Where Is Macro-Evolution Occurring

People are answering your questions, but your point is not accurate logically. Those who support irreducible compexity use it as proof that irreducably complex organs could not have evolved. They are saying that these IC organs MUST have been produced in a single step. Therefore, it is appropriate to ask if this single step has ever been seen.Those who teach "macro-evolution" (I don't agree with the term, either, but I'm granting it for argument's sake) do not say that it disproves irreducibly complexity. Macro-evolution is not offered as a disproof of IC. Instead, it is a conclusion drawn from watching micro-evolution and from over a century of learning the mechanisms of micro-evolution. It follows, from the mechanisms we now understand and the micro-evolution we can see, that micro-evolution inevitably leads to macro-evolution.So, the request to show macro-evolution is not a legitimate request from ICers, and it's not offered to shoot down IC. The request to show IC as having happened is a legitimate request from science, because it is being presented as something that shoots down evolution.Gosh, that sounded much less clear than I thought it was going to sound. I hope someone understands what I said and that it really makes sense.

I'm no scientist, but I did bother to read Origin of Species. He certainly discusses geologic separation as a pretty crucial part of the origin of a new species. I can't remember that he said it was essential or anything. He did discuss small changes getting lost in the population if there was no separation, and he devoted a whole chapter to the tendency of new species to revert to their old form unless they had been changed a very long time (he used doves of many breeds being born with rock pidgeon markings as an example of this, and various horse-like species being born with zebra-style stripes as another example).Anyway, it appears to me--from memory--that Darwin thought geologic separation was very important.

How embarrassing . I didn't even notice that I did that. I think I'm generally a bit more literate than that.To Ned: Well, there's this one example that he used that I was hesitant to mention, but it made the point unforgettable to me. You know, the one about "If a European were to join a tribe in Africa, he would obviously quickly become chief because of his superior traits, but as the generations went by, his superior traits would be lost as he interbred with the natives."Hard to forget he said that. Sigh, we've come a long way since the 1850's...

Then I'll watch what I say. I have to admit that after about the first two, I never read another of Syamsu's posts, and I avoided every thread where people were conversing mostly with him.