologists a coyote evolving to a wolf (a different species) is macroevolutionBut the question is whether macro-evolution is anything more than lots of microevolution adding up. In your examplem amphibian to elephant it is very likely that that is all it is. If coyote-to-wolf is a single step then amphibian-to-elephant is just a *long* walk.I don't know where "rocks to human" comes from and "hydrogen to human" involves a lot that is outside the scope of evolution (at least one generation of stars just to get the heavier elements!). So labelling that "macroevolution" is misleading at best.

quote:

---

The rocks to humans example comes from public school text books. Life originated after it rained on the rocksfor millions of years, is what we're taught.

---

In other words it's a misrepresentation - nobody taught "rocks to humans". And the origin of life is hardly "basic stuff" for evolution at all - not only for reasons of the scope as I explain below but because it is the focus of advanced research and we do not currently have a good explanation for all of it.Just to show how important the origin of life REALLY is to evolution I have a University level textbook on evolution. The origin of life occupies one page out of more than 660 (NOT counting the glossary, references or index). And it doesn't even mention rocks playing any signficant role.SO where do we draw the line - it's not a case of arbitrarily stopping anywhere. Evolution is what happens to life - one of the features of life - replication is needed for the basic mechanisms of evolution. So that is where you stop - the origin of replicators is outside the scope of evolution since the theory does not apply. The scope of evolution is how replicators can change and diversify over time. Your approach amounts to "lets lump together everything that ever happened and call it evolution" which is really not very useful.