The only difference between micro- and macro-evolution is the taxonomic level at which it occurs: microevolution referes to evolutionary change below the level of the species and macro-evolution to evolutionary change at or above the level of teh species. Nothing else distinguishes them from each other.
"The very notion that the eye could evolve is absolutely ridiculous."
>>No, it isn't, In fact, we have an excellent understanding of the stages by which a complex eye would evolve, given that those intermediate stages still exist in living organisms like molluscs, planaria, nuatilus's (see <link> ).
"I call BS. Any idiot can make an argument based on infinity."
>>The conclusion that eyes are the result of evolution isn't based on infinity. In fact, the eye-spot to complex eye could occur fairly rapidly (see <link>).
"The probabilities against this sort of thing are so vast that only an argument of infinity can satisfy them."
>>How excatly have you calaculated the probability agaisnt, and is the exact value? Show your math.
Re: Monkey's typing Shakespeare
Monkey's typing randomly at a keyboard does not model fundamental elements of evolutionary change--it incorporates neither selection with resepct to environment nor inheritance of traits selected for by subsequent generations.
But if we're going to use monkey’s typing randomly to represent natural mechanisms that introduce change in a population’s genetic composition, we can add those necessary elements to our example by stating that whenever a monkey types a character in the correct location not only will subsequent attempts by that monkey begin with that character in place (selection) but all other monkeys typing away will begin subsequent attempts with that character alredy fixed in place (inheritance).
As time progresses and more and more characters become fixed in the 'population' of letters we'll wind up with texts more and more similar to the final complete works of Shakespeare.
With selection and inheritance added Shakespeare’s plays can rapidly be generated by small numbers of random generators—monkeys, computers, whatever. In 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed, modeling how evolution selects for adaptive changes produced by mutations. On average, the program re-created the phrase TOBEORNOTTOBE in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. The entire play "Hamlet" took just four and a half days to generate.
And that was a single random generator—a single monkey, as it were.
