Replies

"That's because you assume that macro-evolution actually exists and that a line can be drawn. Since I don't believe that macro-evolution exists, I wouldn't be able to draw a line now would I? Again, does that make me automatically wrong? It's like me asking you to define exactly which biological system could not have been intelligently-designed (without committing to the fallacy of appeal to perfection, btw)."

Dan -- can I call you Dan? -- you sound like a smart guy. You have lots of facts & quotes at your finger-tips, and you handle these arguments just like you've been doing it for a long long time. You know the characters, you know the play, right?

So, if you Dan make a silly mistake, it can't be because you don't know what you're saying, or because you haven't really thought it through, can it? Indeed, if you make a silly mistake, doesn't it have to be only because there really isn't a better answer out there?

In other words, if Dan puts forward a ridiculous argument on some particular subject, it has to be because the anti-evolutionists just don't have a serious argument to make on it, right?

So let's look at what you just said. Now the great hew and cry of anti-evolutionists is: "micro-evolution" is A-OK, but "macro-evolution" is forbidden by the "scientific laws" of intelligent design creationism, right?

So exactly what is it that's forbidden? Well, Dan, you just told us: since it doesn't exist, it can't be defined. So some evolutionary process, named "macro-evolution," which can't be defined because it doesn't exist, therefore doesn't exist because it can't be defined, right?

And this is a "scientific law" of ID-Creationism, according to GourmetDan, is that about right?

And yet, if real scientists tell us that "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evoloution" over the long term, Dan will insist that is necessarily false, because, even though he can't define what "macro-evoloution," is; he is certain by the laws of ID-Creationism, it's not that, right?

Right.

"So exactly what is it that's forbidden? Well, Dan, you just told us: since it doesn't exist, it can't be defined. So some evolutionary process, named "macro-evolution," which can't be defined because it doesn't exist, therefore doesn't exist because it can't be defined, right?"

Actually, I didn't say it can't be defined. That's your misrepresentation. What I said was that it may not exist because it isn't observed; but I understand why you need to start moving those goalposts around.

Macro-evolution may not exist because it isn't observed. You simply assume that it exists in your mind and force all evidence through the interpretation of that mental filter. It's completely a mental construct. That's what you refuse to admit.

"And this is a "scientific law" of ID-Creationism, according to GourmetDan, is that about right?"

There are no scientific laws specifically for creationism and another set for naturalism. There are only scientific laws. One of the requirements for a scientific law is that it be *observable*. Macro-evolution is not observable and is therefore not a scientific law.

"And yet, if real scientists tell us that "macro-evolution" is nothing more than "micro-evoloution" over the long term, Dan will insist that is necessarily false, because, even though he can't define what "macro-evoloution," is; he is certain by the laws of ID-Creationism, it's not that, right?"

What 'real scientists' are telling you is that 'macro-evolution' is not observed but is assumed to exist because it is assumed to be 'micro-evolution' over unobserved time-frames. That doesn't mean that they don't believe it, they do. We just don't observe it, therefore it fails the test of being observable. You are confusing science and belief.

"Right."

Keep trying. You may attain that firm grasp of the obvious that you seek before we're done.

[[And yet, if real scientists tell us that “macro-evolution” is nothing more than “micro-evoloution” over the long term, Dan will insist that is necessarily false, because, even though he can’t define what “macro-evoloution,” is; he is certain by the laws of ID-Creationism, it’s not that, right?]]

I see you ig ored my post- so I’ll repost it for you since you seem to be continuing on with your argument despite have had the info you requested handed to you:

-—And for htose who try to insult Creationists for coining a term that they were not responsible for:

“The terms macroevolution and microevolution were first used by evolutionary Russian entomologist Iurii Filipchenko in a 1927 book titled Variabilitat und Variation. He asserted that micro- and macroevolution were processes involving different mechanisms and caliber. The terms were later introduced to English-speaking biological community in 1937 by Filipchenko’s former student Theodosius Dobzhansky in Genetics and the Origin of Species.”-—

Woops- Macroevolution is NOT a ‘creationist term’ after all Woopsie- It seems that “Real scientists’ dissagree with BoJoek- It seems that it’s only hte apologists for Macroevolution, the ‘psuedoscientists’ if you will, that try to conflate microevolution to mean macroevolution- Can’t make that arguemnt anymore (although I’m sure the accusation will still be htrown at Creationists despite htisfact)

[[Now the great hew and cry of anti-evolutionists is: “micro-evolution” is A-OK, but “macro-evolution” is forbidden by the “scientific laws” of intelligent design creationism, right?]]

Nope- Bzzzzt! Wrong! (once again, but don’t let that stop ya) Macroevolution is forbidden by science- not ID- you know, the very science you hold dear thinking it supports Macroevolution but in actuality doesn’t?

Let’s review and see if BroJoek’s assertions that microevolution leads to macroevolution ‘over time’

[[Despite the acceptance by some evolutionists that macroevolution is simply an extrapolation of the process of microevolution, many hold strong reservations, and assert that large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be explained by processes observed at the level of populations.]]

Nope- once again, we see that it’s only hte apologists for macroevolution that assert there is no biological difference- when clearly there is- as outlined in my previous post to BroJoek and repeated here:

[[“The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them.”]]

Different biological process? You betcha- changing info isn’t hte same hting as creating new non species specific info out of htin air or aquiring the needed non species specific info from a foreign source- without either- macroevolution can not happen and indeed does not exist because it’s not a process which occures in nature- it can ONLY briefly occure htrough intelligent manipulation in the lab, but presents it’s own problems which prevent it from workign as planned, and keeping hte species fit. Breeding experiments have proven time and time again, that the ONLY thing we witness in nature is microevolution- Cats reamin cats, fruit flies remain fruit flies despite billions of years worth of mutations artifically thrown at them which supposedly represented billions of years worth of ‘evolution’- Macroevolution doesn’t occure in the lab, doesn’t occure in nature- but we’re to beleive it occured on a regular basis millions of years ago in billions of species trillions of times? All in nice neat little consessions? Without producing myriad transitionals despite our having discovered myriad fossils which show no such macroevolution happening?

Who is appealing to the supernatural again? Tell me- I love that little story