Macroevolution and the distinction between microevolution/macroevolution are creationist fantasies

Point 1. After remarking that his arguments haven’t been read, PRO copies and pastes from Simons. Remarkably, he seems not to have read the first sentence. “A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution – whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.” Recall PRO’s thesis: “Macroevolution and the distinction between microevolution/macroevolution are creationist fantasies.” Simons’ opening statement goes far beyond simply contradicting PRO’s thesis, but it is sufficient for our purposes that it contradicts it absolutely. Point 2. PRO asserts that Simons “believes the same things I have stated.” And which things are these? Does Simons agree that microevolution and macroevolution are creationist fictions? One can hardly ask the question with a straight face! Now, of course, Simons’ paper argues that there is no fundamental difference between micro and macroevolution. But who does Simons consider his adversaries? Why, scientists of the caliber of Steven J. Gould--that is, not creationists. Yet in PRO’s unsupported view, Simons is disproving a creationist fiction! Really? Perhaps PRO will enlighten us as to how many creationist papers are cited, disagreeably, in “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution.” The answer, of course, is zero. This is because Simons’ paper completely ignores the existence of creationists. It follows inescapably that Simons does not believe the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution to be a “creationist fantasy.” To the contrary, he believes that the distinction is a “persistent debate” within evolutionary biology. PRO’s thesis remains falsified. And thus in what sense is it meaningful to say that PRO and Simons are in agreement, as PRO claims? They are not. Point 3. PRO accuses me of deliberately choosing to believe assertions made by creationists such as Hovind, et al. I don’t know why PRO continues to interject these irrelevant characters. First AronRa, now Ken Ham. Who cares? Can you tell us, PRO, which of the 10 sources I used was one of your usual suspects? Point 3.1. I hate to answer a loaded question in kind, but would you kindly tell us, PRO, why you “deliberately disbelieve” the assertions of Tour, Simons, Theobald, et al.? Point 4. PRO ascribes to me this assertion, “If we find just ONE mention somewhere on the internet, then the whole concept of creationists using micro-macro must be false.” Firstly, it is evident that scholarly journal papers are accessible on the internet. It is also evident that the writings of accomplished scientists, not necessarily in journal papers, are accessible on the internet. So yes, if we find just one mention somewhere on the internet, as long as that “somewhere” is in the writings of a credible scientist, that falsifies your thesis. Something else that seems evident is PRO’s fixation on what creationists are doing. I ask again, who cares? If creationists think talking about macroevolution will help them, God bless. But why should I care, why should PRO care, why should the reader care? What’s the relevance to this debate? The only thing that’s actually relevant is what credible scientists have to say, especially what they have to say in peer-reviewed publications. And what they have to say is easy to grasp: macroevolution is real, microevolution is real, and the scientific community does distinguish between the two. Point 5. I have no idea which parts of PRO’s posts are referenceable to Eugenie Scott, so I think it is too much to say that that he “quoted” her. But if she agrees substantively with PRO’s thesis, fine. Others, whom I have cited, substantively disagree. And their disagreement is what falsifies the thesis. If the thesis were true, then no credible scientists would distinguish between micro and macro. Only creationists would. Point 5.1. Note that if Scott really does affirm PRO’s thesis, the implication is that she considers Simons, et al. to be either liars or creationist liars. However, since Scott is less a laboratory researcher and more a professional anti-creationist, I think she can be forgiven for being unaware of and/or excessively generalizing her colleagues’ views. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ What follows are a few observations that, while not especially relevant to the debate, seem appropriate to address. Comment 1. PRO asserts that he hasn’t quoted a single word from AronRa. (Note that PRO keeps, inexplicably, referring to him as “AaronRa”.) PRO’s first contribution looks something like this: “AaronRa (sic) to the rescue: [insert copious whitespace] You can frequently hear creationists argue how they accept microevolution but not macroevolution…” So it is hard to tell if PRO is being serious or not. To whom else are we supposed to attribute the following? However, near the end, he writes: “Why Evolution Is True, Jerry A. Coyne Evolution vs. Creationism An Introduction, Eugenie C. Scott” But it is impossible to tell what connection, if any, these sources have to his list of paragraphs. Perhaps he should put more effort into formatting and less effort into complaining about being misunderstood. Comment 2. PRO makes some very bizarre claims about Simons’ paper. Allow me to correct them. “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution” is paper by Andrew Simons, published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology. It is only 13 pages long. It is not a book, let alone an “ENTIRE BOOK”. The whole paper is available online. What PRO refers to as a “summary” is an abstract. The reader can verify all this very easily. Meanwhile, what is PRO thinking? I have no idea. I leave it to the reader as an exercise. Comment 3. PRO appeals to me to watch AronRa’s videos. Why, again, are they relevant? Admittedly I am not going to watch them. Perhaps they contain arguments that overturn my position? I confess I will just have to take that risk. Comment 4. PRO threatens to post videos of his favorite creationists...for what reason? It is hardly in dispute that creationists distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution. I call his bluff. Comment 5. PRO spends too many words (or perhaps too few, who knows?) informing the reader that I am a creationist, silly, error-prone, etc. Spare us the ad hominems, they are childish. Comment 6. Another sad consequence of the creation/evolution “controversy” is that many evolutionist proponents have been all too eager to not merely paper over the real disagreements in the scientific community (punctuated equilibrium and neutral evolution are perhaps the prime examples), but actually slap them down. So today we have people, like PRO, who have no respect for the work of men like Gould and Kimura, because any disagreement among scholars is seen as a chink for creationists to exploit. This forcing of researchers into false lockstep is a much overlooked tragedy.