28 May '11 15:38>
Originally posted by RJHinds“...They now have microevolution and
The definition of evolution keeps changing over time and has
different meanings depending on who is using it and in what
context it is being used. They now have microevolution and
macroevolution to confuse the issue. So the degree of change
and how the change takes place is always the issue. If everyone
who says they believe in evolution could agree ...[text shortened]... ange can be explained in some other term, since the term "evolution"
can be so misleading.
macroevolution to confuse the issue ...”
it is only “confusing” to those with insufficient intelligence to understand such clear definition.
The definition of biological evolution hasn't changed much since Darwin's time.
“...What was once called adaptation is now considered evolution to many. ...”
if it is an adaptation through mutation then that IS evolution dummy. What do you claim is the difference?
“...The same goes for mutations, if it is believed to be of some benefit to
an organism. ...”
do you deny that a mutation can be beneficial? -the fact that most aren’t is irrelevant because “most” does not equate with “all”.