He shows a bunch of pictures, then says that it is impossible to get there from here. Where are the facts, and where are the persuasive arguments?
I haven't seen any.
Exactly. Sure, he has posted a lot of "facts" -- he has cut and pasted page after page from several biology websites.
But where he has failed is in tying those "data spews" to his actual argument.
The closest he has come has been to say in effect, "see, that sure is complicated, thus it's *impossible* to happen gradually because, um, I think gradualism can only do so much!"
Okay, that's an opinion, and he's welcome to it, but it's not an established fact, and it's neither the "logic" nor "science" nor "proof" he keeps telling us it is. It's just a declaration.
He could have saved a lot of time and gotten by with one tenth of the posts if he had just gone to the *actual* heart of the matter and pointed to any *one* feature and explained a) why it's arguably *necessary*, b) why it's arguably not possible to split into any smaller steps, and c) why that feature couldn't have been acquired in a single generation.
He never did that. If he *had*, we'd have to declare defeat and go cry in our beers. But lacking that, he's just waving his arms and quoting biology books at random, hoping to make up in quantity what he lacks in quality.
Tell you what, DWar, since you seem to think that he has "been very convincing" in his presentation, point out to me the part I missed, the part where he actually showed *the* step that couldn't have been achieved in smaller steps, and which by itself was too big to happen at all.
Go for it.
Lacking that, it just goes back to an empty declaration of, "gee, that sure is elaborate, thus it must be *impossible*".
That's no proof (and he *promised* a "proof"), that's just an emotional appeal, trying to boggle the reader and scare him away from the idea that the mountain is climbable.
In post 898, G3K has simply pointed out:
(1) the extreme complexity involved in transforming from egg laying to live bearing
(2) the unlikelihood that this could occur a step at a time and produce live offspring and
(3) the unlikelihood that random mutations could cause this change in one generation.
The complexity of the changes required, the critical to life nature of each change and the volume of changes necessary seem to support G3K's contention.
The burden of proof is on you. You can't just say, "I have this theory that egg laying animals evolved over time into live bearing animals and if you don't believe it prove me wrong." You are the one that has to prove the theory right.
Tell me...what was the progression of events? What was the first mutation in the egg laying reproductive system that started the journey towards live bearing? What was the structural change involved? What were the chemical changes involved? How did these structural and chemical changes affect the other reproductive subsystems? What reciprocal changes were necessary in the embryo? How is it that this change did not kill the embryo? What was the next mutation? and the next? and the next?