It is important to make this distinction because we need to be specific in our definition of what is occuring.
Mircro and Macro has nothing to do with size or amount of evolution. It has something to do with the mechanism of evolution. Many people nowadays do not like to use the term microevolution cause it invites confusion just like this. Microevolution is adaptation within a species (kind). Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution (change of species/kind). This distinction is important. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:22 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From Jojo > By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) > turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution > (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want > macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example > where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that > their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed > out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to > see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. > (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Butting in here... Seems to me that Macro-Evolution is nothing more than Micro-Evolution happening on a much longer geological time-scale. I don't see what the big deal is. Why is it so important to make the distinction between what is considered micro versus macro. To me it makes logical sense to assume that stringing a couple hundred thousand micro changes together on a long successive string of successive micro-mutations will inevitably end up with blatant macro-mutation changes - when compared with what one started with. To me macro changes would have to be inevitable outcome. One just needs enough time for the baking process to complete. In a sense I think it is also somewhat of a misconception to describe Macro evolution as starting with species ":A" and then ending up with species "B". Macro evolution isn't about a start point, nor an end point. Macro evolution about the present and only the present. It doesn't care one whit about what happened yesterday, and it has no idea what to expect tomorrow. There is only one goal: to survive in the present. According to evolution theory, this is a never-ending process of constant change and adaption to minute changes in current environment conditions. But again, there really isn't any start and end point. I think it would be more accurate to describe both species "A" and species "B" as nothing more than tiny snapshots belonging to the uncompleted motion feature film showing the "motion" of evolution in constant change. This would be a film that for all tense and purposes never ends. There is no practical way to conduct a science experiment in a laboratory on observing Macro evolution changing a complex multi-cellular organism from species "A" to species "B", particularly when it takes geological time to make the transformation blatantly obvious. OTOH, it might be interesting to see if it's possible to observe the macro-evolution a simple organism, say a bacterium, or better yet a paramecium. Because their life cycles are short, one can produced countless generations which might allow an accumulation of micro mutations to eventually accumulate into macro mutations. We need to start with one kind of an environment and then gradually change the conditions in order to allow evolution to manifest a radically different organism over several years. Make sure the environmental changes occur reasonably slow so that the organism has time to produce FAVORABLE micro mutations and as such adjust micro-genetically. Keep a separate (original) sample of the initial organism, "A" ,then presumably after the experiment ends, compare the original genetic mapping with the later time-line genetic mapping. One important point to see if we really have produced new organism: The new organism must be so different that it is incapable of living in the environmental conditions of where its progenitors came from, and vice versa. For example, organism "A" can only live in temperatures of 50 degrees below, and organism "B" can only live in temperatures above 100 degrees... something like that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
