Macro, Micro or both?

[celtic friend]

Do you believe in Macroevolution, Microevolution or both?

[swivel]

I don't think you can get the former without the latter. So the question could be rephrased:

Do you believe in Macroevolution?

If yes, you believe in both. If no, you don't believe in evolution (which is an observed phenomenon).

[celtic friend]

I only asked the question because in recent weeks or trips ( I listen to talk radio), I have heard the argument for Micro only not Marcoevolution.
So I will say, you are right and the heading should have been more thought of and rephrased.
You can believe in Micro w/o Macro, but not Macro w/o Micro.

[swivel]

I only asked the question because in recent weeks or trips ( I listen to talk radio), I have heard the argument for Micro only not Marcoevolution.
So I will say, you are right and the heading should have been more thought of and rephrased.
You can believe in Micro w/o Macro, but not Macro w/o Micro.

And both are observable phenomenon. It should be called the "Law of Evolution" and the "Theory of Natural Selection".

We know that organisms have evolved. All evidence points towards Natural Selection as the driving mechanism.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Its called theory, because it's exactly that. Theory.

It has to be observed, tested, reproduced to even quality as scientific fact, and it hasnt, and cant.

[What Would Satan Do]

Its called theory, because it's exactly that. Theory.

It has to be observed, tested, reproduced to even quality as scientific fact, and it hasnt, and cant.

Just because it hasn't been tested doesn't mean it could not be. (It'd be one hell of a long experiment though)
The "theory" however is based on observable scientific facts.

[swivel]

Its called theory, because it's exactly that. Theory.

It has to be observed, tested, reproduced to even quality as scientific fact, and it hasnt, and cant.

It does not have to be observed to qualify as fact. Observation can be of evidence left behind. We understand plate tectonics without observing the actual drift of continents. We knew the principles of diamond formation before we got to watch them grow under heat and pressure in the lab. We know that the planets formed via accretion by looking at impact craters, and the belt of debris that exists were a planet should have formed, but couldn't due to Jupiter's gravity well.

Lucky for us, you are wrong on both counts. Not only do we NOT need observation to prove a law, we HAVE observed evolution on numerous accounts. And we have thousands of transitional fossils that allow us to "observe" the process of macro-evolution as well.

It is the most-tested theory in human history, and it has survived all rival theories. No other scientific field has been as stable as biology, because no other field has had a perfect theory created by a genius so far ahead of their time. What Darwin did would only be equaled by a Newton skipping gravitational theory and going straight to relativity. The only other field of thought that has remained so stable, despite so much criticism, is the economics of Adam Smith.