David Campbell wrote:
>There is variation in the definition of macroevolution from a biological or
>paleontological viewpoint. Often, it refers to the idea that there are
>distinct evolutionary processes acting at the species level or above, not
>just the cummulative effect of population-level evolution.
I completely agree; I didn't mean to imply that microevolutionary models of
population change are entirely sufficient to predict all macroevolutionary
processes and patterns. Rather, without getting too verbose, I was simply
trying to stress the material continuity and mechanistic _overlap_ between
micro and macro levels across the species boundary.
While Bryan Cross wrote:
>Common ancestry does not prove continuity of natural causes. Therefore,
>common ancestry per se reveals nothing about the creative capacity of nature.
Are you serious?! If the burden of proof necessary to meaningfully proceed
is that great, then what hope can the intelligent design folks have for
proving their hypotheses? Christians will drag their feet to the bitter
end, I guess.
Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 29 2000 - 17:45:08 EDT