Replies

So what it's going to be, in one post you hold up evidence of variation as proof for evolution, in the next post lack of evidence as proof of evolution. Whats it going to be or are we now onto the " Well if there is fossil (of which millions have been found)evidence we say it was slow but if we can't find any , then those mutations were fast.
So if you find a fossil with any sort of a change after the fact, does it then move into the category of slow change to fit your ever evolving theory??

Which is it The no body of consequence supports the primordially soup, or per you latest post, they don't have an opinion at all.

Hold on if life is so simple to create because of it's "painfully slow responses of increasingly stubbornly persistent pre-DNA congeries of adhering, self-sustaining entities" I think I'll brew me up a batch of life (maybe I can get it to mow the lawn).

When times are turbulant, creatures change faster, and opportunities to fossilize are rarer--so the fossil "gaps" you're so fond of are exactly what you would expect to see in interzonal geographic layers: when times are turbulent.

Yes this is very true if you use the second hole stuffer theory, problem being is WE HAVE fossils from "turbulent period" which show NO change.

Donh all you have done here is posted over and over evidence of variation, but nothing but conjecture for inter species evolution. The vast variation in Canis for example does not preclude that a Great Dane evolved from a Chihuahua.

As far as using lack of gravity between galaxies as an argument for accepting lack of evidence for evolution is a big leap, I could just as well used that analogy of proof of GOD, we can all make that little leap can't we?

And please the Fido and Fluffy and the kids link?

So what it's going to be, in one post you hold up evidence of variation as proof for evolution, in the next post lack of evidence as proof of evolution.

It's going to be both, depending on whether the environment is changing or not. This isn't rocket science, you can get it if you put down the "snappy phrase's for creationists" handbook and think about it for a minute.

Yes this is very true if you use the second hole stuffer theory, problem being is WE HAVE fossils from "turbulent period" which show NO change.

Oh, indeed. And we have geological inversions with fish over mammals, and we have dino bones that occasionally show up in silurian debris. However, this is a field of inquiry with a wide amount of potential variation. A fossilized bone has no say about where chance diversions of strata will take it. Fortunately, the science of this stuff doesn't look at one bone, and try to draw a conclusion. It looks at all the data we have available, and groups it statistically, and, statistically, you have no case. It is clear as a bell, looking at the accumulations of evidence, that the trend in fossils, viewed from high above, is a rather orderly, continuous march from small to large, simple to complex, monolithic to segmented, isolated to conglomerated.

I guess I should say, it is clear as a bell, unless they have a theological iron in the fire.

Hold on if life is so simple to create because of it's "painfully slow responses of increasingly stubbornly persistent pre-DNA congeries of adhering, self-sustaining entities" I think I'll brew me up a batch of life (maybe I can get it to mow the lawn).

Sure. Right after you brew up a c-class star undergoing a phase change in your back yard. Obviously, if they can't do it, those astronomers must just be trying to pull a fast one on us with all this gibberish about steller evolution.

As far as using lack of gravity between galaxies as an argument for accepting lack of evidence for evolution is a big leap, I could just as well used that analogy of proof of GOD, we can all make that little leap can't we?

Sure. The question is, can I get a doubter to buy it? If you ask that question about the theory of gravity, you can do the calculations for another set of bodies in the heavens you've never looked at, and see if your predictions hold true. Can you predict when the next really outrageous example of God's intervention will occur in similarly metrically predictable manner?

We believe in gravity with high confidence because of these inductive demonstrations. We have not proved the theory of gravity--we just believe it with a high degree of critically verifiable confidence. Same reason we believe in evolutionary theory with a great deal of confidence. We keep predicting the general nature of what we will find if we keep diging, and we keep finding things where we predict we'll find them in greater abundance than we find them where we don't predict we'll find them. That is the basis of graduate educations in paleontology.

And please the Fido and Fluffy and the kids link?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=138942

http://www.team.ars.usda.gov/symposium/1994/twelve.html

http://ejournal.sinica.edu.tw/bbas/content/2002/2/bot432-07.html

http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:EPOS80CWaRwJ:www.ivis.org/advances/Zhao/zhang3/IVIS.pdf+%22interspecies+crosses%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.patentec.com/data/class/defs/800/269.html

http://www.isleofviewirisgarden.com/catalog_pages/species_isc/species_1.htm

http://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/N100H/ch17spec.html

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s11024.htm

So are lions and tigers the same species? How about llamas and camels? Zebras and horses? Is that what you plan to teach in ID class? Can I quote you on this at the next school board meeting?