Macro and Micro Evolution

Ok, let's see what other defintions are put forward. Perhaps you would like to get the non-evo's together to agree on one. You may need a bit of help editing your posts to get one clear enough to discuss.

What do you think that site has to do with the thread topic?In any case, it is usual to use a site link as support for a point. You haven't made any point at all.Please try to read over the guidelines and look at some posts.

I don't have time tonight to cover too much.However, you do know that you are in disagreement with at least some creationist organizations with you split between micro and macro don't you? As soon as you use the one you want you have to fit millions and millions of different things on the ark for the flood. For this reason some creationists have decided that there was a great deal of hyper fast evolution that you would call "macro" after the flood. This allows the ark to hold only a smaller number of "kinds".Here is one:
Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis This argument has a "kind" being at about the genus level. Thus they would group the fox (Canis vulpis) and a dog together and a change between them would be micro evolution. Do you still want to stick to the species level you gave?

I think PaulK that you are reacting too quickly. Let us give Sonic the benefit of the doubt. He is, I think, actually trying to answer the questions. I believe that he is not answering because he doesn't understand the questions, is getting too much stuff to keep up with and doesn't understand the weakness in his own arguments.I suggest that you take it easy, please.

PaulK, I'd like to suggest again that you adopt a less dogmatic and attacking attitude. You may think otherwise but I still don't see any evidence that Sonic is deliberately trying to avoid answering questions. Nor is he deliberately obfuscating.Sonic, please take Mark's advice. You need to express more of your issues with evolutionary theory as questions. You're posts indicate that you know very, very little about it. If you make assertions that sound like you think you do it is a bit annoying to some individuals. Especially, try to learn the existing terminology and use it. Then, gradually, the communications will improve.As a general note, Sonic, if you wish to overturn an existing idea you must first understand it very well. In fact, it is arguable that you have to understand it better than any of the proponents. That is one thing that the anti-science crowd doesn't seem to get. The other thing you should remember is that *all* possible, reasonable objections have already been brought up by the biologists working in the field over the last century. That is the way the process works.So all of you please behave or the I might ask the Queen to talk to you!!!!!