MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

As scientists use the terms, microevolution is evolution which happens in a short period of time, and macroevolution is evolution which happens over a long period of time.That's all.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Interesting question. First of all, if there were genes in fish (say) containing instructions for humans (say) but not expressed, then they would have no bearing on the fitness of fish, and so natural selection wouldn't prevent the degradation of these genes millions of years before we could use them. There are such genes, as there should be. There are no unrelated species, and scientists are not surprised. Given that all DNA is made of combinations of just four bases, one can trivially get any human gene by shuffling fish DNA, in small enough chunks.If I make an anagram out of selected portions of, say, the text of Moby Dick, does that mean that the information in the anagram was always present in MOby Dick?

Such things can and do happen, but so do a lot of other mutations too.But it can hardly be "front-loaded evolution" unless the genetic material was there from the very beginning, and unless there was some guiding mechanism to make the specific bits of DNA to get shuffled in that way. Otherwise it would just be a lucky chance.And, as I've pointed out, if the junk DNA was there from the origin of life, then it would have been degraded by mutation because there'd be no conservative selection pressures acting on it.

But they is no mechanism to do so. Or do you suppose that God performs a miracle with every meiosis? No. Float, yes, because their fat makes them buoyant. To say that they can swim is stretching it a little. Why? The ability to swim has a fairly obvious survival advantage. Most mammals can do so. (1) Bollocks.(2) The proponents of the AAT are, in fact, all what you would so quaintly refer to as "darwinists".

But of course you cannot quote a single "darwinian" claiming that this is a fact, because this is some stupid gibberish you've made up in your head.

Of course we scavenged after carnivores --- people still do.But no-one is claiming that tapeworms are proof of this, since they could be transmitted either through scavenging antelope carcasses or by hunting them ourselves.Your claim that "human were scavengers by parasite phylogeny conclusion" is simply a load of bollocks, and no "darwinist" has made this claim, which is gibberish which you made up in your head.What parasite phylogeny tells us is that tapeworms were initially transmitted to humans from wild animals, not domesticated animals, which is what the article actually says.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes, of course. Which has what to do with your gibberish?

Surely some mistake?

Just when I thought I'd seen it all ...