Do you believe in macroevolution?

[Skeptic]

I dont believe that a species can completely change to another. One evolutionary scientist (cant remember names) was doing work with wild cabbages and showing all the different types of cabbages he "evolved" from the one species. He ended up with all these different types such as red cabbage broccoli etc. In the end they were all still cabbages.

One experiment done over the career of one scientist doesn't disprove evolution. Give it a few million years and it won't be the same species. You've got to remember that evolution has been playing out since the dawn of life some 4 billion years ago. A time frame that's hard for a human to contemplate.

[Surroundx]

One evolutionary scientist (cant remember names) was doing work with wild cabbages and showing all the different types of cabbages he "evolved" from the one species. He ended up with all these different types such as red cabbage broccoli etc. In the end they were all still cabbages. Its the same with dogs they are bred for their traits buts the species doesn't change.

Any given species cannot just turn into a new species, even given thousands of years or even hundreds of thousands of years (or more again). Phenotypic plasticity is only finite for any given organism, and especially limited for some species depending upon their morphology and physiology. Look up "developmental constraint" on Google.

Well we seem to agree that the only difference between the two is time.

The only difference between the two is that one is the accumulation of the other over time. So I wouldn't say that the difference is time. The difference is the number of genetic changes.

However, when you say that any orthodox Darwinian must accept both, I say that any orthodox Darwinian sees the terms as a false dichotomy.

I didn't actually say that any orthodox Darwinian must accept both. I made what I think is a slightly lesser claim that, on the practical level, it is a preposterous notion to accept one but not the other in the eyes of an orthodox Darwinian. I don't know if that makes any difference, but I was allowing for the fact that somebody would object if I made such a seemingly overconfident statement. Perhaps some orthodox Darwinists do not believe it necessary to accept both, though obviously they themselves do accept the reality of both.

And you are right in correcting me that proponents of intelligent design didn't actually invent the terms micro and macro evolution.

The terms were first used in 1927 by the Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in his book on evolution

Variabilität und Variation.

However, modern day proponents of I.D have re-invented the terms to present their idea's as scientific and credible when they are not.

I wasn't aware that the terms had such vintage as 1927, same year Parliament House, Canberra, opened. Thanks for the consciousness-raising

Also, even though you say the I.D movement started in 1984, this was only when they dumped the term creationism and took on the new title I.D in an attempt to sneak back into the education system.

Eugenie Scott is the one who states that the movement began in 1984. I was simply quoting her on it, as somewhat of an authority figure. Though of course authorities can be wrong, and science is by its very nature provisional.

As for my last remark, "Reality doesn't give a **** about your beliefs". That's just a saying. I wasn't referring to your beliefs.

I though as much, which is why I didn't not mention it in my reply

BTW, I'm a big fan of Eugenie Scott and the NCSE and think without them, education in the U.S would be in a sorrier state.

Amen to that!