Talk:Macroevolution

	This Creationism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Joke

I must protest. The joke at the end of the article is far too obscure for me to get!--Greenrd 19:54, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I know, its kind of random! I cant get it either! Elassint 20:01, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

? thought it was just me Susan^{speak your mind} 20:08, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't get it either. Locke ^{Always Watching......} 20:37, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Just went and listened to the song again. I enjoyed the song, but still don't understand the joke. --Kels 20:43, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

HAHAHA! I get it. Thats a hilarious joke. Bohdan 20:52, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Ha.........ha...... Locke ^{Always Watching......} 20:58, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

I know my Beatles pretty well (my old gf will disagree) but I don't get it either.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 21:51, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Contradiction

There appears to be a contradiction between two sections of this article: "it is impossible to have the concept of one without the other," yet "it is possible to skip the micro and create new species out of the blue." That section actually addresses macroevolution without microevolution, and doesn't directly support the creationist claim of microevolution without macroevolution, but the contradiction is bad. I have given a tentative rewording based on my understanding that each can occur without the other, but it is not possible for one to be true and not the other; what does everyone think? Wehpudicabok 07:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Creationist Definition of Macroevolution

I notice the article didnt put the creationists' criteria for what constitutes macroevolution:

When an organism develops new form and structure and is able to pass it on to its offspring

Should I include it in the article? --UpLink (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda dubious that is their definition, as we've seen that happen, live, right in front of us, and yet creationists say "nope, not macro". But if you have a cite, then add it! GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 16:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise creationists had an agreed upon non-arbitrary definition of it. ^{d hominem} 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I hear neph use form and structure as a definition of macroevolution in his vids all the time, but for some reason I can find it. instead I found something else similar:

The origin of new large-scale features such as organs or body plans.

http://creationwiki.org/Macroevolution#Definitions --UpLink (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

something I must say

I dont know if this point has been brought up before by anyone, but in general creationists do not seem to understand that a change . . . is not immune to change, they will believe that a person can be born with larger teeth . . . but they dont seem to understand, that those teeth can still get larger in subsequent generations . . . 71.238.243.98 (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)