MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

A smokescreen where any evidence offered to support evolution can be shunted into "microevolution" which, it is claimed, was never under contention in the first place.And since the terms are perpetually undefined, it's remarkably easy to employ the smokescreen. Since "macroevolution" is never defined, it's impossible to objectively determine what evidence would be required to support it.

Why? Philosophers do philosophy because, as humans, they've chosen to study it; not because it's in their genes. When Plato wrote the Dialogues it wasn't an expression of the content of his DNA.All I'm saying is that you're radically overestimating the number of genes it takes to specify a fish or a person. Did you know that humans have less than 20,000 genes? That's less genes than this guy:Concerns about genetic information are interesting, but it's not the whole picture. The evolutionary mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation are sufficient to account for all the genetic information necessary for the Earth's different species, because we're just not talking about all that much information. Mutation increases information.

Remember when I disproved that back in More Evidence of Evolution - Geomyidae and Geomydoecus?We know that the information was not front-loaded because we know - for a fact, as proven by "co-speciating" species - that these informational changes are the result of environment and mutation, not pre-programmed changes happening over time. If I understand what you're referring to, you read wrong. The Human Genome Project results from Venter's Celera company came from whole-genome shotgun sequencing of nuclear DNA, not RNA.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Largely this reflects the ambiguity of what constitutes a "species" - by definition, a "reproductive community" - among asexual organisms. It doesn't have anything to do with whether macroevolution can happen in bacteria. While it's frequently ambiguous whether any two related bacteria are the same species or not, there's no question that there are multiple species of bacteria.It's a bit like asking when it started raining. There's no ambiguity between clear skies and a torrential downpour, but is it "raining" when you're splashed by a single drop? Most people would say "no." Two drops, probably the same. Fifty drops? Definitely raining. Five drops? Maybe, maybe not. The transition from "not raining" to "raining" is ambiguous even though the beginning and end of the transition is completely obvious; everybody can tell whether or not it's raining. Species in bacteria are the same way - exactly the situation we would expect if species-level macroevolution was underway in bacteria, as we know that it is.