Replies

At what point does this "microevolutionary" process stop, and what causes it to stop before it becomes "macroevolution."

Funny you should ask -- "Microevolution" stops and "Macroevolution" starts at the same stopsign where my knowledge of evolution stops and my belief would have to pick up. In other words, as I said, there are two kinds of evolution -- that which I've seen and know, and that which I have not seen and can, at best, only believe.

There are several things that I do know - among which are the fact that lots of people believe passionately with all their heart that all speciation was done by evolution.

But remember, knowing that a bunch of people believe it is not the same as me knowing the evidence.

And I also have seen a lot of insults given as answers to people looking for the evidence and it looks like the US government and universities have thrown a lot of money behind research to prove speciation by evolution (How much government money can you throw behind a theory/Hypotheses before it's hard to tell whether it lives off of the evidence or the funding?) -- but what I have not found is any evidence. Needless to say I'm not well impressed when my debate opponents ask me to prove their point. (In other words, I've been told the likes of "Here's 93,000 links. Go find the evidence yourself, get off your sofa.")

What "kinds" are the mudskipper, the porpoise, and the penguin respectively?

I haven't studied these three animals -- so perhaps you could develop your argument a bit more for me (hey, you brought it up :-) -- but just off the cuff I'd say they are the mudskipper kind, the porpoise kind, and the penguin kind, respectively.

As I said, I have heretofore seen a lot of hype, bantering, etc., but not yet any direct evidence for speciation by evolution.

Remember, that even though many people believe with all their heart in something, and even though many scientists assure me that it's true, if I wish to be scientific I must still consider it a hypotheses unless I myself have seen the evidence and thereby know it. If the best I can do is be assured by other people, then I can, at best, believe it, but I don't know it. But merely believing something doesn't rise to the level of science to me. When I can see the evidence myself, then it'll rise to the level of science for me.

Think how bad it would be if one scientist said "Oh, I found evidence and thus and such as true..." and then all the others said "Oh good now we know that to be true," without doing the experiments themselves and without being able to conceive how such a proposition could be true. In order for it to work, every scientist needs to not consider himself to know something unless he either has seen the evidence himself or has seen others display the evidence and can understand how it all works.

Remember, because science is science and not religion, it's alright for those who haven't yet seen the evidence to try to find the evidence. I've come to the conclusion that the correct answer given to people looking for this evidence should be one of the following:

A: You just gotta trust the macro evolutionary scientists, and ignore anybody that disagrees with them.

B: Here's the evidence: Just read such and such a book or article and you too will be able to know rather then just believe.

C: It's not that simple. It's a very complicated. Actually seeing the evidence first had requires you to learn many scientific skills, then study many thousands of fossils and artifacts. Major in Evolutionary Biology in College for years and then you'll be able to see the evidence for yourself. Otherwise you just won't get it, unless you are happy to believe and not know it.

Basically, those are the only possible 3 answers -- either an inquirer can't have the information, or he can and here it is at article xyz, or he can have the information but he's got to devote a significant and specified amount of effort to learning the topic.

But these aren't what I've been hearing! Why? I can only speculate:Option A defeats the purpose, option B doesn't work because nobody can point to a best evidence, (And I'm talking about evidence, not a strong assertion by a writer that the evidence exists), and option C doesn't make the theory/hypotheses(take your pick) sound reasonable to the common man.

So maybe this explains why I'm not getting anywhere on my quest and why people looking for the actual evidence so they can know rather then only believe receive such unsavory and useless responses.

Thanks,

-Jesse

Option A defeats the purpose, option B doesn't work because nobody can point to a best evidence, (And I'm talking about evidence, not a strong assertion by a writer that the evidence exists), and option C doesn't make the theory/hypotheses(take your pick) sound reasonable to the common man.

Are you like this with every complicated scientific theory that's out there, or only evolution? For example, I think your complaint would apply equally to the germ theory of disease. I personally have never seen a germ, and I haven't seen a germ do whatever it does in the body to cause illness. If I ask for the evidence, I'm either going to be pointed to the various medical journals where that evidence is laid out, but in a way I'm not going to understand without extensive study and training; or I'm going to be pointed to layman-oriented summaries of the evidence that I can pick holes in if I have a mind to. Would it be reasonable for me to demand that a doctor show me a particular pathogen attacking a specific cell before I accept the idea that germs make people sick?

Or take your animal husbandry experience. Can you actually show me a sperm cell sperm fertilizing a cow egg and a cow fetus developing? How do I know you didn't put that calf in there yourself?