Toe. A Fact Or Belief?

[Vigile]

Arguing the basics of evolution with a biased ignoramous who has read biased ignorant books has proven time and again to be a total waste of time. Every point defeated is met with denial, circular arguments, and more strawmen.

 

Freeday, if you want to prove to yourself that you are objective, why don't you learn evolution from the sources who espouse the theory and then see if you can criticize it.

 

If you want to know why we think you christians are complete idiots it's because over and over you rant on in obvious ignorance. You are like a RNA trying to debate the finer points of neurological surgery. Neither you, nor those who wrote the books you read, are qualified to critique the theory. What a joke.

[quicksand]

i think everyone took me wrong, i have done a lot of research and reading on this subject. both apologetic and evolutionist.

Have you really? What about Micheal Cremo? He's a creationist too. But for Krsna. I think you should take into consideration his arguments.

 

BTW, which books did you read? I don't remember you citing which ones.

 

 

was it wrong of me to post critisism of the theory?

Criticism from who? Quote mining on specific highlights within the theory and then re-contextualizing them as some sort of controversy to the general premise of the ToE is a pretty dishonest thing to do. Yes, I am calling you dishonest. It's like taking the rolling commentary from a Soccer match and applying to a chess match.

 

Basically, you can sum up all creationists objections to the ToE with your words here: from me personally, i don't find evolution to be the source. And i am one of those people that look at examples of stuff like this, and say it works to perfectly for there not to be a designer./

 

That's not an argument nor is it evidential proof of a designer. I realize that you've not made a specific argument for a designer (proof would be better than bling willy-nilly assertions), but since you've done all the classics in regards to the ToE, I doubt that you'll veer much off this course.

[Ouroboros]

and hans, i will get back to you on the chromosome thing, i recover open heart patients. pretty much forgot all of the genetic disorders mentioned above.

No problem. No need to rush things with me.

[Asimov]

take the point asimov made. fact, us and chimps have a very similiar genetic make-up (and yes, i found that on one of the many evolutionist websites). from an evolutionist standpoint, the similarities lend credit towards ToE. from an apologetic standpoint. maybe God found that the same genes could be used in a variety of mammals. this is my whole point. it is based on the opinions of the scientist.

 

It's not based on the opinions of scientists, dude. It's the conclusion that came from studying the facts.

 

We have:

 

1. Similar morphological features.

2. Nearly identical genetic features.

 

Would you conclude that me and my brother are not related in any way because we have nearly identifcal genetic features and similar morphological features?

 

When we can TRACE these genetic features through other primates and find them in the exact same spot...the ONLY logical conclusion is relation.

 

Your ad hoc argument lends you no credence.

[scitsofreaky]

BTW, which books did you read? I don't remember you citing which ones.

He seems to go out of his way to not say which two books he read, which makes me wonder if he did read two books What gets me is the 250 page part, it seems like most science books are longer than that

Freeday, if you want to read an interesting book about evolution check out Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Be warned, it is longer than 250 pages.

[freeday]

and hans, i will get back to you on the chromosome thing, i recover open heart patients. pretty much forgot all of the genetic disorders mentioned above.

No problem. No need to rush things with me.

 

Chromosomes are an assembly of DNA and proteins which have functions in addition to the expression of genes. They are part of the machinery by which the cell ensures that its genetic information is both copied and delivered accurately to the daughter cells at cell division. Failures in this process can lead to aneuploidy (an abnormal chromosome number in the nucleus of a cell) which is probably the largest single cause of genetic disease in the new-born.

 

euploid is having the correct amount of chromosomes (humans have 23 pairs)

 

monosomy is missing chromosomes

 

trisomy is having an extra one

 

polyploidy is having an entire extra set.

 

when we have extra sets of chromosomes it causes from mild to severe mutations. i can't find proof positive info on this, because most of the sites i looked at were strictly informative and did not have a stance. but when these mutations occurr and you get the third arm or what not. it is still made up of the normall cells that are supposed to be there, they just developed in the incorrect way. it does not create a new type of cell (such as a fish cell).

 

as far as the polyploidy in plants. plants have this occurr much more frequently than mammals. several sources i read said with enough change it will lead to a new species. so in order to figure this out i looked up different species. and this is what i found.

 

with genetic manipulation we have Soft wheat or durum wheat, and this is called to different species. but my observation is that it is still wheat. it hasn't changed to an apple tree. so same information just arranged differently.

 

this is what i found, if anyone has better info on this please post up.

[The Sage Nabooru]

My mother has toes, but on two of her toes the nails were removed surgically. Is this important?

[Asimov]

<snip>

 

with genetic manipulation we have Soft wheat or durum wheat, and this is called to different species. but my observation is that it is still wheat. it hasn't changed to an apple tree. so same information just arranged differently.

 

this is what i found, if anyone has better info on this please post up.

 

Riiight, it's still Triticum.

 

It's also still genus Poacae, order Poales, class Liliopsida, division Magnioliophyta, and Kingdom Plantae.

 

The type of evolution you are speaking of is Transfiguration a la Harry Potter. Now if you want to actually discuss the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, Hermione, then please do so.

 

Other than that, your observation is correct and congruent with the Theory of Evolution. If it changed into an apple tree, it would falsify evolution.

 

Let me again reiterate what the Theory of Evolution posits:

 

1. Common Ancestry of all living things.

2. Inheritance of Traits along a lineage.

3. The mechanisms that cause organisms to gain or lose traits.

 

In all organisms, the reproduction process is generally a duplication process which passes on its own genes to the offspring. In sexual organisms, it's 50% of it's genetic information from one parent and 50% genetic information from the other. A mutation that occurs is an error in the duplication process of reproduction. This is where we get variation!

 

Now please tell me how a wheat plant that produces wheat offspring could possibly produce a fucking apple tree? Where is the genetic information in the wheat to produce an apple tree? Is it supposed to magically appear?

 

Gimme a break.

[freeday]

<snip>

 

with genetic manipulation we have Soft wheat or durum wheat, and this is called to different species. but my observation is that it is still wheat. it hasn't changed to an apple tree. so same information just arranged differently.

 

this is what i found, if anyone has better info on this please post up.

 

Riiight, it's still Triticum.

 

It's also still genus Poacae, order Poales, class Liliopsida, division Magnioliophyta, and Kingdom Plantae.

 

The type of evolution you are speaking of is Transfiguration a la Harry Potter. Now if you want to actually discuss the THEORY OF EVOLUTION, Hermione, then please do so.

 

Other than that, your observation is correct and congruent with the Theory of Evolution. If it changed into an apple tree, it would falsify evolution.

 

Let me again reiterate what the Theory of Evolution posits:

 

1. Common Ancestry of all living things.

2. Inheritance of Traits along a lineage.

3. The mechanisms that cause organisms to gain or lose traits.

 

In all organisms, the reproduction process is generally a duplication process which passes on its own genes to the offspring. In sexual organisms, it's 50% of it's genetic information from one parent and 50% genetic information from the other. A mutation that occurs is an error in the duplication process of reproduction. This is where we get variation!

 

Now please tell me how a wheat plant that produces wheat offspring could possibly produce a fucking apple tree? Where is the genetic information in the wheat to produce an apple tree? Is it supposed to magically appear?

 

Gimme a break.

 

could you explain common ancestory of all things. to my knowledge, when you look at the tree charts, everything comes from a common cell, that spawned all life as we know it today. app. 1.7 million different species. or was it billions of cells that spawned at the same time. and mutated into diffent species.

[Vigile]

I'm curious if Freeday has the cajones to argue creation science with the doctors he works with. If so, streaming video would be nice. I could use the laugh.

[freeday]

I'm curious if Freeday has the cajones to argue creation science with the doctors he works with. If so, streaming video would be nice. I could use the laugh.

 

i think you would find it funny, a lot of them go to the same church with me and believe in ID.

[Vigile]

I'm curious if Freeday has the cajones to argue creation science with the doctors he works with. If so, streaming video would be nice. I could use the laugh.

 

i think you would find it funny, a lot of them go to the same church with me and believe in ID.

 

*shudder*

[Antlerman]

I'm curious if Freeday has the cajones to argue creation science with the doctors he works with. If so, streaming video would be nice. I could use the laugh.

 

i think you would find it funny, a lot of them go to the same church with me and believe in ID.

 

*shudder*

I wonder if these doctors also prescribe the Intelligent Designer's medical instructions for women having menstrual cycles? http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/s...s/lv15_19a.html (click the next arrow to see the rest of God's medical knowledge. BTW, which is worse, this or reading Genesis as science? )

 

 

***BTW everyone, his book he is using is called "Dismantling Evolution" by Ralph O Muncaster, who has a degree in THEOLOGY. See him mention it here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=188887

 

I have raised the point time and again that if you are going to learn about something, you go to the poeple who know what the hell they are talking about. This is like me telling someone to go get a book written by a Hairdresser called "Christianity is Bunk!" as way to learn about what Christianity teaches. Can anyone say unqualified bias?

 

Freeday, I will address the other points with you later that I wish to mention.

 

Edit: a more appropriate analogy is is the Hairdresser writing a book, beyond an editiorial commentary, but one devling into the specifics of the science of theology. The book would be called "Dismantling Texual Criticism in the NT MSS." This is why I chuckle at people like this who are cleary out of their element. They are writing editorials masquerading to be critical analysis by a qualified scientist. Talk about "Bunk"!

[Antlerman]

i am one of those people that look at examples of stuff like this, and say it works to perfectly for there not to be a designer. its that southern baptist raising. but funny enough, i really didn't start going to church untill i was in my 20's. my parents never took me to church. i can only recall once that i know of. when i was a baby, i was christened (sp). and the even funnier thing is. i don't believe in doing that as babies. lol

Ok freeday, now to the point I wanted to get to earlier.

 

As I have said before and will keep coming back to this, I have no problem with someone looking at the complexity of the universe, or life, or whatever and concluding there is a God or gods behind it. I do however have a problem with someone looking at the findings of science and saying those findings are not right because it doesn't agree with "HOW" they think their God or gods created it.

 

This is what you are doing. Science deals with the "how" of nature. Theology deals with the "why" of nature. Do you see the difference? You are having theology deal with the "how" of nature, and are questioning or denying the validity of the findings of those who specialize in the sciences because it makes you uncomfortable about your beliefs. Other believers in God or gods have no problem with the teachings of science. Why do you? I propose it is because you have had a notion of "How" God did it.

 

This is the question I have asked time and again. Why do you need science to be wrong to believe in God? Hindus don't; Muslims don't; Jews don't; Mainstream Christian's don't. I love what this group of ministers has to say in The Clergy Letter Project signed by over 10,000 ministers:

 

Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture.

While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice,

the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally

, as they would a science textbook.

Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible -- the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark -- convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

 

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist.

We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth,

one that has stood up to

rigorous scrutiny

and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as "one theory among others" is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God's good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God's loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge.

We ask that

science remain science and that religion remain religion

, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

 

I have a great respect for what the ministers are saying. These ministers find that accepting the findings and teachings of science does not mean their faith is made null. Why do you? I can think of no other reason for you wanting to deny the ToE, so much so that you run out and buy a book written to deny it, than you feel threatened by it.

 

Again, please answer this question for me: Do you feel your faith would fail if you were to accept that there is nothing in nature that requires supernatural intervention for it to work?

 

(adding link to the Clergy Project statement and signatures: http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religio...llaboration.htm )

[Asimov]

could you explain common ancestory of all things. to my knowledge, when you look at the tree charts, everything comes from a common cell, that spawned all life as we know it today. app. 1.7 million different species. or was it billions of cells that spawned at the same time. and mutated into diffent species.

 

Evolution never works with individual organisms, it only applies to populations of organisms.

 

We don't know what the common ancestor was, so it's a strawman to say that it was a "common cell".

It's a theoretical common ancestor.

[freeday]

i.

 

 

Again, please answer this question for me: Do you feel your faith would fail if you were to accept that there is nothing in nature that requires supernatural intervention for it to work?

 

(adding link to the Clergy Project statement and signatures: http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/cols/religio...llaboration.htm )

 

no my faith would not be affected in the least. you made a very valid point with the above article.

 

 

i am one of those people that look at examples of stuff like this, and say it works to perfectly for there not to be a designer. its that southern baptist raising. but funny enough, i really didn't start going to church untill i was in my 20's. my parents never took me to church. i can only recall once that i know of. when i was a baby, i was christened (sp). and the even funnier thing is. i don't believe in doing that as babies. lol

 

An even funnier thing is, Southern Baptists didn't do christenings when you were a baby. They now do "dedications," but that's new and they don't use the word "christen." So is it safe to ask you "where are you at, really? What are you about, actually?"

 

well aware of this, my mom was epistiple (sp), they do the christenings.

 

 

could you explain common ancestory of all things. to my knowledge, when you look at the tree charts, everything comes from a common cell, that spawned all life as we know it today. app. 1.7 million different species. or was it billions of cells that spawned at the same time. and mutated into diffent species.

 

Evolution never works with individual organisms, it only applies to populations of organisms.

 

We don't know what the common ancestor was, so it's a strawman to say that it was a "common cell".

It's a theoretical common ancestor.

 

ok, i am starting to understand this a little better. thank you for the reply.

[RHEMtron]

That doesn't matter. You do realize that science is progressive, don't you freeday?

Thank you Asimov. That was exactly my point in the begining and why i felt no need to explain anything. It doesnt matter what you research freeday, or what we explain to you. In the end, youll still be left with a for-now-accepted hypothesis, with a huge amount of observable and testable facts, data, and evidence to back it up, but still with unknown, untested mechanisms. That is the reason why Evolution is a Theory and not a Law.

 

Because there are still unknown mechanisms, does that mean ToE is false? No it doesnt. Science is progressive in uncovering knowledge. If anybody wants to go and disprove Evolution, then i suggest not taking a crash course from a couple of books... especially by biased authors. Then go get your PhD in Biochemistry, Physics, Ecology, Biology [especially dealing with form & function of animals], Microbiology, Evolution, and/or Genetics, then go do field and laboratory research, write a paper, have it published, etc. etc. etc.

 

The problem with labelling something as IC is that they conclude something is impossible without:

 

1. Explaining how it is impossible.

2. Factoring in the lack of goal-orientation in evolution or the mechanisms of evolution.

3. Factoring in the amount of time available.

4. Realising that organisms are not created ex nihilo.

Exactly why Behe and his IC was taken to court and lost. The courts ruled IC doesnt disprove Evolution, and doesnt mean anything... especially because of the points that Asimov listed.

 

Evolution never works with individual organisms, it only applies to populations of organisms.

See freeday! Listen to the guy. He knows what he's talking about. Hence the reason why i told you to do some research into Ecology. It studies populations and how they change/adapt/evolve due to whatever influencing factors. It also covers speciation.

[Ouroboros]

Freeday, I'd like to pick up on this topic a bit again, because I learned something new recently, and I'd like an alternative explanation to a phenomenon in nature that so far only evolution can explain. And it's called Ring Species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

 

To explain it in simple terms, lets say you have a mountain, and around this mountain you have a kind of frogs. They span all around the mountain. But there are multiple variations (micro mutations as you call it) between all the groups. And we have, lets say, the variations A,B,C,D and E. Now the problem is that A can interbreed with B, and B with C, C with D, D with E, and E lives close to A, but can't interbreed with A!

 

So A is related as a sexually species with B, and so on, but the last one, E (which is sexually related to D) is not sexually related to A anymore. A and E are different species according to micro evolution, or in other words E would require a "macro" evolution from A to occur.

 

How do you explain this?

 

Or for the literalist interpreter of the Bible, which "kind" of frog did Noah take on board on the ark? Did he take only A, well, then E evolved through "macro" evolution. Did he take A and E, then A and E could connect through evolution through the chaing of B to D, which also requires macro evolution. Or did Noah take C, and C evolved to A and E, which again requires macro evolution. Or last option, did Noah take a sample of each frog family? Which would lead to Noah bringing on all families of species, and not only certain "kinds", also leading to the Ark being filled with over hundreds of thousands of animals, and the space in the Ark (as we have discussed in another thread) would not be large enouhg.

 

--edit--

 

To simplify it:

<-> means interbreeding possible (same sexual species, micro evolution)

<X> means interbreeding NOT possible (not same sexual species, macro evolution)

 

A <-> B <-> C <-> D <-> E <X> A

[freeday]

Freeday, I'd like to pick up on this topic a bit again, because I learned something new recently, and I'd like an alternative explanation to a phenomenon in nature that so far only evolution can explain. And it's called Ring Species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

 

To explain it in simple terms, lets say you have a mountain, and around this mountain you have a kind of frogs. They span all around the mountain. But there are multiple variations (micro mutations as you call it) between all the groups. And we have, lets say, the variations A,B,C,D and E. Now the problem is that A can interbreed with B, and B with C, C with D, D with E, and E lives close to A, but can't interbreed with A!

 

So A is related as a sexually species with B, and so on, but the last one, E (which is sexually related to D) is not sexually related to A anymore. A and E are different species according to micro evolution, or in other words E would require a "macro" evolution from A to occur.

 

How do you explain this?

 

Or for the literalist interpreter of the Bible, which "kind" of frog did Noah take on board on the ark? Did he take only A, well, then E evolved through "macro" evolution. Did he take A and E, then A and E could connect through evolution through the chaing of B to D, which also requires macro evolution. Or did Noah take C, and C evolved to A and E, which again requires macro evolution. Or last option, did Noah take a sample of each frog family? Which would lead to Noah bringing on all families of species, and not only certain "kinds", also leading to the Ark being filled with over hundreds of thousands of animals, and the space in the Ark (as we have discussed in another thread) would not be large enouhg.

 

have not read anything about the ring species yet. good find. i am going to give you my personall opinion for now, i will try and look it up to verify.

 

i think it is still an example of micromutation. if you look at the color chart it can be decieving, but when you look at the example at the bottom it makes sense with what i have been saying. these are all changes or variations within the gene structure, different alleles, that become more dominant as the species migrates and separates, the same reason a chinese man looks different than an irishman. from what i have read, certain animals and plants have more chromosomes which lends them the ability to change more.

 

i think me and asimov actually agree on the above.

[Ouroboros]

i think it is still an example of micromutation. if you look at the color chart it can be decieving, but when you look at the example at the bottom it makes sense with what i have been saying. these are all changes or variations within the gene structure, different alleles, that become more dominant as the species migrates and separates, the same reason a chinese man looks different than an irishman. from what i have read, certain animals and plants have more chromosomes which lends them the ability to change more.

So how do you define "macro" evolution? What is required to make something a "macro" change?

 

And Asimov, do you agree with Freeday? That A and E is not an example of "macro" evolution?

[freeday]

i think it is still an example of micromutation. if you look at the color chart it can be decieving, but when you look at the example at the bottom it makes sense with what i have been saying. these are all changes or variations within the gene structure, different alleles, that become more dominant as the species migrates and separates, the same reason a chinese man looks different than an irishman. from what i have read, certain animals and plants have more chromosomes which lends them the ability to change more.

So how do you define "macro" evolution? What is required to make something a "macro" change?

 

And Asimov, do you agree with Freeday? That A and E is not an example of "macro" evolution?

 

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, this definition came from wikipedia. i totally agree with microevolution, speciazation, and evolution (change).

 

quote from asimov:

Now please tell me how a wheat plant that produces wheat offspring could possibly produce a fucking apple tree? Where is the genetic information in the wheat to produce an apple tree? Is it supposed to magically appear?

 

i think we are on the same page here, i look at evolution just as it is, change. change is inevitable. but i don't look at evolution to explain the beginings of life on earth. from what i understand from asimov, it's not supposed to. and that is where my flaws have been coming from.

[Ouroboros]

Like you said, Macro evolution is speciation, and the example I gave is how micro evolution eventually become macro evolution.

 

The "Macro" level is only an arbitrary understanding or observation after the fact. The micro steps have occured over time, until a new species have appeared, and that new species compared to the original one is a "macro" step. Hence, there's no real difference between micro and macro. They're all the same. Macro is the result of micro.

 

If "macro" is defined by specialization or functions (traits) of a species compared to the other we can conclude that the great apes and humans have no distinctive difference besides the brain capacity. Which evidently can occur through micro evolution. And looking into the ubiquitous gene Cytochrome C we can see we are closely related (common ancstor) to the apes.

[scitsofreaky]

i think it is still an example of micromutation. if you look at the color chart it can be decieving, but when you look at the example at the bottom it makes sense with what i have been saying. these are all changes or variations within the gene structure, different alleles, that become more dominant as the species migrates and separates, the same reason a chinese man looks different than an irishman. from what i have read, certain animals and plants have more chromosomes which lends them the ability to change more.

 

i think me and asimov actually agree on the above.

I seriously doubt Asimov agrees with you because you keep using "micro" and "macro" evolution. There is no microevolution, and there is no macroevolution, there is only evolution, which is the change in allele frequency in a population.

The example Han gave is an example of evolution creating new species. A and E are not the same species because they are unable to reproduce. Evolution creating a new species is commonly (although incorrectly) refered to as macroevolution.

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species

I honestly have no idea what this even means. How can change occur above the level of species? This definition, despite being from the all-knowing wikipedia, seems idiotic, but perhaps I just don't understand what it means.

i think we are on the same page here, i look at evolution just as it is, change. change is inevitable. but i don't look at evolution to explain the beginings of life on earth. from what i understand from asimov, it's not supposed to. and that is where my flaws have been coming from.

While it doesn't explain the beginings of life on earth, it does explain how all the different living things came about from a single common ancestor (even if it is just a theoretical ancestor). So it does go against the belief(s) that all species magically appeared on earth all at the same time.

[Ouroboros]

Here's the whole introduction in "Macro Evolution" in Wikipedia: (notice my highlights)

 

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, which is microevolution over long periods of time that leads to speciation. In contrast, microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species. In the Modern Synthesis school of thought, microevolution is the "normal" mode of evolution. The process of speciation (isolated populations) is the link between macroevolution and microevolution, and it can fall within the purview of either. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution.

 

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

 

It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by classical population genetics. One of these two views is becoming less and less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.

A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

 

However, microevolution and macroevolution both refer fundamentally to the same thing, changes in gene frequencies, and the scientific controversy is only about how those changes predominantly occur. Either way macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution.

 

Compare it to Lego©.

 

You have small building blocks. You build a little at a time. And eventually you have a little Car made out of Lego.

Same pieces, change one by one, and you have a Truck, or a Van, or a Bus.

[freeday]

Like you said, Macro evolution is speciation, and the example I gave is how micro evolution eventually become macro evolution.

 

The "Macro" level is only an arbitrary understanding or observation after the fact. The micro steps have occured over time, until a new species have appeared, and that new species compared to the original one is a "macro" step. Hence, there's no real difference between micro and macro. They're all the same. Macro is the result of micro.

 

If "macro" is defined by specialization or functions (traits) of a species compared to the other we can conclude that the great apes and humans have no distinctive difference besides the brain capacity. Which evidently can occur through micro evolution. And looking into the ubiquitous gene Cytochrome C we can see we are closely related (common ancstor) to the apes.

 

 

i am actually agreeing with you. microevolution can result in a new species. i believe this, there is proof of this. but how do you define species. macro results in the next level up from species. i need to look this up. but as far as i know this is not proven.