Would I? Unlike you, I would not be relying on self-evident remarks. I would actually explain myself.
Of course, I DID explain how you were affirming the consequent. Twice.
1. If negative mutations did not have an effect (P), then we would be here (Q)
2. We are here (Q)
3. Therefore, negative mutations did not have an effect.
Of course this is not my reasoning. So I guess the difference between us is that I am honest and do not invent a strawman.
Try this reasoning.
1) If there were nothing to counteract the accumulation of detrimental mutations we would not be here.
2) We are here.
3) There is something to counteract the effect of detrimental mutations
(i.e. the form "if A then B" "not B" "therefore not A", which is valid).
It is disingenuous to just claim that what I say is wrong without first asking my reasons for doing so. (Yeah, throw that back at me )
Of course, since I knew I had valid argument I was in a perfect position to say that it did not affirm the consequent. Therefore I did not need to hear your argument to know that you were wrong. On the other hand you did not wait to hear my argument before you declared it logically fallacious. So in fact, not only can I turthfully turn your accusation back on you, I - unlike you - have a good reason to declare my innocence of the charge.
Humans are primates? See my conversation with, was it, ringo?
Last time you claimed to have answered my points elsewhere it was a lie. So I decline to do your work for you. If you claim to have an answer elsewhere, link to it. The forum software allows links to other messages to be produced quite easily with, for example the mid tag.
(e.g [mid=674507] will link to the message I am replying to - the message id is the number in grey in the header.)
The fact is that humans are classified as primates. Every time a human baby is born it is bred from primates.
Microevolution is change that is incapable of bringing a microbe to a man. Microevolution uses all that you have described to change maybe a canine ancestor to their varied types of the current age.
This makes no sense as a definition. I prefer the standard definitions where macroevolution is any evolution at or above the level of species (i.e. a speciation event is an example of macroevolution - so newts and salamanders having a common ancestor would be an outcome of macroevolution)