Macroevolution and the distinction between microevolution/macroevolution are creationist fantasies

http://www.youtube.com... I am not going to waste my time or the reader’s time by responding directly to any of PRO’s irrelevant comments. Instead, with a little bit of analysis, we can summarize PRO’s actual argument as follows: Current science is clear that there is no distinction between micro/macro except the time involved. Also, long ago, science recognized additional distinctions between micro and macro, and so CON is guilty of dredging up outdated views. What PRO is doing here is moving the goal posts. (That besides all the ad hominems, obnoxious cajoling, and false accusations that I and you readers are expected to endure--sorry, I had to get that out of my system.) If he were being serious and honest, for example, he might explain the point at which science switched views, and how the resolution was achieved. But we are not going to see anything like that from him, because no resolution has been achieved--the debate is still, in the words of Simons, “persistent”. Instead, after having been presented with current non-creationists who recognize a distinction between macro and microevolution (and a distinction that goes beyond simple timescales, at that), he has decided--apparently by fiat--that they are not current after all. First. I really encourage the reader peruse Simons’ 2002 paper (which in PRO’s mind is somehow not “current”) in greater detail. Maybe PRO thinks that bluffing on how it favors his view will keep the reader from bothering to examine it. Ignore him. Simons describes, at length, how some of the problems with PRO’s view (shared apparently by Eugenie Scott and Jerry Coyne): namely, that a “pattern of self-similarity of extinction at different temporal scales has been observed (Raup, 1986; Soléet al., 1997; McKinney & Frederick, 1999; Plotnick & Sepkoski, 2001), fuelling further discussion of evolutionary mechanisms – beyond principles of microevolution – driving trends at different time scales (Soléet al., 1999; Plotnick & Sepkoski, 2001). This is a debate, then, about the relevance of the process of natural selection operating at the ‘ecological moment’ (Gould, 1985) to the production of phenotypic trends over the long-term.” Simons devotes 11 citation-rich paragraphs to explaining how Scott, Coyne, PRO, (and while we’re at it, AronRA) are full of it. If you read the sections entitled “Introduction” and “Views of the discontinuity”, you will come away plainly realizing that the only people ‘playing ostrich’ are PRO and his cohorts. “But wait!” cries PRO, “Simons’ paper solves the micro/macro problem.” So is PRO admitting there is a problem, or not? He cannot have his cake and eat it too, much as he tries. At any rate, PRO needs to prove that the scientific community has clearly accepted Simons’ proposed solution before he can make such a bold claim. I won’t hold my breath. Second, PRO continues to disregard the concerns of James Tour, highly-cited and acclaimed organic chemist. Again, from Tour: “There is no argument regarding microevolution. The core of the debate for me, therefore, is the extrapolation of microevolution to macroevolution.” Tour exposes and demolishes PRO’s lie in the linked video. It’s a lecture from 2012. Is that “current” enough for you, PRO? Or will you bore us by moving the goal line again. Start at 52:15, it runs about 5 minutes--the most interesting part starts at 54:47. Tour confirms what everybody knows, but nobody is willing to admit: the scientists who work most closely with actual molecular mechanics have no idea how macroevolution works or is supposed to work, and are deeply skeptical about whether it is in fact exactly the same as microevolution. Why is nobody willing to say it? We already have three posts from PRO proving why--and we’re about to be introduced to two more. Certain atheists have decided that to concede the existence of real distinction between micro and macro is to magically lose the creation/evolution battle. What a joke! Does Simons share this view? Does Tour? Did Gould, or any of the supporters of punctuated equilibrium? None of these are creationists. More importantly, what they are also not is rampant atheists who see a creationist behind every curtain and are desperate to maintain hegemony at any cost.