Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

Your distinction between Macroevolution and Microevolution makes no sence to me.you define Macroevolution as anything capable of increasing complexity.But then you went ahead and cited recombination, genetic drift, chromosomal translocations, possibly mutations as examples of Microevolution.Since all these processes seem perfectly capable of leading to increased complexity, it would appear that your definitions are not consistent. Could you please explain?

Man, that makes no sense. How can two or three cats have stupendous genetic richness, given that each cat can have at most two different alleles of any given gene? (being diploid organisms and all)I’m sure you understand the concept of a population bottleneck (Given what you stated about cheetahs). What makes you think hat this bottlenecking wouldn't apply to the Noah's ark?

That is my point. You have to assume a bunch of things, but there is no reason to believe any of those things are true (and many to believe that they aren't). This is not how science works. But that may be how religious dogma works. Easy to conclude that we may be talking about religious dogma, but we certaily are not talking about a new scientific development.

Anything goes in order to get where you want. I wouldn't call that coherent and logical Now you are just begging the question.

The problem is that nobody has given an acceptable definition of what macroevolution is supposed to mean yet. You have to do that before you go aroud asking for a good example of one

Good point. this is yet another good argument in favor of the point of view that the earth must be very old indeed (billions of years), in order for all the observed species to have had time to evolve.

All the dog breeds are still very similar genetically, though they may look very different form each other. That's not the case when you compare similar species (like horses and donkeys). often times the two species don't even have the same number of cromossomes. As you pointed out, all these differences between closely related species would take time to acumulate. You can think whatever you want, it's a free country(world).

And I would like for someone to give a clear explanation of what is macroevolution because up to now this term means nothing to me. I think you are missing the reason for taking reproductive viability as the criteria for speciation. It is not intended as a measure of how far apart genetically the two groups have become. The point is that once all reproduction between the two groups ceases, there will be no more gene flow between them and they will grow apart as different mutations acumulate over time. There have not been enough time for much genetic difference to acumulate between Chihuahuas and Great Danes. By the way, gene flow is still a possibility between them, eventhough they cannot mate direcly, because there are many intermediary breeds to bridge the gene flow gap, so you are right, they are both members of the same species.

That's good then, because nobody should be expecting to find anything in that transitional limbo (wherever that is). If all species are continuosly evolving then all fossils should be expected to be well-established fully formed organisms. I've never seen a good definition of macroevolution. I see no good reason to reject my definition that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution put together, just as a thousand mile walk is just a lot of steps put together. I don't know a single instance of that. would you care to elaborate? How sure are you that that is the case? By the way, you didn't answer the question.

This definition of macroevolution better start coming sometime soon because I am starting to have trouble keeping my BS detector quiet.