> The whole concept of macroevolution is an error. When schoolchildren are
> confronted with the bias and preconditioned macroevolutionary responses and
> see, really see, what flimsy supports it really has they turn from science
> to other pursuits, unless they go along with the 'Emperor's New Clothes'
> idea that permeates our higher education philosophy at present. By the
> way, there is no 'fossil evidence'. Even your quote indicates it is just
> 'possible' not a confirmed, scientific fact. Your posts seem to assume its
> a fact, not a possibility. It is wrong for you to make it so.
It seems to me that there's a confusion here in your post. There *is*
fossil evidence that change, including macrochanges, in living things has
occurred in history. Anyone who denies that is, I think, either woefully
ignorant or disingenuous. Whether the evolutionist (i.e., Darwinian,
neo-Darwinian, or any other naturalistic variation on those theories)
account of those macrochanges is or can be correct is a different
question. The existing fossil evidence may not speak to that question,
although evolutionists claim (possibly falsely) that it does.
Failure to separate these questions will always result, I think, in sloppy
thinking and argumentation.
Lloyd Eby