I was avoiding this thread, but since I am now here...
I might as well comment on the micro-macro argument.
You should understand that the point of the statement, though perhaps not even understood by those who use it, is that they don't believe evolution amounts to some of the changes that have been believed to have been made over the years. It isn't [i]just[/i] an argument of time, because I see this type of thing all over the place when I see statistics that go over periods of time either into the future or into the past before well-recorded history. It is a staple of understanding statistics well that you remember not to extrapolate past a known set of data. Well, rather, if the purpose is to be absolutely accurate. When looking at the future, predictions are made that may or may not be accurate due to missing information. Likewise, looking at the past can yield the same result.
That, I think, is part of the reason for people to make such arguments. And on such a grand scale, I would not necessarily fault them for it.
What I would fault them for is saying that evolution itself is not an important part of the development of life [i]because[/i] of this argument, as I have also seen this occur.
English
-
The "tree of life" is most certainly one that can be argued about. What links to what, where this split from that, etc.