Originally posted by TenPin
lol, thats micro evolution not macro evolution.
Again, macroevolution is usually defined as one of two things.
- Its the evolution of species (ie microevolution is evolution 'below the species level')
- Its the evolutionary patterns that result from microevolution operating in the long span of geologic time
In both definitions that mechanisms by which 'macroevolution' operates are the same as the mechanisms which operate in 'microevolution'. If you wish to state that macroevolution can't happen, you need to explain why it can't; why microevolutionary processes, which cause populations of organisms to change over time, are somehow insufficient.
Creationists generally have no problem agreeing that if you keep breeding fish you'll get fish.
Are you suggesting that there is some magical barrier that prevents a fishy organism from evolving into a form that is not fishy?
Creationists know that if you keep breeding fish you will never get a dolphin.
Creationists certainly do not know that. They state it, but they have never been able to bring up any evidence for their ideas.
When they show me a former fish along with bodies for all the evolutionary steps that now uses lungs to breathe, feeds its young milk and is warm blooded
Well you can forget about that sort of evidence from ever existing. Why should every individual organism that ever lived be preserved in the fossil record? That is exactly what you are asking for. Its ludicrous. We have a fossil record with transitional forms, we can see that populations of organisms change over time and develop new traits thru adaptation.
then I might start to entertain the fact that its not impossible to get from molecules to man by random chance processes.
Evolution is not entirely random, its a cumulative process that builds upon previous successes. The 'randomness' comes in when considering that mutations, the source of variation, are essentially random and that the process as a whole does not require direction.
