No...I am saying that adaptation is a proven fact, demonstrated in many species.....seen in laboratory experiments. It is what Darwin based his theory upon.
Adaptation is CAUSED by evolution.
Yet what Darwin saw was adaptation, not macro-evolution. None of the species he observed was outside their taxonomic family. He saw a new varieties of recognizable creatures adapted to survive in a new environment with a new food source. He saw nothing else.
But we have seen that since.
Macro-evolution is not a proven fact and never was. Calling them both "evolution" is very dishonest IMO. Show us the evidence for macro-evolution that does not involve inference, suggestion, supposition or educated guessing....please.
I've already provided you with multiple links to observed instances of speciation.
Macro-evolution is a figment of scientist's imagination. Nothing has ever evolved "outside" of their species.
We have already observed speciation multiple times.
That is a suggestion backed up by nothing but speculation. "If a little is good...a lot must be better"...that is how I see scientists explaining how macro-evolution happened. They say it "must have" happened....why? Because they want it to be true, not because they can prove that it ever took place.
No, they say it happened because it's what has been observed to happen.
Uh Uh
.....nice try. Variety within species is seen everywhere. What we don't see is any intermediate varieties of anything, linking them to other species.
We have thousands of examples of intermediate fossils, and we have countless living relatives to each other in nature today.
All the diagrams I have ever seen are assumptions about creatures of similar appearance, "morphing" into something else, many millions of years apart, with nothing at all linking them except a scientist's suggestion.
Except for years of research, of course.
Inventing things? You mean science doesn't invent their own ideas about how life began and then how it changed in all those millions of years? Now that's funny.
You're inventing categories that are nebulously defined. For example:
Please explain EXACTLY what would constitute "macro-evolution", in your view? If we were to directly observe macro-evoution, what would we see?
Please note that "one organism evolving into a different kind of organism" is not a suitable answer, unless you can specifically define what constitutes a "different kind" and where exactly the barrier lies.
OK, what do we know about evolution "above the species level"?
This explanation is from
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf
"The basic concept of evolution – change over time – can be examined in two different time frames. The first, which considers the time period covering a few generations for a population, is microevolution. There are many examples of microevolution that are handy for teaching, such as drug resistance (NESCent 2006a) and changes in beak size of finches in the Galapagos (NESCent 2006b). Macroevolution is the study of evolution over geologic time (thousands to millions of years). It tends to be a much more challenging idea to teach since it requires an awareness of geologic time, and relies on inferences from fossils and other records of historical events, complicated molecular analyses, and phylogenies. In general it is more difficult to grasp because it offers fewer tangible ideas. Examples of macroevolution are found in the organismal diversity all around us, but the process cannot be observed or experimentally manipulated due to the time frame involved. What scientists can do is compare the results of “natural experiments”, as seen in fossils and modern organisms, and make inferences from them. The applications of macroevolution in modern life tend to be less obvious than microevolution because of the extreme time scale. One application of macroevolution is in the development of conservation plans (NESCent 2006c) because macroevolution examines the generation of new species and the decline of species – key pieces of information for effective conservation efforts."
Read that definition and tell me where science does not use inference and suggestion to prop up their ideas? No one can go back millions of years and tell us with any accuracy what happened......only the Creator was around to tell us first hand how it went down.
I have no reason to disbelieve him.
What call you tell me about anything, without inference?
Also, I'm impressed by your ability to pick and choose sources to believe. I've already presented you with examples of observed speciation - a process which is defined a macro-evolution - and you're outright rejecting them. All you've really done is prove how dishonest you are, willing to outright reject anything that contradicts your preconceptions while accepting anything that fits poorly-structured and nebulously defined argument. For reference:
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level."
What is macroevolution?
"Macroevolution is evolution on a scale at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[1] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes ofallele frequencies within a species or population.[2] Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[3][4]"
Macroevolution - Wikipedia
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means at least the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenetic speciation, not nowadays generally accepted)"
Macroevolution: Its definition, Philosophy and History
"major evolutionary transition from one type oforganism to another occurring at the level of thespecies and higher taxa."
the definition of macroevolution
"Macroevolution involves variation of allele frequencies at or above the level of a species, where an allele is a specific iteration of a given gene."
Macroevolution - Biology-Online Dictionary
But, why should you care what any of these other links say? You have found one page that you can interpret as already fitting within your worldview, so all other facts are irrelevant - just like the definition of "macro-evolution" that you ignore. To you, it just means "whatever amount of evolution is defined by me as being the kind we don't directly observe">
Honestly, your desperate scrabbling is quite childish. You honestly believe that pointing out that science uses inference is actually a crippling blow. But that's how logic works. That's how people formulate reasonable conclusions. You've even spent entire posts combing through scientific papers and highlighting uncertain clauses, as if to say "look- they aren't certain about it!". This is the way a child argues. If I went through every link you did this to and replaced all the "may haves" with "definitely dids", would that make those sources more reliable, in your eyes? No, of course not. And why not? Because admitting uncertainty is what reasonable and honest people do, and it's an indication that, unlike you, they are open-minded to the possibility of them being wrong. Yet you accuse scientists of preconception, ignorance and bias.
You've not an ounce of honesty in you. You're not worth debating this with any more.
