>>SJ>No. I "admitted" that "change over time" occurred, but this could
>>be the result of *progressive creation*. To date you have not given
>>a "*unique*, non-circular, definition of `macro-evolution' ", let
>>alone showed that it occurred.
>
>BH>Note the use of the past tense in Steve's final sentence. Perhaps
>>it comes from Brian's definition of macro-evolution (origin of
>>novelty) earlier. Thus the place to look for macroevolution is in
>>the fossil record.
>
>Agreed that the "the fossil record" is "the place to look for
>macroevolution", but even that is not conclusive. For example,
>the large-scale changes observed in "the fossil record" could be
>caused by the progressive supernatural intervention of an exogenous
>intelligent designer.
[Mark Ridley quote snipped]
My point was that the fundamental process which makes macroevolution
possible -- speciation -- has been observed. I was wrong in calling
speciation macroevolution. Nevertheless, if speciation occurs, it would be
difficult to rule out macroevolution. And speciation does occur. By
macroevolution I do not mean the naturalistic version Steve insists on.
Steve's definition of evolution seems to me to include metaphysical baggage
that is not scientific. As I've said before I would rather point out to
scientists the metaphysical baggage in their assumptions than condemn their
research.
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
1346 W. Fairview Lane
Rochester, MI 48306
(810) 652 4148