Re: The Paradox of Speciation

In message <41c82316-6332-400a-9124-7d9bb8315094@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx writes


Greg Guarino wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:12:47 -0800 (PST), treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>
>
>John Harshman wrote:
>> treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Greg Guarino wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 08:26:07 -0800 (PST), treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> >>I could be wrong, but when Harshman uses the word "all", I think he
>> >>means every species on Earth. And therein lies the "problem" for your
>> >>claims. EVERY pair of species shares a common ancestor, trout and
>> >>antelope, for instance. Yet each species is reproductively
>> >>incompatible with nearly every other.
>> >
>> > Well, that's assuming your conclusion, isn't it? Or do you have the
>> > name of that original species?
>> >
>> Wait, are you claiming that common descent is not conclusively
>> demonstrated, and that to do so we would have to know the name of the
>> first ancestor?
>>
>> Finally, you come out of the closet.
>
>There's no closet.

An armoire then? Perhaps a wardrobe? Wherever it is you've been
hiding, can we open the door a crack?

> I take evolution of some sort as a given.

You're still being coy here. Which "sort" of given do you have in
mind? I think the smart money is on some version of the "Creation
Orchard", which is the Creation Museum's metaphor in opposition to the
"Tree of Life". God creates "kinds", each one of which can branch out
into similar sorts of critters, but there's a limit to the variation.

Of course, there's also the Tinkerer variation, whereby evolution
proceeds, again within limits, but the Creator steps in here and there
with a timely mutation to produce a new "kind".

Am I getting warm?

Only because you're rubbing yourself with such vigor.

I'm not being coy. The subject of my personal theories, beliefs and
speculations is way off-topic in this thread. You know that and yet
keep trying to bring it in. I can only infer it's to camouflage the
weakness of your sinking position.

> In the
>absence of proof however, your version of it ain't necessarily so.

It's not my version and, although science doesn't deal in "proof",
only someone profoundly ignorant of evolutionary biology would use the
phrase "assuming your conclusion", as if the caricatures on
creationist web sites represent the extent of the evidence.

Petty semantics. Again dwelling on irrelevant subject matter to take
attention away from the main topic.

Don't you feel the slightest twinge of hypocrisy over your requests for the names of ancestral species, which you've admitted were irrelevant to the main topic? Can we take this as a concession that your position is lying on the ocean floor?
--
alias Ernest Major

.

Relevant Pages