[gallo]

Quote by: TehNinja since when was micro the same as macroevolution? where do you get that idea?

Wouldn't it be nice if you actually read what was said? You responded to either Captain Chaos or scrappy, which one isn't clear due to your clumsy method of response, and asserted, "you are confusing micro-evolution with macro-evolution." Your assertion is not true in either case. Captain Chaos was discussing mutations in HIV and/or MRSA. Either case would be micro-evolution. scrappy was discussing mutations in humans that were adaptive to living in northern latitudes. That is also micro-evolution.

Since you don't seem to know much about the subject, I'll explain to you. Stated simply, micro-evolution are genetic changes below the level of species. Macro-evolution are changes above species. Even though the two terms aren't used by scientists much any more, they do exist - it seems to the everlasting joy of uneducated creationists. However, even though creationists have never been able to show that there is a boundary beyond beyond which evolutionary changes cannot go. Creationists just assert that there is a boundary.

Quote by: TehNinja microevolution-also known as 'natural selection'

Balderdash. Learn what you're talking about before you try to instruct others. Natural selection is the differential reproductive success of organisms that possess beneficial genetic characters. Micro-evolution is changes in the allele frequency in a population over time that do not form a new species. Anyone who has bothered to learn the basics of the topic is aware that natural selection can also act to prevent changes in many circumstances.

Quote by: TehNinja also, i've seen the two confused almost everytime i see evolution explained.

From what I've seen, the confusion is yours. Others seem confused because you seem to inject your unfounded micro/macro assertions into the middle of discussions about other things. Perhaps it would help if you actually studied biology and learned what the terms mean rather than listing to some ministry.

Quote by: TehNinja people think that an animal keeps mutating until it becomes a whole new species.

Have you ever seen a herring gull? The European herring gull can be found all over northern Europe. They range out into the Atlantic and can be found even in Iceland and beyond. The are almost identical to, and freely interbreed with, the American herring gull, which ranges from southern Greenland and all across the northern North American continent. But there some are some differences that can be seen in the far western Alaskan population. But the American herring gull interbreeds with the Vega herring gull, which can be found in eastern Siberia. Which interbreeds with Birula's gull, which interbreeds with Heuglin's gull, which interbreeds with the Siberian lesser black-backed gull, which interbreeds with the lesser black-backed gull. All of these populations form a continuous, interbreeding population of gulls that undergo changes in appearance as you go west. But the lesser black-backed gull and the European herring gull share their range. They are both indigenous to northern Europe. But they do not interbreed. They have become a separate species and are known as such. I can explain that by the accumulation of small genetic changes in widely separated populations. How do you explain it in light of your above assertion?

Need more examples? Himalayan wren? Ensatina salamanders of the Pacific coast? How about brown bears and polar bears?

Quote by: TehNinja why can't i come from the other side? why can't i oppose evolution, in my own style? isn't that what debate is about?

No. That's not what the debate is about. The debate is based on the fact that scientific investigation has not supported the mythology of fundamentalist christianity. Various scientific studies have found that the universe is very old, that the earth is old, that there has never been a global flood, that mankind, like all organisms, is descended from a previous ancestor. But you can come from whatever side you wish. The problem is that you are working from your conclusions, based on mythology for which there is no evidence. You haven't bothered to learn the basics and make yourself look foolish.

Quote by: TehNinja and, just to let you know, i read the most lefty biology book EVER so don't tell me i don't know what i'm talking about.

Well, you don't know what you're talking about. What is a "lefty biology book?" It's sad that rather than learn science, you equate what you don't understand to some sort of political conspiracy. How terribly pathetic.