<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 9.00.8112.16441"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>From:
Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org><BR><BR>: What scientists claim is that
evolution can explain the origin of species, <BR>: which is the very thing we
dispute. Not gonna loop to that because it's <BR>: been done and done and
done...[--TK]<BR><BR>Then you might recall that I posted examples of
documented speciation, and<BR>not "just" to explain the fossil record. Check
out the examples
at<BR><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation>.<BR><BR>"Macroevolution",
as far as I can tell, is used in popular parlance only as<BR>a way to divide
off whatever aspect of evolution a Creationist wants to<BR>claim hasn't been
seen in today's world from those that have, so that<BR>they can deny it
occurs. And as more things are proven, "macroevolution"<BR>shifts in meaning.
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution#Misuse>.<BR><BR>--
<BR>Micha Berger </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>>>>>></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I read the wiki articles and don't see what they add to the
discussion. The first is entirely speculative. It uses the present
tense as if it is talking about something that happens right now under our eyes,
but is in fact talking about things that evolutionists believe happened eons
ago:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Example: "There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on
the extent to which speciating populations are geographically isolated from one
another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Example: "During allopatric speciation, a population splits into two
geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due
to geographical change such as mountain building). The isolated populations then
undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence." </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Example: "In peripatric speciation, a subform of allopatric speciation, new
species are formed in isolated, smaller peripheral populations that are
prevented from exchanging genes with the main population."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Did you get the choice bit about "geographical change such as mountain
building"? It's using the present tense to talk about things that take
millions of years to happen.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>No new species have ever occurred in actual historic time except in the
most trivial sense that children come into being that cannot mate with their
parents -- e.g., some kind of hybrid grass that can't reproduce with its male or
female progenitor grasses. It's still grass with the exact DNA it
inherited from pater and mater.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Not only do they define "evolution" in a very elastic way, they also define
"species" elastically, so they can use trivial everyday phenomena to "prove"
events that happened millions of years ago.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Your second wiki link takes us to an anti-religious polemic dressed up
as science. Done and done and done, thank you.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But I do have a question for you. Why the contempt for
"Creationists"? Aren't YOU a creationist? Don't you /have/ to be a
creationist to be on Avodah?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial FAMILY="SANSSERIF"
PTSIZE="10"><BR><STRONG>--Toby Katz<BR>=============</STRONG><BR>Romney -- good
values, good family, good hair<BR><BR><BR></FONT></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>