Macroevolution Observed?

I believe the terms micro-e and macro-e are terms set by creationists. When you speak of evolution just refer to the "TOE" and the specific mechinism you have a problem with. For example, I believe you are having a problem with mutation, so, maybe you should research mutation.Now in the past I have found that their are no limitations on mutation, and as such, the development of new species/genra would be very likly considering all the evidence we have.p.s. (my opinion) Dont let people with no scientific authority(degree) set limitations with simple terms. I will say they can be very confusing, if you want too check into evolution don't use the goggles provided by creationists.[This message has been edited by Intruder, 03-26-2004]

---

You got intruded.Evolution = chance? = irrelevant.

You are right. Macroevolution would be: speciation events and above. I was trying to help "messenjaH of oNe". If he wants to understand Evolution, he needs to use the goggles for lack of a word, that evolutionst wear not the goggles that creationist wear. That was my point. When evolutionst speak together we do not refer too micro and macro, we refer to the "TOE" mechinism, atleast in my experiance.[This message has been edited by Intruder, 03-27-2004]

---

You got intruded.Evolution = chance? = irrelevant.

Correct. My point exactly, the terms are used by Creationist. I also want to add, why dont creationist stick too the first definition they charted, instead of changing it, or, they could just use the terms accepted, Natural Selection, Mutation, etc..[This message has been edited by Intruder, 03-27-2004]

---

You got intruded.Evolution = chance? = irrelevant.