Summations Only

Here is a source from your source which I don't agree withIt cites that the Darwinian model is still the only model of evolution ever proposed which invokes well-understood physical and natural processes as the causal agencies of evolutionary change.The difference between Darwin and Mendel was the basis of heridity; Mendel had it right but Darwin had it wrong.

So would you say that Mendels work helps to define microevolution?
Mendel did his work on green/yellow peas and smooth/wrinkled peas and showed that these specific traits don't become diluted from one generation to the next but that rules apply to their transfer to the next generations. If we assume that bulk microevolutionary events constitute macroevolution we might aswell determine that yellow peas are a different species to green peas. Every single microevolutionary change results in a new species and therefore you and I are different animals!

I never mentioned mutations once. Where did this spring from? Mendel talks about dominant and recessive alleles. The particles that are governed by the rules of heriditry. Your line of logic leads me to conclude that you don't accept that Mendel established how microevolutionary changes occur.If we can't define microevolution how will we ever define macroevolution?

You have become a master politician it would seem in your role as administrator. I have asked you twice now but you have failed to answer my question directly.I will ask you one final time; do Mendels laws of inheritance constitue the mechanics of microevolutionary change or don't they? A simple yes or no will do for now and perhaps we can then move on.

Would you agree that they largely hold true then?You are suggesting that the exceptions to the rule drive microevolutionary change? That was never my understanding. Exceptions to the rule are like lawless bandits where no real working foundation can be established. The result is confusion, chaos and misunderstanding. That's why I wanted to leave exceptions out of the equation for the time being. However, if you believe exceptions are the foundation of evolution then I was right when I said that we can't even agree on micro-evolution never mind macro-evolution.

Ok, you believe that Mendel knew nothing of the mechanics of micro-evolutionary change. Therefore, can I ask, do we have a working definition of micro-evolutionary change from an established and respected scientist at the current time? Because I see no reason to discuss macro-evolutionary change without a deep understanding of micro-evolution.If by discussing micro-evolution I am off topic then I must bow out. Good luck!

That's fine but I often hear claims that grey moths turning into black moths is evolution in action. But surely this is just an existing homology which is being wiped out and therefore no evidence of evolution? It appears that you concur.

I think we need to be clear here.... we have already cited several different avenues for change.1) mutations resulting in new beneficial homology (good genes)
2) mutations resulting in new detrimental homology (damaged genes)
3) mutations resulting in new neutral homology (new alleles)
4) mutations that don't result in new homology but are beneficial
5) mutations that don't result in new homology but are detrimental
6) mutations that don't result in new homology but are neutral
7) traits that suddenly appear according to laws of inheritance
8) traits that suddenly disappear according to laws of inheritance
9) natural selection acting upon traits governed by the laws of inheritanceAll of these are examples of micro-evolution not macro-evolution. Therefore Mendel's laws do fall into the category of micro-evolution even though you claim that's not the case.

If you want to discuss macro-evolution solely then I am happy to bow out as I already stated. I just thought that you can't discuss macro without a deeper understanding of micro.My tuppence worth.

Totally disagree with the above. Mendel showed that traits can appear and disappear using his rules of heridity. Natural selection can then act on those traits as in the case of the peppered moths. The peppered moths example is classically used as evidence of evolution. Actually no real change has occurred but rather an existing homology is wiped out (or nearly wiped out). This is micro-evolution in action.Actually no evolution took place as the grey moths returned again when the environment changed. This still doesn't explain how new traits, limbs, organs or features appear in the gene pool. This is just one example of how the available DNA/gene pool might shrink.