Lions were designed to kill

[rsc2a]

BTW: I might be in your area again. I will be training a company 30 miles from you. I will let you know

Great!

 

[prophet]

Yep. A misnomer about creationists AND evolutionism.

A flu strain mutates into ANOTHER flu strain.

A flu strain will never evolve into a DIFFERENT species.

I know someone who has a Ph.D. in evolutionary biology. He's also a very outspoken Christian.

His thoughts on people who accept "micro-evolution" and deny "macro-evolution": selective ignorance. Scientifically speaking, they are the same thing.

Your statement also goes to prove another thing: "We are fine with science so long as it doesn't mess without preconceived notions. But, no, we aren't that concerned about consistency because we'll throw that out as soon as science starts challenging those preconceived notions even though we have no rationale for doing so other than it gives us the willies." (Notice, you could replace "science" with "literalism" and it wouldn't change anything.)

Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko first coined the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" in 1927 in his German language work, "Variabilität und Variation". Since the inception of the two terms, their meanings have been revised several times and the term macroevolution fell into limited disfavour when it was taken over by such writers as the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt (1940) and the paleontologist Otto Schindewolf to describe their orthogenetic theories. [6]

They are bunk, the same bunk. 
Calling innerspecial gene mutation "microevolution" was an attempt, by unbelievers, of course, to tie a naturally occurring, observable change to a non-observable hypothetical change from one gene pool into another, completely separated one.."macro".

Gene mutation can happen rapidly, as in, thousands of times in a day, in some species.  "Macroevoluion" was an attempt to say that gene mutations that take place over long periods of time, multi-generational conspiracies, are just extended play versions of the innerspecial mutations.

I spoke at length to a Christian, a PHD in Microbiology, last night, on these same topics.  She is as qualified an expert in gene mutation, as is presently alive.  She publishes her research regularly, much to the chagrin of (junk science is her name for them) the pharmaceutical companies. 
Last night, she was lamenting their bent towards synthetically reproducing compounds, not realizing that natural compounds can be stimulated to mutate into more effective strains, because they are alive.
As usual, we spent a good hour discussing the folly of all science that is falsely so-called, not able to pass 6-step muster.
I congratulated her on her latest study, someone rated it the most read something of 2013.  Green tea in treatment of urinary tract infection caused by E Coli.  Dr. Wanda Reygaert.
Then I told my favorite scientist in the whole wide world, "Good night Mom, I love you.", and I hung up the phone.

Needless to say, a leading expert in "microevolution" doesn't  give credence to "macroevolution".

Wanna run a test, yourself?
Since all evolutionary hypotheses are predicated on observance of natural selection, apparently in conjunction with survival of the fittest, see who is pouring the most resources into perpetuating a nearly extinct species.




Anishinaabe

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=aleshanee]prophet is absolutely right... what proponents of darwinism call "micro-evolution" is nothing more than adaption of the same species to environmental changes or fresh opportunities...[/quote]

You are aware that the nene goose and Canadian goose are different species, no?

[quote author=aleshanee].. a good example of it can be seen right here in hawaii with the nene goose... which is really nothing more than the descendent of a flock of canada geese that flew off course a few thousand years ago and ended up stranded in hawaii....... they are different both in size and shape than a canada goose and are also flightless .. (having adapted over the years to life on a chain of tropical islands)...[/quote]

They have a name for that process. I'm sure you can guess what that term is.

 

[rsc2a]

You are aware that the nene goose and Canadian goose are different species, no?

no..... darwinists have been misclassifying the nene goose for decades.... and continue to do so..... .. but genetic research shows the nene goose and the canadian goose are nothing more than different adaptions of the same species...... otherwise they would not be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.... which they can....

Scientifically, they are separate species. (Honestly, a 30 second trip on wikipedia would tell you the same thing.) Secondly, regarding their genetics, there is obviously differences in the genetic code or the nene would be the same size and shape and have the ability to fly. (I believe those were the three differences you pointed out.) Honestly, where do you think those things come from if not genetics? Thirdly, the great cats can interbreed, and it is well documented that both ligers and tions are both fertile hybrids of different species. This is a pretty elementary biological concept.

[quote author=aleshanee]

They have a name for that process. I'm sure you can guess what that term is.

i don;t have to guess... i know what darwinists choose to call it.... i also know they are wrong..... the proper term for the changes that took place in the descendants of the canadian geese, that flew off course when the hawaiian islands were still young, and became the isolated nene goose of today is called adaption.... ... and it is not the same thing as evolution.... no matter how many darwinists.. christian sympathizers with darwin or macroevolutionary scientists insist on saying it is...... all of them agreeing doesn;t make any of them right.... it just makes all of them mutually wrong....[/quote]

There is an second term for "adaption" too. (Although adaption is just as common since the two are synonymous in the literature.) I'm sure you can guess that term as well.

Actually, as bad as the overview of evolutionary history was mangled above, I should go ahead and just provide the other term: "natural selection".

[quote author=aleshanee]what you choose to believe and whether you decide to follow the Bible or darwinism is up to you....... but the 2 are not compatible.....[/quote]what you choose to believe and whether you decide to follow the Bible or darwinism is up to you....... but the 2 are not compatible.....[/quote]

And, frankly, this statement is just ignorant.

 

[Holy Mole]

Actually, as bad as the overview of evolutionary history was mangled above, I should go ahead and just provide the other term: "natural selection".

The issue with "natural selection" as taught is that if one species mutates and adapts(evolves) from another giving it an advantage of survival over it therefore it survives and the other dies off according to the doctrine. If this is the case, as natural selection teaches,  why do we see so many different species(ones evolved both to and from) and so few intermediates between them e.g. primates and man.

In other words if natural selection is accurate and man evolved from the primate how is it, according to the doctrine, that the (lower) primate still remains?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Holy Mole]In other words if natural selection is accurate and man evolved from the primate how is it, according to the doctrine, that the primate still remains?[/quote]

Evolution does not teach that man evolved from primates.  :-\

 

[rsc2a]

Scientifically, they are separate species. (Honestly, a 30 second trip on wikipedia would tell you the same thing. Secondly, regarding their genetics, there is obviously differences in the genetic code or the nene would be the same size and shape and have the ability to fly. (I believe those were the three differences you pointed out.) Honestly, where do you think those things come from if not genetics? Thirdly, the great cats can interbreed, and it is well documented that both ligers and tions are both fertile hybrids of different species.

and who wrote the wikipedia article you spent 30 seconds referencing?... ..... but as far as i know none of them have written for wikipedia.... and it has never been considered an authoritative source of information for college level study anyway..... so again.... pick who want to side with.....  but understand..... none of their opinions are set in stone......

It's irrelevant. Wikipedia gives the scientific names for both, something that easily and clearly shows they are different species, a fact you simply ignored.

[quote author=aleshanee]....  i have a 4 year degree in premed biology where i learned a lot more about genetics than you will reading the selective quotes of darwinists publishing their own preconceived opinions on the internet..... i also know zoologists in the parks department who actually study and work with the nene goose here in hawaii....  even they sometimes disagree with each other over whether it is an evolved or adapted species... or whether the theory about the flock of ancient canadian geese is even correct... [/quote]

Great! Then you will know that size, shape, and the capacity for flight are something that are determined by....

genetics!


[quote author=aleshanee]by the way....  only the females among the hybrid tions and ligers are fertile.... which makes them an genetic anomaly rather than a scientific rule....[/quote]

See moving the goalposts.

There is an second term for "adaption" too. (Although adaption is just as common since the two are synonymous in the literature.) I'm sure you can guess that term as well.

Actually, as bad as the overview of evolutionary history was mangled above, I should go ahead and just provide the other term: "natural selection".

[quote author=aleshanee]again.... you bow to darwin.... and the thousands of deceived and misinformed scientists educated beyond their intelligence who have made a religion of darwins fantasies and imaginative ideas...... i would be shocked if some other professing christian here was posting the things you are saying..... but knowing your history here..... frankly.... i;m not surprised......[/quote]

Now I remember why I ignore you. Congratulations...it took you about four posts to remind me. Consider this my last response to you.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Holy Mole]In other words if natural selection is accurate and man evolved from the primate how is it, according to the doctrine, that the primate still remains?

Evolution does not teach that man evolved from primates.  :-\
[/quote]

Let me rephrase this to say that evolution does not teach that man man evolved from any other modern hominids (i.e. chimps, 'tangs, and gorillas) as your question assumes.

 

[Holy Mole]

Now I remember why I ignore you. Congratulations...it took you about four posts to remind me. Consider this my last response to you.

It is wise to avoid picking on those who so convincingly whip your fanny.

 

[Holy Mole]

[quote author=Holy Mole]In other words if natural selection is accurate and man evolved from the primate how is it, according to the doctrine, that the primate still remains?

Evolution does not teach that man evolved from primates.  :-\

Let me rephrase this to say that evolution does not teach that man man evolved from any other modern hominids (i.e. chimps, 'tangs, and gorillas) as your question assumes.
[/quote]

Evolution does not have a single source to confirm or deny what it teaches. Some have taught this other's have thought through the fundamental problem and have decided that man and the lower primates had a common, yet conveniently undiscovered, ancestor.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Holy Mole]In other words if natural selection is accurate and man evolved from the primate how is it, according to the doctrine, that the primate still remains?

Evolution does not teach that man evolved from primates.  :-\

Let me rephrase this to say that evolution does not teach that man man evolved from any other modern hominids (i.e. chimps, 'tangs, and gorillas) as your question assumes.

Evolution does not have a single source to confirm or deny what it teaches. Some have taught this other's have thought through the fundamental problem and have decided that man and the lower primates had a common, yet conveniently undiscovered, ancestor.
[/quote]

This is a different statement than the one you asked about earlier.

And, I know of absolutely no one that believes that humans evolved from the other "great apes". Do you have any source at all to back this up?

 

[rsc2a]

Interesting tidbit:

Did you guys know that we have a 50% DNA commonality with bananas?
Did you know that we have a 70% DNA commonality with sea sponges?
Did you know that we have about an 80% DNA commonality with cows?
Did you know that we have about a 90% DNA commonality with cats?
Did you know we have about a 97% DNA commonality with chimpanzees?

 

[lnf]

Interesting tidbit:

Did you guys know that we have a 50% DNA commonality with bananas?
Did you know that we have a 70% DNA commonality with sea sponges?
Did you know that we have about an 80% DNA commonality with cows?
Did you know that we have about a 90% DNA commonality with cats?
Did you know we have about a 97% DNA commonality with chimpanzees?

And this proves?  That our Creator created all living things from the same basic raw materials?  Hmm...sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Holy Mole]

Ps 139:14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

 

[ddgently]

I don't think we need to assume it, per se. I think the evidence points toward a lack of understanding of what we would consider modern cosmology. Given that Moses doesn't mention a round earth, and that the Genesis 1 narrative comports with the cosmology of other cultures at the time (flat, disc-shaped earth covered by a solid dome), and that knowledge of a round earth isn't recorded anywhere until 800-900 (my dates could be, and probably are off) years after Moses, I think it is safe to say that neither Moses, nor the patriarchs, nor the early Israelite settlers would have known about, let alone believe in, a round earth.

Okay. I can agree with one part of your statement. We do not know how full Moses' knowledge was of the earth. We do know that he was told about the firmament. Did he know exactly what that was? He knew enough that there was a divide between the waters above and below. How much water above? We are not given that info either.

What we must reject is that Scripture speaks wrongly about the reality of our cosmos. I start from the basis that Scripture is not thwarted by science.

If you hold that Scripture can never speak wrongly about anything, you put yourself in a tight spot where you have to defend some indefensible things. I don't care how you want to reinterpret it now, but if you take the text at its word, it does assume (I wouldn't say teach, because the Scriptures don't intend to answer questions about natural history) that the earth is flat, that there is a solid dome of the sky, that it sits on a solid foundation, that the earth does not move, that the sun goes around the earth, etc. The Scripture is "wrong" about science (1) because it is not attempting to teach either its original audience, nor us, about science, and (2) because why would we expect a book written in 1500 BC to speak accurately about the state of scientific knowledge in 2014? Books that are attempting to teach something about science are out-of-date within 20 years

"fountains of the deep" is still idiomatic....I think leading creation scientists would disagree.

The article notes that "fountains" means "oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water." They would not disagree with it being idiomatic.

But Genesis 1 is poetry, and yet it is interpreted as though it were the first chapter of a history textbook!

I'm not against the idea that Genesis 1 has poetic elements (chiasmus and . However, the structure of the verses are typical Hebrew narrative. The use of the consecutive waw ("and") at the beginning of vv 3,6,9,14,20,24 are typical narrative markers.

It is a narrative that sets the setting for understanding the theological significance of the fall which follows. God created all things, man and then enjoyed a Sabbath.

Both you and rsc2a do not understand what "literalism" means.

D.A. Carson has a good discussion on this in his book: Biblical Interpretation and the Church. He says "In biblical interpretation the literal meaning of a passage has been identified with the meaning intended by the author."

That means the "literalist" recognizes metaphors as metaphors, figures of speech as figures of speech... etc.

Because some do not understand what "literalism" means, I just say "I interpret the Bible normally."

And we should recognize that the meaning intended by the author of Genesis 1 and 2 was to explain who created and why he did it, not how he did it. The highly symbolic language tells us that this is his intent.

Yep. A misnomer about creationists AND evolutionism.

A flu strain mutates into ANOTHER flu strain.

A flu strain will never evolve into a DIFFERENT species.

Another misnomer about evolution. Given enough time, a bacteria can become non-bacteria. Unicellular yeast can become multicellular (Google it). It's like saying, "Oh yes, a man can take a step from his house in Pascedena. He can even take several steps, but he's still in Pascendena. But it's absurd to say that he'll ever get out of Pascedena, let alone that he'll end up in Flagstaff, Az!"

i really don;t understand why some professing christians have a problem with the biblical account.........  no... genesis does not spell out in modern scientific terms that the earth is a planetary sphere which rotates on it;s polar axis ... orbiting the sun.. which is actually a star many times larger than the earth... along with a collection of other planets in a solar system which is just one of possibly millions in the universe......nor does it explain the science or physical principles of where all the water in the flood was kept prior to the deluge or the geo dynamics of where it all went after the flood was over..... 

but could the people in the time of genesis have even understood all that if it did?....  and what purpose would it have served them to know all that at that point in history anyway?...... such knowledge would have probably served as a distraction to what God wanted them to do.... and possibly even put them in danger.... in a greater way then even the tower of babel did....... the way i see it God told them what He wanted them to know and in a way they could understand it at the time..... .

but in all the things that God did tell them He didn;t tell them anything that was wrong.... no where in the bible does it say the earth is flat and that if you travel too far you will fall off the edge.....  that is something mankind came up with on his own out of ignorance..... and yet it was an ignorance that actually did him no harm at the time either..... regardless of how those who would deny God anyway have used it ever since..... satan trying to poke holes in the Word of God is nothing new... he has been trying to do it since the days in the garden of eden.....

You're actually pretty close here. They wouldn't have understood it if God had told them all we know today. So he didn't. He spoke to them in ways they understood (Theologians call this condescension). Ancient Near Easterners understood the earth to be flat, immobile, and covered by a solid dome, so God spoke to them about his creation in that language. It's like telling a toddler that his mommy has a baby in her tummy. We know that the fetus is not literally in its mothers stomach, but we've explained what the toddler needs to know in language he or she understands.

Actually, as bad as the overview of evolutionary history was mangled above, I should go ahead and just provide the other term: "natural selection".

The issue with "natural selection" as taught is that if one species mutates and adapts(evolves) from another giving it an advantage of survival over it therefore it survives and the other dies off according to the doctrine. If this is the case, as natural selection teaches,  why do we see so many different species(ones evolved both to and from) and so few intermediates between them e.g. primates and man.

In other words if natural selection is accurate and man evolved from the primate how is it, according to the doctrine, that the (lower) primate still remains?

This is a terrible argument. I don't mind if you're YEC, but you should avoid patently absurd arguments. If you take Genesis 2 literally, then let me ask you, why is there still dirt?

 

[Holy Mole]

I don't think we need to assume it, per se. I think the evidence points toward a lack of understanding of what we would consider modern cosmology. Given that Moses doesn't mention a round earth, and that the Genesis 1 narrative comports with the cosmology of other cultures at the time (flat, disc-shaped earth covered by a solid dome), and that knowledge of a round earth isn't recorded anywhere until 800-900 (my dates could be, and probably are off) years after Moses, I think it is safe to say that neither Moses, nor the patriarchs, nor the early Israelite settlers would have known about, let alone believe in, a round earth.

Okay. I can agree with one part of your statement. We do not know how full Moses' knowledge was of the earth. We do know that he was told about the firmament. Did he know exactly what that was? He knew enough that there was a divide between the waters above and below. How much water above? We are not given that info either.

What we must reject is that Scripture speaks wrongly about the reality of our cosmos. I start from the basis that Scripture is not thwarted by science.

If you hold that Scripture can never speak wrongly about anything, you put yourself in a tight spot where you have to defend some indefensible things. I don't care how you want to reinterpret it now, but if you take the text at its word, it does assume (I wouldn't say teach, because the Scriptures don't intend to answer questions about natural history) that the earth is flat, that there is a solid dome of the sky, that it sits on a solid foundation, that the earth does not move, that the sun goes around the earth, etc. The Scripture is "wrong" about science (1) because it is not attempting to teach either its original audience, nor us, about science, and (2) because why would we expect a book written in 1500 BC to speak accurately about the state of scientific knowledge in 2014? Books that are attempting to teach something about science are out-of-date within 20 years

"fountains of the deep" is still idiomatic....I think leading creation scientists would disagree.

The article notes that "fountains" means "oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water." They would not disagree with it being idiomatic.

But Genesis 1 is poetry, and yet it is interpreted as though it were the first chapter of a history textbook!

I'm not against the idea that Genesis 1 has poetic elements (chiasmus and . However, the structure of the verses are typical Hebrew narrative. The use of the consecutive waw ("and") at the beginning of vv 3,6,9,14,20,24 are typical narrative markers.

It is a narrative that sets the setting for understanding the theological significance of the fall which follows. God created all things, man and then enjoyed a Sabbath.

Both you and rsc2a do not understand what "literalism" means.

D.A. Carson has a good discussion on this in his book: Biblical Interpretation and the Church. He says "In biblical interpretation the literal meaning of a passage has been identified with the meaning intended by the author."

That means the "literalist" recognizes metaphors as metaphors, figures of speech as figures of speech... etc.

Because some do not understand what "literalism" means, I just say "I interpret the Bible normally."

And we should recognize that the meaning intended by the author of Genesis 1 and 2 was to explain who created and why he did it, not how he did it. The highly symbolic language tells us that this is his intent.

Yep. A misnomer about creationists AND evolutionism.

A flu strain mutates into ANOTHER flu strain.

A flu strain will never evolve into a DIFFERENT species.

Another misnomer about evolution. Given enough time, a bacteria can become non-bacteria. Unicellular yeast can become multicellular (Google it). It's like saying, "Oh yes, a man can take a step from his house in Pascedena. He can even take several steps, but he's still in Pascendena. But it's absurd to say that he'll ever get out of Pascedena, let alone that he'll end up in Flagstaff, Az!"

i really don;t understand why some professing christians have a problem with the biblical account.........  no... genesis does not spell out in modern scientific terms that the earth is a planetary sphere which rotates on it;s polar axis ... orbiting the sun.. which is actually a star many times larger than the earth... along with a collection of other planets in a solar system which is just one of possibly millions in the universe......nor does it explain the science or physical principles of where all the water in the flood was kept prior to the deluge or the geo dynamics of where it all went after the flood was over..... 

but could the people in the time of genesis have even understood all that if it did?....  and what purpose would it have served them to know all that at that point in history anyway?...... such knowledge would have probably served as a distraction to what God wanted them to do.... and possibly even put them in danger.... in a greater way then even the tower of babel did....... the way i see it God told them what He wanted them to know and in a way they could understand it at the time..... .

but in all the things that God did tell them He didn;t tell them anything that was wrong.... no where in the bible does it say the earth is flat and that if you travel too far you will fall off the edge.....  that is something mankind came up with on his own out of ignorance..... and yet it was an ignorance that actually did him no harm at the time either..... regardless of how those who would deny God anyway have used it ever since..... satan trying to poke holes in the Word of God is nothing new... he has been trying to do it since the days in the garden of eden.....

You're actually pretty close here. They wouldn't have understood it if God had told them all we know today. So he didn't. He spoke to them in ways they understood (Theologians call this condescension). Ancient Near Easterners understood the earth to be flat, immobile, and covered by a solid dome, so God spoke to them about his creation in that language. It's like telling a toddler that his mommy has a baby in her tummy. We know that the fetus is not literally in its mothers stomach, but we've explained what the toddler needs to know in language he or she understands.

Actually, as bad as the overview of evolutionary history was mangled above, I should go ahead and just provide the other term: "natural selection".

The issue with "natural selection" as taught is that if one species mutates and adapts(evolves) from another giving it an advantage of survival over it therefore it survives and the other dies off according to the doctrine. If this is the case, as natural selection teaches,  why do we see so many different species(ones evolved both to and from) and so few intermediates between them e.g. primates and man.

In other words if natural selection is accurate and man evolved from the primate how is it, according to the doctrine, that the (lower) primate still remains?

This is a terrible argument. I don't mind if you're YEC, but you should avoid patently absurd arguments. If you take Genesis 2 literally, then let me ask you, why is there still dirt?

Talk about an absurd argument. God made man from the dirt he did not mutate the dirt through a gradual process killing off the lesser evolved forms of dirt through "natural selection" until the dirt, through spontaneous generation, became man.  The dirt was nothing more than a raw material. Is that the best you have? 

You still haven't answered the question about the validity of natural selection in the face of alleged lower species evolving into higher species while the lower species are yet remaining and thriving.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

His thoughts on people who accept "micro-evolution" and deny "macro-evolution": selective ignorance. Scientifically speaking, they are the same thing.

No, they are not.  Microevolution can be observed and tested.  Macroevolution is just the imagination that given enough time, microevolution would lead to macroevolution.  But that hypothesis has never been observed or tested. 

 

[ddgently]

Talk about an absurd argument. God made man from the dirt he did not mutate the dirt through a gradual process killing off the lesser evolved forms of dirt through "natural selection" until the dirt, through spontaneous generation, became man.  The dirt was nothing more than a raw material. Is that the best you have? 

You still haven't answered the question about the validity of natural selection in the face of alleged lower species evolving into higher species while the lower species are yet remaining and thriving.

It's kind of a joke, but whatever.

As to "lower" species remaining after "higher" species evolve, it's all about changing environments and selective pressures varying across space and time. Take for example bonobos and chimpanzees, which share a recent common ancestor. They were separated by a natural barrier that created two separate breeding populations, leaving them to go in different directions.

So whether its a river, or a mountain, or a canyon or an ocean, populations that were once the same species can become different species, with the old one still thriving in the old environment.

His thoughts on people who accept "micro-evolution" and deny "macro-evolution": selective ignorance. Scientifically speaking, they are the same thing.

No, they are not.  Microevolution can be observed and tested.  Macroevolution is just the imagination that given enough time, microevolution would lead to macroevolution.  But that hypothesis has never been observed or tested. 

The problem is that those terms don't really mean anything, biologically. Like you said, "macro" evolution is just the accumulation of enough "micro" changes for us to notice a big difference. And no, you can't watch it happen in the lab (unless you count microscopic organisms, which you should, because five minutes on Google will yield you hundreds of results demonstrating macroevolution in the lab), you can observe it for larger organisms in the fossil record.

 

[christundivided]

The problem is that those terms don't really mean anything, biologically. Like you said, "macro" evolution is just the accumulation of enough "micro" changes for us to notice a big difference. And no, you can't watch it happen in the lab (unless you count microscopic organisms, which you should, because five minutes on Google will yield you hundreds of results demonstrating macroevolution in the lab), you can observe it for larger organisms in the fossil record.

Care to point to a specific case witnessed in the fossil record???

For the record,  I am not a young earth creationist. I happen to believe in my own form of the gap theory. I haven't read the entire thread and I don't really care to. If you have already answered this, could you point me in the right direction?

Also, I have asked many people like you this question and never gotten a satisfactory answer.....

What is "Adam" to you? and how does your view of "Adam" affect your theology?

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The problem is that those terms don't really mean anything, biologically. Like you said, "macro" evolution is just the accumulation of enough "micro" changes for us to notice a big difference. And no, you can't watch it happen in the lab (unless you count microscopic organisms, which you should, because five minutes on Google will yield you hundreds of results demonstrating macroevolution in the lab), you can observe it for larger organisms in the fossil record.

Not only are the terms inadequate, they also keep changing and contradict themselves. 

For example, I had an argument with an evolutionist who used the case of mosquitoes in a subway to "prove" macroevolution.  Mosquitoes split off and changed enough that they couldn't produce offspring with the original set of mosquitoes.  He called that "speciation" meaning there's a new species, hence macroevolution is true. 

No, I say, they're still mosquitoes.  They just can't reproduce with their original kin.  Worse, his definition of speciation gets destroyed by the fact that you can cross a lion with a tiger. 

No, he says, that's evidence that they have a common ancestor.

So when a mosquito can't reproduce with a mosquito, that's evolution.  And when a lion can reproduce with a tiger, that's evolution.  Therefore everything is evolution. 

Face it:  Evolutionists can imagine an evolution explanation behind everything, and creationists can imagine a creation/intelligent design explanation behind everything.  All that proves is man has a good imagination.  We all interpret the evidence according to our imaginative assumptions, but none of us were there to see how the evidence was produced. 

If anything, the intelligent design people have done more to test their hypothesis than evolutionists.  We do intelligent design all day long, every day.  We just don't design new life forms.  But we prove intelligent design is possible every time we create a web site or design a new car.