NS
Evolution is the phenomena and NS is the theory.
You're a scientist, or are you pretending.
NS has problems. ID has no basis, unless there are aliens or something. Both ID and NS do not exhibit prediction as a theory.
You can't even adhere to a rigorous definition of species. If you don't have rigorous defintions, how can you even call something a theory. You're in Red Queen territory.
Get real VadeR...the first sign of real science is being able to accept the warts on a theory.
As for the KH challenges to IDers, you do know that requiring the opposition to prove you are not right is a logical fallacy. Real science would announce the warts on a theory and try to find a way of explaining them. You aren't even questioning whether the Stickleback has 50 species or if they are really sub-species. Real science asks those kind of sticky, oops I might be wrong questions.
Dogmatic answers are coming from Evolutionists. IDers don't have anything worthwhile to add to NS. But they sure have the right to ask pointed questions. Dogmatic Evolutionists sure hate answering those questions.
>>A Question for Creationists: Creationists who wish to deny the evidence of horse evolution should careful consider this: how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils.<<
I asked you a simple question that this "challenge" posed. Can you be reasonably sure that none of these horses can reproduce successfully with each other?
You don't know.
Taxonomy and morphology are good classification schemes, but even in that they are limited WRT the fossil record.
So if I say prove it, it is with love of science, and the scientific method. What future prediction has NS Evolution brought to the advancement of science?
Hint, they are all weak.
By the way, you need to study more philosophy, especially WRT fallacious reasoning and the scientific method.
With Love!
DK
I showed you what was wrong with this and you simply repeat. Darwin agrees with me. Who agrees with you?
As for the KH challenges to IDers, you do know that requiring the opposition to prove you are not right is a logical fallacy.
Occam's Razor is not a fallacy. The horse series looks like evolution. The challenge to people like you who do not accept it as what it looks like is to provide some rational alternate scenario. You are dodging. Why is that, since (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!) you are not a creationist?
Dogmatic answers are coming from Evolutionists. IDers don't have anything worthwhile to add to NS. But they sure have the right to ask pointed questions. Dogmatic Evolutionists sure hate answering those questions.
Maybe it's because we answer them on every thread and the militant ignoramuses show up with amnesia every few hours or less?
Here's a quiz for you. 1. What have I cited to you as wrong with your objection to morphology as useless? 2. Give a brief statement of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
By the way, you need to study more philosophy, especially WRT fallacious reasoning and the scientific method.
You're projecting here, nothing more.