nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Neutral Evolution: Not just creationists, but not the point.
''the point is that most genetic mechanisms aren't either 'micro' or 'macro.''': surely the point is that 'micro' and 'macro' are distinctions made by Creationists, so when Philip Rayment asks ''If even neutral mutations count as a mechanism of macroevolution, what is microevolution?'', it is up to him or others of his belief system to answer. Which should be easy for him, because he contends that there are more species (or kinds) extant today than there were on Noah's Ark, so he must accept that speciation (and hence, presumably 'macroevolution') occurs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
''the point is that most genetic mechanisms aren't either 'micro' or 'macro.''': surely the point is that 'micro' and 'macro' are distinctions made by Creationists, so when Philip Rayment asks ''If even neutral mutations count as a mechanism of macroevolution, what is microevolution?'', it is up to him or others of his belief system to answer. Which should be easy for him, because he contends that there are more species (or kinds) extant today than there were on Noah's Ark, so he must accept that speciation (and hence, presumably 'macroevolution') occurs. [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 17:46, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:"micro" and "macro" distinctions are not made solely by creationists, and many if not most creationary scientists these day avoid use of the terms, as they are ill-defined and miss the main point anyway. I do accept that speciation occurs, but whether or not that constitutes macroevolution is something that I don't really care about. What it does ''not'' constitute is an increase in genetic [[information]], which is what evolution requires. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:39, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
== [[user:Conservative]] what the...!? ==
== [[user:Conservative]] what the...!? ==