LKL wrote:
For one thing, the border between the two is fuzzy. Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolution over time: many small changes adding up to significant change. At what point do you consider something a new species? Or, as the creationists would have it, a new "baramin"?
One prediction of evolution is that the lines between species, and even between higher clades, will become less distinct the more you know, and indeed that has been the case; the old paradigm of kingdom>phylum>class>order>family>genus>species has become almost meaningless, with supspecies, superclasses, suborders, superinfraclasses, etc.
Are horses and donkeys the same "baramin"? They can reproduce, but the offspring aren't fertile - usually. Very rarely, a hinny has been known to throw a foal, meaning that there can be long-lasting gene exchange between the two species.
In addition to all of that, this is where the rich fossil record comes in: we can see, in great detail, the evolution of many mammalian clades from one organism to another - macroevolution in action. Mammals are relatively recent on the scene, so there's pretty good preservation of a lot of lines.
I am so glad I am not the only one who sees this. Well said! I hope it helps clear the confusion of some of those people who have been basing their opinion on ignorance, denial or distortion of what is demonstrably real.
_________________
"When you ride over sharps, you get flats!"--The Bicycling Guitarist, May 13, 2008
25 Nov 2012, 6:31 am
