Catholic Scientist writes:
Why don't we discuss what the ToE considers macroevolution to be instead of your (personal) definition?
That has already been tried on a couple of threads and it did not work.
Was it your fault?
Give me your definition and I will see if I can agree that is what happened to the lizards.
I don't distinguish between micro and macro. Evolutions is evolution.
What happened to the lizards is an 'increase in information', the development of a new body part, what have you.
One critter will never turn into another because it is impossible. It has to happen gradually. What we see in this case, is one of those gradual changes. If you can accept this as one of those gradual changes, then there is nothing to stop these changes from piling up until we have some critter that is no longer the critter it was
a long time ago. But this is not one critter turning into another. It is large populations of critters gradual evolving into another.
The lizards that these evolved from do not have this body part while these do. They are not the "same" lizard anymore so if you want to go by the 'turn into another critter' definition, then we have a new critter. Hooray!
Sure its still a lizard. But the ToE doesn't say that it will be anything else but a lizard. The changes are so gradual that you will never really notice the difference in kinds until it has been sooooo long, that you practically forgot what the original kind even looked like.
It doesn't go:
DOG ----> CAT
It goes:
DOG ----> COG ----> CAG ----> CAT
(as an oversimplified example)
DOGs and COGs will be barely distinguishable as will COGs and CAGs, and CAGs and CATs. But after many, many, generations, we will see that CATs are different than DOGs.
Please just once,
try to understand what I'm saying instead of reading me out of context and doing everything you can to not have to admit that you could be wrong about all of this.
I know, I know,..... you CANT
And I think this was the problem in those couple of other threads....