In article <8urgr19o91g8i7qrmqrphuf5d3mrnjo6b2@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:34:29 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0101061334300001@pm4-broad-25.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <42ggr1tfr00ltr444t2dj9lqh7g1u156o8@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:13:33 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0101061213330001@pm4-broad-51.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <cabgr1dsrvulo9d8go9jm766h007t5qg83@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:09:51 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0101061009510001@pm4-broad-51.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <limer1dq5ubnpqfuar5dgipe8s18g01noc@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:13:02 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-3112051713030001@pm4-broad-37.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <39Etf.71283$6e.66404@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-3012051855530001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

It's my opinion...

The worthless opinion of a layperson with no formal training in

biology, but

apart from that...

...that if animals evolve outside their family--that would be
an example of macro-evolution.

Your expectations are unrealistic and entirely artificial.
Once again I'll ask you, how would you quantify* the difference

between

micro and macro-evolution?

* Quantify means numbers

A herd of animals antelopes are placed on a island that does not

have any

deer and are allowed to remain there for 10 million years. If those
antelopes evolved into a unique type of animal that could not

produce

offspring with normal antelopes or other deer that would be an

example of

macro-evolution.

It's my guess that at the end of the 10 million years--they would

still be

antelopes and would be able to produce offspring when bred with

antelopes

that had never been on the island.

There is some fairly compelling evidence that your guess is wrong.

I have some compelling evidence that my guess is correct. It's related
to research related to fruit flies.

Once again, you show that you do not understand anything about genetic
variation. Fruit fly work does not even remotely approximate 10,000,000
years, nor do you seem to have noticed that new species of fruit flies
have been observed.

Are they still fruit flies?

How many species are there?

I don't know--you failed to answer my question--I'll try again:
Are they still fruit flies?

Your question is meaningless if you think there is only one species of
fruit fly. You have told us that speciation is macro-evolution and that
it is not macro-evolution. Your story is so confused because you don't
actually understand science. There are many species of animals that we
call fruit flies. Even if some diverged into differing species, we would
still call them fruit flies, even though they were from different
species. Sometimes humans are careless with their casual language. That
is why scientists have assigned scientific names to them that have much
to do with their place in the history of life on earth, but are not the
words we commonly use.

I never stated that there is only one species of fruit fly. Despite the
experiments that have been performed on fruit flies--they continue to be
fruit flies. There has never been a "good mutation" despite the 3000 mutations.
This seems to me to indicate that macroevolution is a myth.

I suggest that you read:
Grasse, Pierre "Evolution of Living Orgainisms (New York: Acad. Press,
1977 page 130.

In article <8urgr19o91g8i7qrmqrphuf5d3mrnjo6b2@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 13:34:29 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0101061334300001@pm4-broad-25.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <42ggr1tfr00ltr444t2dj9lqh7g1u156o8@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 12:13:33 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0101061213330001@pm4-broad-51.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <cabgr1dsrvulo9d8go9jm766h007t5qg83@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 10:09:51 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-0101061009510001@pm4-broad-51.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <limer1dq5ubnpqfuar5dgipe8s18g01noc@4ax.com>, David Jensen
<david@dajensen-family.com> wrote:

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:13:02 -0800, in alt.talk.creationism
jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
<jason-3112051713030001@pm4-broad-37.snlo.dialup.fix.net>:

In article <39Etf.71283$6e.66404@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-3012051855530001@pm4-broad-32.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

It's my opinion...

The worthless opinion of a layperson with no formal training in

biology, but

apart from that...

...that if animals evolve outside their family--that would be
an example of macro-evolution.

Your expectations are unrealistic and entirely artificial.
Once again I'll ask you, how would you quantify* the difference

between

micro and macro-evolution?

* Quantify means numbers

A herd of animals antelopes are placed on a island that does not

have any

deer and are allowed to remain there for 10 million years. If those
antelopes evolved into a unique type of animal that could not

produce

offspring with normal antelopes or other deer that would be an

example of

macro-evolution.

It's my guess that at the end of the 10 million years--they would

still be

antelopes and would be able to produce offspring when bred with

antelopes

that had never been on the island.

There is some fairly compelling evidence that your guess is wrong.

I have some compelling evidence that my guess is correct. It's related
to research related to fruit flies.

Once again, you show that you do not understand anything about genetic
variation. Fruit fly work does not even remotely approximate 10,000,000
years, nor do you seem to have noticed that new species of fruit flies
have been observed.

Are they still fruit flies?

How many species are there?

I don't know--you failed to answer my question--I'll try again:
Are they still fruit flies?

Your question is meaningless if you think there is only one species of
fruit fly. You have told us that speciation is macro-evolution and that
it is not macro-evolution. Your story is so confused because you don't
actually understand science. There are many species of animals that we
call fruit flies. Even if some diverged into differing species, we would
still call them fruit flies, even though they were from different
species. Sometimes humans are careless with their casual language. That
is why scientists have assigned scientific names to them that have much
to do with their place in the history of life on earth, but are not the
words we commonly use.

I never stated that there is only one species of fruit fly. Despite the
experiments that have been performed on fruit flies--they continue to be
fruit flies. There has never been a "good mutation" despite the 3000 mutations.
This seems to me to indicate that macroevolution is a myth.

In article <dpe67n$krb$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>, "mel turner"
<mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

"Jason" <jason@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-0101061838100001@pm4-broad-5.snlo.dialup.fix.net...

In article <jI_tf.1281$bd.431@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>, "Tim K."
<timkozz@clf.rr.com> wrote:

Did any of various species of birds and reptiles (mentioned

evolve into species in new families or classes?

Strawman. You're arguing against a false version of your opponents'
position due to your own misconceptions.

There's no such things as "new families or classes" involved anywhere
in the evolutionary process. Just evolving lineages, branching by
speciation. We've chosen to name some of the older lineages "families"
and "classes", etc. long after the fact, but that doesn't imply any
separate processes of "genusation" or "familiation" or "orderation" or
"classation" ["ordination"? "classification"?] or "kingdomification".
Just the cumulative results of lots and lots of speciations, plus
extinctions. That's all that's required.

In other words, did any of the birds evolve into creatures that
were no longer in the Aves class?

No, and so what? All members of Aves also still belong to Theropoda,
and to Dinosauria, and to Reptilia, and to Amniota and to Tetrapoda
and to Gnathostomata and to Vertebrata and to Chordata and to
Deuterostomia and to Metazoa and to Eukaryota and to life-on-eath.
No "new" higher groups at all anywhere in that entire history, just
sub-groups of the existing groups. That's the way it works.

Species evolve into other species. You've been told this

I know that--that's microevoltion.

No it's not. You just contradicted your own faux definition.

Right. New species formation is _macroevolution_ by definition. It's
the only added process that "macroevolution" in the grandest sense
requires. "Microevolution" is only change within one species.

"Macroevolution" [the largest scale, biggest-picture version] thus is
simply the cumulative results of microevolution, plus the cumulative
results of speciations, plus the cumulative results of the extinction
of many branch lineages. Again, there's nothing else needed.

Some of the advocates of creation science continue to believe that
speciation does not happen

and if it did happen that it would be macroevolution.

Based upon some the research that has been done in relation to bacteria
and viruses, I changed my views related to this subject. It's now my
opinion that when a new species is formed--that's not macroevolution
unless the new species is a member of a different family or a unique
family.

For example, one of the posters mentioned that a new species of
mosquitoes was discoverd. There was speculation that the new species had
evolved from a related species. It's my opinion that if the poster was
correct, it's an excellent example of micro-evolution. The new species of
mosquitoes contines to be in the "mosquito family". If the new species had
evolved into an insect that was a member of another family or a unique
family--that would be macro-evolution.
This is my opinion.

Some of the advocates of creation science continue to believe that
speciation does not happen and if it did happen that it would be
macroevolution.
Based upon some the research that has been done in relation to bacteria
and viruses, I changed my views related to this subject. It's now my
opinion that when a new species is formed--that's not macroevolution
unless the new species is a member of a different family or a unique
family. For example, one of the posters mentioned that a new species of
mosquitoes was discoverd. There was speculation that the new species had
evolved from a related species. It's my opinion that if the poster was
correct, it's an excellent example of micro-evolution. The new species of
mosquitoes contines to be in the "mosquito family". If the new species had
evolved into an insect that was a member of another family or a unique
family--that would be macro-evolution. This is my opinion.