Summations Only

Ah - your opening post and the subsequent one ........ ..... tells volumes about your problem. Basically, the second statement shows clearly that you have a 'kindergarten' view of the ToE - as in Pokemon or Teenage Mutant Turtles (or the Hollywood version as in 'X-Men').If you really think that the ToE postulates phylogenic changes (from one individual to the next) as great as an insect changing to a mammal (such as 'morphing' as in Pokemon) then no wonder you cannot present a coherent description of 'macro-evolution'.
You seriously need to do some reading on the subject first. The guys here will help you - and already have by referencing dozens of starting articles.Look on this as a genuine offer of help re scientific knowledge. If you knew how you actually sound to those with scientific training on here you would cringe in embarrassment. You may not be aware but many members on here are either practising scientists or very clued-up laypeople.We have representatives from many science fields here including - genetics, ecology, archaeology, geology, astronomy, mathematics, biochemistry to name but a few of the subjects. Most of those you have engaged in this debate are very well versed in one or more of these subjects.Regarding this 'micro-evolution and 'macro-evolution' can you please answer the following (thanks to Rrhain in a previous thread - can't remember offhand which - for this question).If 1+1=2 why can't 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10?When you understand this question and the answer it implies you will start to see part of where you are going wrong.I would also be interested in your definition of the Theory of Evolution (contrary to popular opinion it can be stated in a couple of sentences and incorporating just two tenets — can you take a stab at this?) as it would help us know how you ‘view’ the theory and therefore whether you understand the theory as the actual scientists who use it on a day to day basis do (I’m 99.9% sure you don’t but it’s best coming from you).BTW: Failing to read posts and then proudly and glibly announcing to those taking time to answer YOUR post is not only profoundly rude but is no way to enlightenment!--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Colour me sceptical! I'm still waiting for that definition of the ToE - remember - two sentences - can't be hard and won't take you long. But what it will do is reveal the fact that you know sod all about evolution - so how can you give a 'fair shake' to something that you don't (and won't) make an effort to understand.As far as slagging ID off - well it's a non-starter isn't it? ID is just not science. To qualify as 'doing science' there has to be a model - that makes predications and can be falsifiable - that is the essence of what science is. The ToE makes several predications (can you name any of them) and is completely falsifiable (though despite more than 250,000 experiments/observations over the past 150 years it has never yet been falsified - so it's on pretty safe ground).ID has no model (unless you care to provide one) therefore can make NO predications and is therefore not falsifiable. A theory that is not falsifiable is NFG!Imagine I tell you that I've just designed a spaceship and you ask me its specifications. What can it do? ...and I smile at you and say "whatever you want - this beauty can do everything you can think of". You then look impressed and say "OK let me see it" and I frown and say "Oh well you can't actually see it doing anything cos it works in secret - but honest it does work".That's how your ID works. No moving parts to examine, no model to discuss, no way to falsify (do you know that it's more important to be able to falsify a theory than to support it. If your theory says A will always split and make B and C - then that must ALWAYS happen for your theory to hold. So that is falsifiability - if only once, A does not split to make B and C then the theory is shot apart.Evolution is easily falsified - there are a number of predications that would blow it out of the water if it were not true....no-one's ever done it - get the picture yet?And ID? Creationism in a clown suit - not science - no working parts - just a con job to try and get religion into science classes. Is your God so weak 'he' needs dishonest practitioners to lie in his name?Slagging off ID? It does a perfect job of slagging itself off I'm afraid.Now - did you want to provide your description of the ToE and macro-evolution or not?