"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

(Before the admins jump on me for all lowercase below, my
body weight can occasionally make a capital letter, but
only at the sacrifice of considerable time and accuracy.
Sorry in advance. i do use uppercase for emPHAsis)...mmmmm....not quite the way i would have phrased that.
it might be ok for the purpose here, but leaves a big
"pounce" spot for creationists. so let me just state:There is no way a Sea Urchin evolves into a Rhinoceros.now, if i may engage in a small flight of fancy:there is a remotely possible way that, over a very, very
long period of time, sea urchins gradually evolve into
various sea-urchinish daughter populations, and perhaps
one of these daughter populations branches into daughter
populations that are mobile with fin-like things and so
on and after billions of years later there might be
creatures using the accidently poorly reproduced fin-like
appendages that happens to work well on land from one
of these daughter population offshoots (the other accidently
poorly reproduced fin-like things mostly not working so well
on land for those offspring) and that millions of years
after that from one of these land offshoots, gosh darnit,
there might be a creature that looks amazingly like what
used to be, billions of years ago, what we know as a
rhinoceros -but it wont be a rhinoceros. not at all.it would just be another case of parallel evolution
filling an extremely similar ecological niche.when scientists analyze its DNA they will find that this
creature is more closely related to the sea-urchin-looking
things that descended from our old ancient sea urchins
than to these other rhinoceros-looking things that
descended from the old rhinoceros species.can you imagine their astonishment!
and then imagine their delight!then, i suppose, if there are any creationists still
around, they will look at this beast and tell the
scientists they are all Daft - hey, it's a rhinoceros!
my King James, version MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
...
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMXCLIX,
says so right here: "rhinoceros kind".however, in all probability, these sea-urchin-looking
descendents will look nothing like their ancestors and
these rhinoceros-looking descendents will look nothing
like theirs.- xongsmithTruth is often so much stranger than Fiction could
ever hope to be!

Sorry - i think we are talking about different things?(Aside: Yes, I would have a problem with Creationists trying to do real science, just as I would have a problem with a NASCAR mechanic performing brain surgery, but that's another day...) it was how you phrased it: i think you need to emphasize that the first "kind" has to be a manymanymanymanymany,many times over the ancestor of the second "kind".my hyperbolic story took an absurd application of your challenge.the YE Creationist is thinking 6000 years timeframe - everything is already here - nothing changes into anything else....also your test is not practical, since none of us would ever live long enough to see the end, which is never.perhaps you had an ulterior motive to get them all to go off somewhere and eagerly run this experiment to test the hypothesis, an experiment that takes infinity, just to get them out of the way and off our backs?

---

- xongsmith

well, if you cannot accept the eohippus story, developed painstakingly by career scientists who have devoted their entire professional lives on eliminating error and bias in their work, then we have more of a problem with you than with them. i know there are many fields of science where i have to throw up my hands and take their word for it.we could insist that you read/study/learn more deeply from the textbooks all of the things that you would need to learn so that you may be able to understand how the scientists have come to their conclusions. well now this sounds much more reasonable. a well-couched phrase.
science uses that "not found to date" modifier many times. all of the currently widely accepted theories in science are certainly understood to include that little modifier "as far as we know to date". (side note: how would i put in square backets themselves? is it just doubling up leftsquarebacket leftsquarebracket and so on? let me try: [[...]) -> oo the second one worked, so [...] should work. dang - now i forgot why i wanted to be able to do that - oh well.WAIT I REMEMBERED WHY. and made the edit.Edited by xongsmith, : remembered why

---

- xongsmith