"Its proof of macro-evolution we need to see and micro-evolution is not macro."
What exactly distinguishes macro-evolution from micro-evolution?
Someone in a previous post mentioned a creature that is 1/2 dog and 1/2 man or some such combo are not out and about because macro-evolution does not exist. Would finding such creatures be evidence of 'macro-evolution'?
Maybe not quite as dramatic as a dog-man chimera, but consider that the human genome and the [bleep] genome are more than 98% identical in sequence. In essence, humans carry the evidence of [bleep] within every one of their cells.
Disregarding the moral, ethical and practical issues, and they would be considerable, is there any doubt in your mind that if the remaining 2% of the differences were changed, step wise, via laboratory gene transfer techniques, that what was originally fully human could become fully [bleep] or vice versa?
