Replies

No, Macro-evolution is changing single cell to human. That is an example, not a definition. The biological definition for macroevolution is change above the species level, and even many anti-evolutionists accept this (but they deny new species can evolve). That means one species of grass becoming another species of grass is an example of macroevoluion. If it is still a reptile then it is a example of micro-evolution, not Macro, at least not in the sense that Darwanian evolution is attempting to allege that man came about, from single cell to man. This implies that a snake turning into a T-Rex is not microevolution because it is still a reptile. I know you don't accept this, so your above explaination must be wrong. The problem is that you are not objectively seeking a definition. You are instead trying to define microevolution as "possible" and macroevolution as "impossible". The premise you start out with is that macroevolution, whatever it is, must be impossible in all situtations.

Salamanders share the common ancestor of reptiles and that is what they will remain. Salamanders aren't just the same creature in a different size or color. Different species of salamanders differ in structure and organs. There is more variation amongst salamanders than amongst great apes (chimpanzees, humans, gorillas, etc). Chimpanzees and humans are in the same family. But there are 10 families of salamander, in fact there are 3 sub-orders. If you accept a new family of salamander can evolve, then there is no room to deny humans could evolve from a chimpanzee ancestor, as that would be evolution below the family level.

LOL!

No, a salamander is still a salamander isn't it?

That is what you are still calling it, is it not?

And a chimp will always be a chimp and a human always a human.

Juggling definitions does not change the reality of that fact.