Good. You're basing your argument on the scientific method and not on the typical theories of macro-evolution based on completely unrepeatable events in the past. Most arguments for macro-evolution seem to come from people with really good imaginations and not at all on the scientific method.
Please give a few examples of macro-evolution observed in the laboratory and not made up by a "scientist" describing what happened with two bones he found in his field.
Just to be clear, micro-evolution is essentially natural selection, and is simply change within a species. Biblical creationists have no problem with that. Macro-evolution is the type of thing that makes good science fiction and is the completely unobserved species A (fish) changing into species B (dog, frog, etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Good. You're basing your argument on the scientific method and not on the typical theories of macro-evolution based on completely unrepeatable events in the past. Most arguments for macro-evolution seem to come from people with really good imaginations and not at all on the scientific method. Please give a few examples of macro-evolution observed in the laboratory and not made up by a "scientist" describing what happened with two bones he found in his field. Just to be clear, micro-evolution is essentially natural selection, and is simply change within a species. Biblical creationists have no problem with that. Macro-evolution is the type of thing that makes good science fiction and is the completely unobserved species A (fish) changing into species B (dog, frog, etc).