Summations Only

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp why we need you to give your definition of macroevolution?I'll have a go at explaining it to you. Science and scientists very rarely use the terms microevolution and macroevolution - they just use evolution. On the rare occasions that they use these terms, it is usually in discussion wth those who habitually use the terms and make a distinction between them.One thing that has become apparent is that those who habitually use these terms do not use them in the same way. Almost every user has their own distinct definition of what they mean and how they use them. They may use the same term to name them, but they're actually all talking about something different.For that reason and that reason alone, you've been asked to define what you mean when you talk about macroevolution. That gives everyone a better idea of what it is that you're demanding. We have no way of knowing what you mean by macroevolution unless you tell us.Once we know what you mean, we can try to oblige you. Without knowing what you mean we may provide examples which do not fulfill your definition, but may fulfill someone else's definition. Let's face it, we're not mind readers here.

Now that's not what I said and you know it. We can give you hundreds of examples of what people have claimed macroevolution is. For example, one poster demanded an example of a fish, an individual fish, turning into a bird and this event had to have been seen happening. Others have said they will accept one species becoming another species.What we're trying to find out is what you would accept as macroevolution and to do that we need to know what you mean by macroevolution. I'm giving you the courtesy of allowing you to define macroevolution as you see it, in the face of utter boorishness on your part. Wind in your neck and think about what I've said. We're not here to play a guessing game to determine what you think - only you know what you think. Do you expect us to keep trying different definitions while you say "Nope, that's not what I think"? Cut to the chase and tell us what definition you're using and then we can move on.

Since EVOLUTION is random mutation AND natural selection together, you can't just demand that macro-EVOLUTION provide a mechanism which leaves out selection! That's macro-MIRACLE and we have NO evidence of macro-MIRACLES. No-one has ever claimed there is evidence for macro-MIRACLES and the ToE certainly doesn't invoke them. So why would a lack of micro-MIRACLE examples disprove the ToE which explicitly excludes them in the first place?So far, all you've demonstrated is an unwillingness to discuss your demand, an unwillingness to define what you're asking for and now in your latest post, complete ignorance of what evolution actually is and what the ToE actualy says.Now do you see why we kept asking for your definition? Your idea of what macro-EVOLUTION should produce is contradicted by the ToE itself, therefore there are no examples to be found. So maybe you have to reconsider what macro-EVOLUTION means when used by those claiming no evidence for it.See, that wasn't difficult, was it?