Fine. And anyway, once again, even professional creationists admit speciation. You have to go back to the 19th Century to find "fixed species" creationists.
In fact the origin of new species has even been observed (or can be securely inferred to have occured in historically recent instances) a number of times. See:
Observed Instances of Speciation
and..
[Fine. And anyway, once again, even professional creationists admit speciation. You have to go back to the 19th Century to find “fixed species” creationists.]
Well no- you don’t have to go backin time to find those creationists- Speciation is fact- we don’t dispute that. These aren’t examples of NEW species- they are examples of genetic variability in the SAME species KIND- As stated, species can vary widely due to mutations- however, they will always remain in the same KIND, and that’s exactly what we see in the fossil record.
Your response to Csense:
[That said, and in accordance with the terms given here, what physical event does natural selection explain, that isn’t already explained by other mechanisms such as mutation, drift, and recombination...
Adaptive evolution.]
Actually it is called- more precisely (and honestly) Adaptive natural selection- or, microevolution. The mechanisms of natural selection are well documented and not disputed- however, when macroevolution is proposed, we leave the realm of the observable, and have to rely on subjective priori opinion. I’ll be happy to elaborate furhter, but I’ll tackle your other comments first.
[These ages and the relative dating are accepted, with good reason, by ALL scientists SOLEY excepting those who have an explicit basis in Biblical literalism for preemptively rejecting them]
You ready to wager a mars bar on that absolute statement? lol No they don’t. I’ll have to do some research to find where I found the 10% figure, but the article stated that there was a repository that anyone could look up for themselves regarding the dayes presented and or rejected. It’ll take me some time to find again- Shoulda copied the link when I found it the first time. As well, it shoudl be noted that the ‘accepted’ dates are quite often changing? Odd, I thought the dating methods were accurate?
[These RELATIVE dates were not only accepted by pre-Darwinian creationists, they were established and confirmed by pre-Darwinian creationists. It’s just that the strata they thought contained no fossils turned out, on closer examination and further prospecting, to have fossils, albeit relatively simple and/or microscopic ones.]
Provided you ascribe to the priori beleifs and preconceptions of how old the earth ‘should be’ given that evolution needs a long time to operate. Again, all assumptions. The dating data can be run and rerun until a ‘close enough’ date is landed on- but alas, as you point out- we’re straying from topic here talking about dates.
[We’re all quite familiar with what evolution teaches based on preconceived opinion. The evidence has yet to show any of this.
You got it backwards. Evolution taught this long BEFORE the fossils were discovered. Late pre-Cambrian fossils weren’t discovered, I believe, until the 20th Century (e.g. the Burgess Shale fauna discovered in 1909).]
Taught what? Preconceptions? Yes, I know- that’s why I posted what I did.
[And the microscopic, single-celled fossils that go back billions of years,]
From Wiki: [The black layers in the sequence contain microfossils that are 1.9 to 2.3 billion years in age.]
Wowsers- quite an allowance of dates concidering how accurate we’re told dating methods really are.
Billions? According to whom? According to which ‘reliable’ dating method? We have evidence to measure the accuracy of billions of years by? Sorry, but we’re simply talking assumptions/preconsceptions here once again.
[First of all your conception — that evolution must have preceded from one spinal joint to two and then more — is all bollixed up.]
No it isn’t- where’s the fossil records showing the spinal evolution? All we find are fully formed spinal columns.
[If you say the latter you’re simply denying, by definition, and in advance and despite of any argument and evidence, precisely what is being argued: that it is possible for an IC system to be formed in stepwise fashion from one that is not IC.]
Lack of evidence for this, assumptions and your ignoring the fact that supposedly evolution ‘creates’ useful things. All the seperate parts of complex systems are useless on their own, and according to Darwinian evolution would have been discarded rather than being kept as baggage while waiting for the right next part to evolve in a billion years or so through the impossible means of microevolution, which as we’ve discussed, only works on organs already present. The information for new organs is also missing and there is no means to gain this genetic information outside of lateral gene transference- but again, lateral gene transference breaks down right from the beginning, because in order to gain more complex NEW information, a species must have already gained their information from a higher species form- see the problem?
[One example is “removal of scaffolding”. Consider an ordinary stone arch. Although a “simple” structure it clearly meets the definition of being “inherently complex”. It must have all it’s parts together at once to function as an arch (e.g. a passageway through a wall).]
Yes, I know how evos propose it works, but again, this ignores the shedding of useless organs/parts in the model of Darwininian evolution.
[If the keystone isn’t present the sides will collapse. And yet it clearly IS possible to build an arch in stepwise fashion by adding single stones one at a time. All you have to do is remove some of the stones (those inside the arch) at some point.]
Assumptions. We simply do not find all the supporting stones that would be necessary in the fossil records. There are many more ‘supporting stones’ in your example than there are functional stones- if this is the case, we should see an absolute abundance of all the supporting stones, yet we don’t- all we see are the arches- whgich as you must admit, might suggest a design being created- whether you agree with it or not, it is more probable a position concidering hte lack of evidence and lack of the multitude of supporting stones for the myriad of complex organs and systems that had to evolve.
[The point is that the claim that its impossible by the very nature of IC systems for them to form in stepwise fashion is flatly and obviously false, even before one starts looking at biological evidence.]
It’s not false given the facts stated above. The evidence simply doesn’t support this.
Your post 312 I’ll have to come back to- you’ve presented too many issues to address in one go.