From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 20:40:33 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >> Macro evolution is just a lot of micro evolution.  We just had a    
   >> discussion as to whether Neanderthals were a different species.  There    
   >> are physical differences, but it is a matter of opinion as to how much    
   >> is enough to make that claim.  Most of their DNA split off from modern    
   >> humans 800,000 years ago.  They were more closely related to modern    
   >> humans than that because some Homo left Africa around 500,000 years ago    
   >> and got absorbed by the Neanderthals, so it makes Neanderthals more    
   >> closely related to modern humans than are Denisovans.  When has enough    
   >> micro evolution occurred in order to call it macro evolution?   
   >   
   >Many creationists accept microevolution (probably a majority?), e.g.    
   >Darwin's finches. This is the standard ID position.   
   >   
   >Therefore, you're begging the question by asserting as fact that    
   >macroevolution is essentially microevolution + time.   
   >   
   >Nothing to see here folks.   
      
      
   Feel free to cite an authoritive definition of macroevolution which   
   doesn't essentially mean "microevolution + time".  Or, if semantic   
   tiffs aren't your thing, feel free to explain how you suppose isolated   
   microevolutionary populations don't inevitably become new species.   
   Good luck either way.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)