>>14231954>Wrong. Selection produces evolutionary patterns.You just fucking verbatim stated that nothing you said implied selection of patterns you absolutely delusional retard. Which is it??????
>The definition you gave says evolutionary patterns and processesYes and you failed to imply either.
>so even if you were right HAHA of course I'm right.
>about selection not being related to patternsNever said this. More of your desperate strawmen. You verbatim said you were not implying selection of a pattern. This might be the most pathetic evolutionist retard nonsense cope I've ever seen, and that's really saying something.
>it still an evolutionary processThe definition was referring to biological processes, not a natural selection or evolutionary processes. And if a biological process occurs above the species level it means it is happening consistently across multiple species, which is just another more wordy way of saying it's a pattern. Every time you open your mouth you prove how much of a desperate fool you are. Just give up.
>Difference?A point mutation that changes your genome isn't a a change in frequency of genes in a population. Again, take a biology class you ignorant child. You can't even get the definition of evolution itself right yet you think you understand macro evolution.
>Wrong. See I already easily debunked this delusional strawman that you abandoned. I have used the term correctly this entire time and in no way have I ever implied macro evo = speciation
At this point you are directly admitting you aren't using the word correctly
>neither are required by the definition HAHAH WHAT?!?! They are directly stated in the definition hahaha! Is english your first language?? How can anyone be this stupid????
>Ive already had this conversation with you and already explained the meaning to you in a previous thread.I haven't discussed macro on /sci/ in an extremely long time. You genuinely are schizophrenic and need to seek professional help.
