"Microevolution" vs. "macroevolution."

Hi Faith,I'm slowly catching up with this thread after last night's discussion.This thread isn't about the flood. It also isn't about definition of kinds. It isn't about the definition of species, either, except as it might bear on the difference between micro- and macroevolution.--PercyThis message has been edited by Admin, 04-08-2006 07:59 AM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Except as it bears directly on the difference between micro- and macroevolution, I don't think a discussion about probability belongs in this thread. If I could quote Subbie from the OP (bolded text from the original): That being said, I think a thread about probability could be very valuable if someone would like to propose one.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No, what I've done is independent of your understanding.
If we modify it thus: "If I'm following what you said, you just proved to me that abiogenesis is impossible," well, that still ignores your part in the process. For it to be accurate, we'd need: "Using the sequence of concepts elicited by my reading your post, I just proved to myself that abiogenesis is impossible; thus, if my sequence of concepts is the same as yours, it can be said that you proved to me that abiogenesis is impossible."
We can drop the last bit, since it's just semantics. So we have: "Using the sequence of concepts elicited by my reading your post, I just proved to myself that abiogenesis is impossible;" which, coming from my model, "Faith," wouldn't be saying much.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 04-08-2006 07:37 PM