Macroevolution and the distinction between microevolution/macroevolution are creationist fantasies

Concerning James Tour: First, PRO declares that because Tour is a synthetic biochemist he has no relevance to the debate. Huh, according to Tour at 52:14: “If anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me.” PRO’s claim is as silly as saying that mathematics has no bearing on physics, or that physics has no bearing on chemistry. Has PRO heard of methodological reductionism? Chemistry is just the mechanics of biology. This is the sort of claim that PRO would never make in any other context, he is just throwing mud hoping something will stick. And besides being wrong, it is also made hypocritical by his citation of AronRa, who naturally has no academic credentials whatsoever. In other words, PRO doesn’t really believe credentials matter. They serve no purpose other than to discredit people he doesn’t like. Secondly, PRO commits his baldest lie to date, “At no point does [Tour] state that micro and macroevolution exist, by the way.” Tour states this in the video at 55:46. Perhaps PRO doesn’t understand the difference between “something existing and being understood” and “something existing but not being understood”. Third, PRO accuses Tour of advocating Intelligent Design. This is another lie. Tour: “I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.” http://en.wikipedia.org... Fourth, PRO declares, “Tour CLEARLY is not an evolution expect.” This a very broad claim. Of course Tour is clearly not an expert on all things evolution-related. Instead, what he is an expert on is the fundamental mechanics of the things that are evolving, a fact PRO is “CLEARLY” trying to obfuscate. That’s why Tour asserts, “If anybody should be able to understand evolution, it is me.” Finally, I suppose it needs mentioning that there are quite a few Christian scientists in fields significantly related to biology (Tour being one example) who are not creationists. Concerning Andrew Simons. After extensive back-and-forth, PRO has finally abandoned his attempt to demonstrate that Simons recognizes no distinction between micro and macroevolution. (As well as his claim that “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution” is a “book”.) Concerning the harmonization of macro/micro. In Round 3, PRO spent a whole bunch of time admitting that there used to be a legitimate distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. I called his bluff in Round 4: ‘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”.’ As I predicted, PRO has absolutely nothing in the way of proof that the admitted distinction between micro/macro has been solved, explained, or harmonized in the last decade. Instead he wastes three paragraphs on examples of how science has evolved with time, citing global warming, 8-bit computers, black holes, warm-blooded dinosaurs, and transitional fossils. Then he makes his deadpan conclusion, “In this same way that these arguments between evolutionary and biological scientists are being addressed, has the question of micro-macro been addressed.” Oh really, PRO? I am sure you can cite an unlimited number of credentialed biologists, credentialed scientists, and interested laypersons who will make that exact same unsupported claim. Please spare us. Because you know what you can’t cite a single instance of? A peer-reviewed journal paper that explains, in mechanical detail, just how the allegedly “outdated” distinction between macroevolution and microevolution has been resolved. You know, the way that Einstein resolved the problems of Newtonian physics. If such a paper existed, it would have been the first thing you posted in the debate. Indeed, there wouldn’t have been a debate at all, because I would be on your side. As would James Tour and all his chemistry friends. Look, nobody is questioning that science hasn’t made advances in its understanding of microevolution and macroevolution, or that the overall viewpoint hasn’t shifted in the direction that PRO describes, or that creationists misunderstand the distinction. PRO brings all this up to muddy the waters. The question is whether there is still legitimate scientific dissent on the issue. PRO claims there is not. He is obviously wrong. Concerning PRO’s last paragraph. Is this a joke? Did PRO even write this? Did he write it before the debate began and accidentally paste it into his reply? Who knows. PRO declares, “I have absolutely no idea why CON would go and pick out a bunch of creationists that essentially don't believe in ANY PART OF EVOLUTION, including any part of macro evolution, to be his list of "experts".” Every single claim being made/implied is a transparent lie. I cited zero creationists. The only person that PRO has even tried to argue is creationist is James Tour. Yet in PRO’s crazed smear attack, Campbell, Futuyma, Eldredge, Stanley, Lewin, et al. magically become creationists--creationists who don’t believe “ANY PART” of evolution. Sorry, PRO, but every single person I cited believes in evolution. Also, yes: all of these people are in fact “experts”. I really have no choice but to point out what PRO declares in paragraph 1 of Round 4, “So let's take a few minutes and discuss those very sources (as I have threatened to do for several rounds now).” So, after having finally conducted his inquiry into my sources, PRO proceeds to tell gigantic lies about them. Classy. Let’s go on. PRO states, “In order for them to even be mildly useful for his side of the debate, clearly, they would at LEAST have to agree with the idea that MACRO EXISTS! But they don't. Not even his hero Prof. Tour.” This is just a continuation of the earlier nonsense. Get a grip, PRO. Every single person I have cited believes that macroevolution exists. So does James Tour, he’s merely skeptical of how it works. That you could dispute this is too insane to be believed. PRO continues, “In fact, go down the list- they're all creationists that don't believe in macro at all, and CON is using them to make YOU ALL BELIEVE that micro-macro is still a part of current biological science.” Uh-huh. Name one creationist in my list, PRO. Cite a single piece of evidence to back up this delusional rambling. I know you won’t. Your only chance was with Tour, who has openly repudiated the label. On the other hand, yes, of course I am using these credentialed non-creationists who recognize a real live distinction between microevolution and macroevolution to convince everyone that micro/macro is still a part of current science. What else would I be doing? PRO isn’t done yet, “None of his sources are worth a damn.” You heard it from PRO first: peer-reviewed journal papers and standard biology textbooks aren’t “worth a damn”. The views of highly-cited, highly-credentialed scientists? Not “worth a damn”. Punctuated equilibrium? Damnably worthless. Why not come out and say it, PRO: anybody who disagrees with you just isn’t worth a damn. Insightful. Finally, “None of his sources support his thesis. None of his statement make any sense in light of the two expert opinions which I have offered before from people that ARE experts in this very field or in light of his own useless sources.” Nobody is surprised that lots of biologists and other scientists would assert that no distinction between microevolution and macroevolution exists. That’s the whole point, PRO, the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is a scientific controversy, as evidenced by my sources (who you are unfortunately eager to tell lies about). Anyway, what is my thesis, again? Let’s conclude this tiresome exchange. Closing Remarks My thesis: the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is not a creationist fantasy. I’ll recap the most interesting points. James Tour, acclaimed synthetic biochemist, sharply distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. PRO tries to discredit him by saying that chemistry has nothing to do with biology and evolution. It is tedious to point out that all the processes which occur within an organism are chemical; PRO is just saying this because he has to. He also tries to say that Tour is a creationist, but Tour explicitly rejects the term. (Does it need to be pointed out that Intelligent Design equals creationism?) In Round 3, PRO openly acknowledges that science has understood a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. “I realize that for many of us the idea that science has moved on and didn't bother to send us an email (micro-macro died a sad death) may be shocking.” He then fails to provide the slightest proof of how and when science “moved on”. He will continue to fail, because science hasn’t moved on. And James Tour is evidence of that. Andrew Simons, author of “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution”. His paper details the widely-understood distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. PRO told some astonishing lies about Simons and then suddenly clammed up in Round 4--except to smear Simons as a creationist who doesn’t believe in microevolution or macroevolution! You cannot make this stuff up. PRO cites Scott and Coyne as saying that micro equals macro, and he thinks this proves that Simons and Tour, et al. are lying. No, PRO, it proves my thesis precisely. Namely, that the distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is real. And it is a current scientific controversy.