They would furthermore be advised to examine various members of the animal kingdom to see whether any "in-between" stages *already* existed to prove/disprove the workability of "stepping-stone" transitions. Only then could they hope to discuss the topic with any degree of believability and/or assurance that their points bore any passing resemblance to actual biology and/or animal life cycles.
Yes. Sharks. Some lay eggs, some give live births and some propagate themselves with what appear to be intermediate means.
Now, pay attention. We are going to ask scientific questions, questions you did not answer.
Is it true that many if not most species of sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years? Well, yes it is. If that is so, where is the vaunted Darwinian change?
And did egg-layers transition into live-birthers? Or the reverse? How do you know? What is the evidence? They clearly are all currently viable, so which of the 3 is the product of survival advantage? Sort of embarrassing to be asked these questions, isn't it? Particularly since you don't have the answers. But take heart. Neither does anyone else. And hang in there, there's more.
Whichever way the transformation occurred, which is wholly speculative at this point, what was the mechanism?. Chance? You allude to chance as the "reason" when you point to lengthy periods of time between supposed events. Sorry, Wrong Answer. Science explains. "Chance" explains nothing. It is anti-science. Well then, how about mutation? Sorry Again. Mutation has never been shown, in the laboratory, in the wild or in the fossil record to be anything but destructive. When selectively bred into monsters in the laboratory then left to their own devices, fruit flies rapidly gravitate back toward the norm in succeeding generations. There has not been shown to be a credible mechanism, only rhetoric. I do not maintain that it does not exist, only that it has not been shown. But it is science's duty, biology's duty, to tell us what it is. Or it ain't science.
Let's talk a little more about homology, structural similarities. Seems widely varying species have been known for centuries to exhibit surprisingly similar organic structures, which would seem to be impossible if Darwinian Evolution looks anything like a tree. I refer you to Icons of Evolution by Johathan Wells. To quote you back to yourself: OOPS!
You have not shown us, Dan. When someone says to the physicists "Show me", they go out a produce an atomic bomb and the laser. Tough to argue with that. Ask the same question of the Evolutionists and you get the Atheist First Dawkins and the Rhetorician Gould who drones on about magisteria.
But the Evol Claque is ecstatic, back slapping and shouting -- I think I even saw Patick on a table in the center of the room waving his hands. Well, they ain't happy about the science because there isn't any. I conclude that they simply enjoy bashing "Creationists", defined as anyone who would dare to question their pet "theory", and whacking on gore3000. For all the pretty pictures and the volume of rhetoric, Dan, I'm underwhelmed.
Nonsense. It is the very heart of quantum theory. You know, the funny rules that define the workings of the semiconductors that make up the computer you are using.
In exactly the same way chance is the heart of punctuated equilibrium evolution. Trying to trash Darwinian Evolution is about as useful as arguing about phlogeston. while our understanding of the details has improved, the basis of Physics or of Evolution remain valid.
SO9
Let's see what you've got...
Now, pay attention. We are going to ask scientific questions, questions you did not answer.
Okay, but if they're not relevant to the points I made, then I'm afraid they won't count as the promised "holes" the size of the "Grand Canyon" which you promised us.
Is it true that many if not most species of sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years? Well, yes it is. If that is so, where is the vaunted Darwinian change?
Irrelevant to the points being made in post #378. Sorry, no hole, try again. As explained in a recent post, the argument that gore3000 and I are having is entirely apart from the issue of what might or might not be driving the "gradual changes" he declares to be impossible.
And did egg-layers transition into live-birthers? Or the reverse? How do you know? What is the evidence? They clearly are all currently viable, so which of the 3 is the product of survival advantage?
Irrelevant to the points being made in post #378. Sorry, no hole, try again. The argument was over the mere theoretical possibility of such transitions, not whether they did or did not occur in what order.
Sort of embarrassing to be asked these questions, isn't it?
No, not at all. Is it embarrassing for you to have missed the point of my post so badly?
Particularly since you don't have the answers. But take heart. Neither does anyone else.
Wow, what an amazing assertion. Perhaps you could document it.
And hang in there, there's more.
I can't wait.
Whichever way the transformation occurred, which is wholly speculative at this point, what was the mechanism?. Chance? You allude to chance as the "reason" when you point to lengthy periods of time between supposed events.
Irrelevant to the points being made in post #378. Sorry, no hole, try again.
Well then, how about mutation?
Irrelevant to the points being made in post #378. Sorry, no hole, try again.
Let's talk a little more about homology, structural similarities. Seems widely varying species have been known for centuries to exhibit surprisingly similar organic structures, which would seem to be impossible if Darwinian Evolution looks anything like a tree.
Not true at all, you clearly don't understand "Darwinian Evolution". It in no way bars different species from arriving at the same "solutions" to the problems of survival. But again, irrelevant to the points being made in post #378. Sorry, no hole, try again.
I refer you to Icons of Evolution by Johathan Wells.
*snicker* I've read his website. Wells is an idiot. Or incredibly dishonest. Neither option inspires confidence.
To quote you back to yourself: OOPS!
You seem to have forgotten to document where I am allegedly in error. Keep trying.
You have not shown us, Dan.
Sure I have -- I set out to show that gore3000 was operating on several false assumptions and erroneous logic, and I did so.
But the Evol Claque is ecstatic, back slapping and shouting -- I think I even saw Patick on a table in the center of the room waving his hands.
Sigh, back to preaching again so soon? I was still waiting for the gaping "holes" you promised to identify in my post #378.
For all the pretty pictures and the volume of rhetoric, Dan, I'm underwhelmed.
Likewise.
Sorry, no holes identified. I await your apology.
As for your multiple attempts to broaden (*very* broaden) the subject in this post, I'm resisting your cheesy effort to distract attention from the points I actually *did* make in post #378, and thereby divert attention from the debunking of gore3000's faulty argument.
I do have answers for your tangential questions, but this is not the time to deal with them. One thing at a time. However, I can't say that I'm all that confident that you would even benefit from the answers, since the way that you chose to "answer" all of your own questions indicates that you're not interested in learning, you're just interested in hearing yourself talk. Any answers contrary to the ones you already think you "know" will likely bounce off your forehead with a sharp "ping".
Convince me that's not the case and perhaps we'll talk.