MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

Even that minor amount of research is completely unecessary. RAZD presented definitions for both micro and macro-evolution right before asking Big Al for his definitions.

You are the one who introduced the requirement that evolution be observed. So why don't you give us your definition. I suspect that your definition will require a time machine and that we will know that you are not participating in good faith.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'll also note that the association of Ham with the the Negroid is a concept that most people find abhorent.I'd be inclined to use stronger negative terms than boo-boo, for this crap.

It's not uncommon to see the term 'political correct' used to defend racist nonsense.Do you really believe that you can trace racial differences to one of Noah's sons or alternatively to separate lines traceable to a single set of siblings? This isn't an issue of what the government says, or of political correctness or a denial of science. This is you spouting 18th century nonsense used to justify enslaving African people.

The point of the summary at the link you point to is that definitions do matter, and it is a matter of definition as to whether certain examples of evolution should be called macroevolution.You are doing a great job of demonstrating RAZD's point.

Actually creationists do have a definition of macro-evolution. Macro evolution is evolution that produces an organism that is of a different kind than the created kind of its ancestors.The problem is that baraminology is a complete joke. The Bible lists only a few kinds, and leaves us to speculate as to the kind of all other life forms. Further, there is no mention in the Bible of any eukaryotic microbes or any reasonable way to make inferences regarding what "kind" a bacteria might be.It's as if the whole text were written before the germ theory of disease was ever proposed. Oh wait...

I don't believe that Creationists are playing 'hide the football' or 'move the goal posts' with "kinds". There is no football and no "goal posts. Creationists don't have any way of telling whether a whale shark and a dwarf shark are of the same kind or are totally different kind until a scientists proves that those sharks share a common ancestor.All they've got to go on is a very few verses in Genesis dealing with the kinds God created and the kinds Noah loaded on the ark. And IMO, their reading of those verses borders on numerology.In short, the creationist definition of macroevolution is any evolution in contradiction to Genesis. It is indeed a waste of time to ask a creationist to do better than that.