>It is not a matter of being wedded to anything; "microevolution" is
>legitimate evolution, as Darwin established and subsequent research has
Does this temporary change in allele frequencies really satisfy your
wish to know how evolution occurred? Is it fair to call it an example of
how complex organisms evolved?
>True, but by restricting any discussion of evolution in general to
>"macroevolution" they hope to eliminate the clear evidence based on
>"microevolution" that evolution is a real phenomenon and instead force all
>debate into an arena where they think there is no evidence to support
There may be no direct evidence of macroevolution; but it's not logical to
dismiss it. Macroevolutionary theory is necessary to save evolutionary
theory; it's not a creationist plot.
Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ email@example.com