Of course, if it weren't for the Romans 1-type denial in operation, no sensible person would even consider the possibility that microev changes could produce macroev change absent, not just the hypothesis that they could (which seems vanishingly unlikely), but hard cold evidence that they have. Large numbers of soi-disant 'scientists' parroting the party line doth not hard cold evidence make...
It's interesting that a precise definition of these terms isn't addressed in the article. Microevolution can refer to:
A) adaptation or speciation within the limits of a genetic type.
B) step-wise mutation of one genetic type into a different genetic type (by inadvertently duplicating alleles). This is two parts: 1) stepwise mutation of one genetic type and 2) into a different genetic type.
Macroevolution refers to large-scale mutation of a genetic type into another type. This is part 2 of the B-definition.
i. The B-definition of microevolution is what Darwinists point to as the way that macroevolution happens.
ii. Examples of the A-definition of microevolution is what Darwinists typically point to as the evidence of the B-definition. So they conflate the two.
iii. There is some evidence of the B-definition that relies on unprovable assumptions.
iv. The article here assumes the B-definition and makes the argument on the extremely unlikely leap from the B-definition to macroevolution.
My contention will remain that scientists have not proven the B-definition, although it is helpful to the overall argument that ID continues to demonstrate the exceptional unlikelihood of macroevolution.
The ID community produces a lot of useful data.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if it weren't for the Romans 1-type denial in operation, no sensible person would even consider the possibility that microev changes could produce macroev change absent, not just the hypothesis that they could (which seems vanishingly unlikely), but hard cold evidence that they have. Large numbers of soi-disant 'scientists' parroting the party line doth not hard cold evidence make...
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that a precise definition of these terms isn't addressed in the article. Microevolution can refer to:
ReplyDeleteA) adaptation or speciation within the limits of a genetic type.
B) step-wise mutation of one genetic type into a different genetic type (by inadvertently duplicating alleles). This is two parts: 1) stepwise mutation of one genetic type and 2) into a different genetic type.
Macroevolution refers to large-scale mutation of a genetic type into another type. This is part 2 of the B-definition.
i. The B-definition of microevolution is what Darwinists point to as the way that macroevolution happens.
ii. Examples of the A-definition of microevolution is what Darwinists typically point to as the evidence of the B-definition. So they conflate the two.
iii. There is some evidence of the B-definition that relies on unprovable assumptions.
iv. The article here assumes the B-definition and makes the argument on the extremely unlikely leap from the B-definition to macroevolution.
My contention will remain that scientists have not proven the B-definition, although it is helpful to the overall argument that ID continues to demonstrate the exceptional unlikelihood of macroevolution.