Macroevolution and the distinction between microevolution/macroevolution are creationist fantasies

The thesis is that macroevolution is a creationist fiction, and the distinction between micro and macroevolution is also a creationist fiction. If the thesis were true, then we shouldn’t find non-creationist persons or non-creationist institutions writing in terms of macroevolution and microevolution. In fact we find the opposite. They do write in terms of macroevolution and microevolution. Even a single example would be enough to demonstrate that the thesis is false, but a variety of examples have nevertheless been given. Campbell’s Biology is a current textbook. So is Futuyma’s Evolutionary Biology. Both offer separate and distinct definitions of “microevolution” and “macroevolution”. This by itself is sufficient to disprove the thesis. Eldredge, Stanley, Ricklefs, and Simons all author works that include “macroevolution” in the title. Simons’ peer-reviewed journal paper is entitled, “The Continuity of Microevolution and Macroevolution”. Any one of these is sufficient to disprove the thesis. James Tour asserts a distinction between microevolution and macroevolution. David Stern and Andrew Simons do the same--both in peer-reviewed journal papers. Most damningly, Douglas Theobald has compiled a series of evidences of macroevolution. It is located on Talk Origins. In his introductory paragraph, he distinguishes between microevolution and macroevolution. If microevolution and macroevolution are precisely the same thing (except in the fantasies of creationists), what else would one call all this, but rank deception? PRO does not even attempt to address or refute any of these data points, beyond blandly asserting that “there are several more passages which do absolutely nothing to help his cause.” One wonders what possible evidence could help my cause, if these do not. To pose that question to PRO directly: is there any evidence of any sort that could, even in principle, cause you to reject the thesis? That question is of course academic. It is overwhelmingly clear that the scientific community does recognize macroevolution as distinct from microevolution. The thesis is falsified. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRO quotes several paragraphs from the character AronRa, who is apparently the author of zero peer-reviewed journal papers and the holder of zero technical degrees--let alone degrees or journal papers relevant to evolution. This poses an obvious question: in the face of real scientists, who cares what AronRa thinks? It poses a much more troubling question as well. If PRO considers a non-scientist like AronRa to neutralize the legitimacy of a James Tour, what possible objection could he have to citing a genuine creationist like Steven Meyer--let alone some random creationist apologizer? I think readers can imagine what sort of reaction that would provoke. It remains, of course, that scientists are the ones who get to decide these things. Not professional debaters who happen to make agreeable claims. The scientists have spoken, and PRO has ignored them. I feel safe in dismissing his first round contribution as essentially irrelevant. There is one additional point that the citing of AronRa raises: namely, the deep confusion that the creation/evolution “controversy” has generated amongst laymen. After creationists latched onto macroevolution as an apparent weak-point in evolutionary theory, some evolutionists realized it would be rhetorically expedient to pretend as if macroevolution were, after all, some specious concept ginned up by the anti-science league. I submit AronRa and PRO as the unintended consequences of this unfortunate tactic.