I agree with this ^^
That is two things papa and I have agreed about on this site
We've been over this before. Every time someone gives you an example of evolution that has been observed, even speciation, you complain that it's not a T-Rex turning into a chicken. The issue is not with the theory, it is that you ask for impossible stuff to demonstrate. You're being like Heiwa, who wants you to blow a hydrogen bomb in his face to believe you.
Oh btw, I guess archeology isn't a science either by your definition. Interesting.
Nope...nice deflection though.
I simply want one repeatable test I can perform in a controlled setting that will show me macro evolution...if it is part of science and can be considered a "fact" then this will be easy correct?
Otherwise we are simply a religion or belief....
Oh ok. So we call archeology a religion, or a belief. That's good to know.
If I apply a force of 10 quadrillion newtons to an object with a mass of 1 quadrillion kilos, do you feel confident enough that it will accelerate at 10m/s? Or are you going to say it's "macro physics" and Newton's laws don't apply, and that it's a religion because you can't actually demonstrate it?
Similarly, the genetic mechanisms that guide evolution are well understood, but because you can't turn a T-Rex to a chicken in a laboratory environment they will find something to whine about. People will give you examples of speciation but you'll say "they're still rats" or "they're still bacteria" or "they're still moths". Just admit that even if I showed you a rat evolving to a mouse, you'd still complain that it's "still a rodent".
"Macroevolution" is just the same things that cause "microevolution", but applied over a very long span of time.
This is a good link:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.htmlEspecially the drosophila flies, which have been part of lab experiments.
I also remember reading about some italian lizzards that have grown an extra intestine muscle in the span of a few decades. I don't think they have speciated yet though.