1) I'm a dignified skeptic. My presupposition is that once a speech was
acquired by humans (whatever way this happened), they immediately began to
lie, consciously, unconsciously or subconsciously.
2) Natural selection is a fact - it is scientifically provable by experimentation.
3) micro evolution is a fact - it is scientifically provable by observation
(any human intervention can and will be considered to be Intelligent Design).
Even I change through time and space, believe me.
4) macro evolution (or common descent), although it has the super attribute
of being super convincing, can not be scientifically proven. It belongs to
the realm of faith, faith is the fossil records, faith in scientists, but not
faith in science.
5) Finally, we must be terribly concerned with semantics, terms are used
indiscriminately in this field. For example you say "Speciation is
macroevolution". But a drosophila continues to be a drosophila and a moth
continues to be a moth. So we must mean different things by the same term.
The fossil record is characterized by quantum changes and stasis. The kind of
macro evolution (speciation) that I would like to see "observed" is the one
that explains the data, not the philosophy used to explain the data.
Merry Xmass
> Macroevolution
>
> Wesley R. Elsberry (welsberr@inia.tamug.tamu.edu)
> Fri, 12 Dec 1997 12:41:08 -0600 (CST)
>
> Eduardo G. Moros writes:
>
> EGM>I forgot to say that the examples are certainly examples of
> EGM>mIcro-evolution.
>
> Speciation is macroevolution. Speciation is observed.
> Denial is not a good option here.
>
> EGM>I took a look at the speciation examples offered by Wesley.
> EGM>They are, to put it mildly, pathetic. The new "species" cannot
> EGM>reproduce. We are talking of suicide or homocide by forced or
> EGM>pseudo-natural speciation.
>
> There seems to be a problem in reading comprehension here. Reduced
> fertility of out-crosses is a standard operational test to
> establish the fact of speciation.
>
> Wesley