Re: Evidence


Skeets wrote:
> >>So-called "micro-" and "macro-evolution" are exactly the same thing_, with "macro" being no more than the accumulated changes that come from "micro".
>
> in theory - this has never been observed

Nonsense.

> and is taken as a matter of
> faith.

Nonsense.

> the fossil record doesn't have gaps... it may reasonably just
> be a whole bunch of nothing - so we don't get any concrete guidance
> there.

Nonsense.

> well, we do know that simple things tended to develop before
> more complex things. this is pretty clear and it may infer
> macroevolution... or not.
>
> we don't know.

Nonsense.

>
>
> >> We have directly witnessed genetic material
> being added to the genome, subtracted from it, and and changed through
> imperfect copying.<<
>
> without intelligence monitoring and controlling the process?

Unresponsive question.

> iow, in
> the wild?

Unresponsive question.

> you don't state any specific examples... why?

Irresponsible question.

> what outward
> changes were observed?

Irresponsible question.

> did these changes occur in the wild and result
> in new and improved characteristics that were a direct result of the
> changes?

Irresponsible question.

> if so, name some.

Unreasonable request.

> it seems folks with your view just LOVE to speak in generalities

Things are seldom what they seem.

> and do
> all they can to avoid the specifics.

Irresponsible motive reading.

> sorry, i don't trust you...

Not the scientist's fault.

> i
> need the EVIDENCE.

That's like the thirsty horse standing near the water trough, wanting
water but refusing to drink.

> you provide NONE.

Baloney.

> >> It is only reasonable that the changes we have witnessed
> so many times in the short time we've been watching will continue to
> amass
> in a give population of animals.<<
>
> maybe, maybe not.

You have no standing to make such a judgment.

> unlike you, i will wait for the evidence to be
> clear.

Irresponsible and uninformed accusation.

> > >> Moreover, we've watched it happen to the point of directly observing speciation. Once populations are no longer able to interbreed, these changes we've directly observed will perforce drive those seperated populations in increasingly different directions based on probability alone -- the chances of both populations experiencing identical mutations again and again over time are ludicrously slim.<<
>
> this sounds cool - care to give a specific example?

Examples abount where you fear to tread -- TO archives..

> i can't verify a
> meaningless generality.

You lack the knowledge/skill base to verify a specific example.

>
>
> >>So....what will keep these two populations together in the same "kind"? (And what is a "kind" anyway? I've never seen a creationist really define the word.)<<
>
> my view on this is that if you show me a dog change into something
> different than a dog...

You exhibit no respect for the methods of science.

> i'll bite, as it were.

Promises, promises.

> if you can change a
> germ into an ant. simple stuff like that.

Unreasonable, ignorance-based request.

> do you have any examples?

You lack the knowledge/skill base to independently verify examples.

i'll even take the results of ID made in
> human labs.

This assertion makes no sense.

> >>Also, just looking at the genomes of the creatures that surround us gives us
> direct evidence that these changes continue to accumulate -- as
> evidenced
> by the racoon, the red panda, and the giant panda. They are geneticly
> very
> closely related, yet morphologicly quite different. On one end of the
> spectrum, we have a plump mustelid looking critter, on the other, a
> large creature
> that many mistakenly call a bear. Where it the line that splits
> "kinds" here?<<

Here's you chance, Skeets. Here are examples.

what happens when a racoon mates with a giant panda?

Ignorance-based question.

> >>So.....what is a "kind" and what stops genetic mutations from accumulating
> to the point that one "kind" crosses the line to becoming another?<<
>
> here's your problem. i DO NOT claim to know the answer.

That's not his problem, it's yours.

in fact, i
> claim we DON'T KNOW.

Claim unfounded in knowledge.

you claim to know. therefore, you must prove
> your position.

Imagine demanding that Einstein must prove his "position" to a
knowledge-lacking, inattentive, irresponsible person who refuses to
study the evidence.

> how can i prove something can't happen?

That's precisely what ID claims to be able to do -- to prove that
the evolution of certain observed, natural mechanisms can't happen.
Hence, ID claims to have proved a negative, saying, since things are
too complex to have evolved, therefore there MUST be an intelligent
designer.

> well, i'd expect the fossil
> record not to play nice to the theory and not reveal a series of
> gradual changes over time that is obvious...

Then construct a scientific hypothesis and TEST your expection.

> uh, that;s the REAL
> fossil record.

Ignorance-based, unreliable judgment.

> i can claim that life has never come from death.

You can also claim that death never came from life.

> both of these are true, but they don't prove a negative.

Tell that to the folks at Discovery Institute.

> you prove the positive - and if you want to do so then get specific.

Unreasonably vague, uninformed request.

> if you just want to sound cool and justify your position to yourself
> and others... stick to the meaningless generalities.

Irresponsible, ignorance-based, disrespectful and rude statement.

Dylan, a pro-evolution creationist
Uncommon sense trumps common sense every time.

.

Relevant Pages
Loading