The subject matter does require a certain amount of finesse, for this I do apologize. Our conversation did take a u-turn somewhere, as the topic as far as I knew it was regarding "facts", specifically as relates to macro-evolution and creationism. The point I was endeavoring to make was that there are no "facts" as regards both scenarios. Macro-evolution requires that an adherent have "faith" that certain key elements are hidden in the millions and millions of years required for the statistical probabilities to even come near a snowballs chance in Phoenix of completing the desired theoretical event. An adherent to the Genesis creation account takes the matter by faith also, as I stated earlier, neither your religion nor mine had a human witness to the event.
Macroevolution is "witnessed" as you put it, in plants and animals. People observe , record and continuously demonstrate Macroevolution. Macroevolution is a fact. Microevolution is the small changes in the population of a species Macroevolution is the combined and compounded effects of Microevolution over the species. Both macro and micro are proven aspects of the Evolutionary process Where the word is corrupted by wrong definition, incorrect description, misinformation, untrue evidence and misleading statements, you won't find it a fact. That's why you have no 'witness' for religious-so-called-macro-evolution. It is an article of faith. It doesn't exist. The standard religious definition for Macroevolution is...... 'it means just what I choose it to mean'. The statistical probabilities for the simplest basic organic compounds which make tiny changes and mutate into more and more complex organisms over vast periods of time is obviously 100%. It is a method proven, by which you are able to make your ill informed statements. Faith that depends on ignorance is merely ignorance itself.
Fair enough, allow me to clarify what I mean by macro-evolution: 1) The theory that all living creatures are descended from a few simple forms or one form of life. 2) and as specifically regards the supposed evolution of a simple life form resulting in modern man. If I have missed some empirical evidence that has recently "evolved" which fills in the numerous blanks in the macro order of battle, please inform me.
Barth, why not take off those religious specs for one sec and go look up Macroevolution. You will see , if you really try, Macroevolution is the combined and compounded effects of Microevolution over the evolved species. I suggest you stop reading Genesis into that every chance you get so that Macroevolution becomes something you know of to be macro-evolution and you end up once again with the standard religious definition which is...... 'it means just what I choose it to mean'.