If Evolution was proved beyond doubt...

This doesn't make much sense to me, unless you are just saying that inductive evidence is never absolutely 100% certain.But surely we can say that some "theories" are more certain than others.

I don't understand this. Perhaps this is sarcasm of a sort?If TOE is "beyond a reasonable doubt," doesn't that mean it is sufficiently proven?

What's the difference?

I don't see what you're getting at unless you're referring to the micro- vs. macro- idea.

Since I am unable to get you tell me what specifically you are talking about, I'll assume until otherwise notified that you are referring to the "micro" versus "macro" issue, and I will add that this never made any sense at all to me. Ever since I first heard the distinction, it seemed obvious to me that if one accepted microevolution it would logically follow that one would accept macroevolution. One would naturally lead to the other. If a species can change a little bit then there's no reason it can't change more.

"But is there a range within that ability to change, and that's the issue?"Why would there be a limit? What's to stop it?

"What's to stop it seems like a crazy question on the face of it since the real question is what causes something?"It's not a crazy question if we have agreed beforehand that there is such a thing as microevolution. So we already know the process is ongoing. If its ongoing, it will continue to go. Organisms are constantly changing, if nothing else through imperfect replication. There are environmental changes which affect what procreates and what doesn't. The change is constant and so it is inevitable that the differences between an organism and its ancestors will increase over time. The more generations that separate one organism from another, the more differences there will be between them. What's to stop this process?This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-27-2005 02:47 PM

Well, of course there are mutations. I don't see how that changes the idea that microevolution leads logically to macroevolution.

JonF, would you agree that if one accepts microevolution you would logically also have to accept macroevolution? That's what I've been arguing just from what seems like a logical standpoint (not from much educated knowledge of TOE).

I did not mean that in every single thread of microevolution, it would lead to something we can call a new species. Obviously a strand might die out. But all organisms are evolving always and this inevitably leads to new species if the species thrives. What jumps? There are no jumps.

If you examine a particular strand of a species showing microevolution, it is true that not all of these strands will lead to a new species. Some will die out due to changing conditions in the environment.But that is not the point. The point is that the very fact that species change logically tells us that species can change indefinitely.But keep in mind that our definition of "species" is a merely classificational matter. In the past, I suspect that species were divided according to physical characteristics. But then knowledge about genes came along, and we decided that perhaps it would be more useful to name species according to isolated gene pools. However, there are exceptions. Now in science, an "exception" will not do. If there is an exception to the rule, then there is something wrong with the rule.This is the problem that you would expect with evolution. When there are all these life forms changing constantly, then it will be difficult to say where this organism we have labelled as one species ends and the other thing that we have labelled as another species begins.All changes in a species is a "microevolution." But it is inevitable that some of these organisms will continue to change and result eventually in what we call, for convenience's sake, a new species.We might have another classificational system. We might have said, for example, that all red animals are in the same family. So we have red worms and red lobsters in the same family. But we look at the two and think, well, they are very different, so let's try another classificational system.So it's not like these classifications are the same sort of thing as the classifications of elements, for example.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-27-2005 06:54 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-27-2005 06:57 PM

That was an interesting science fiction theory.