ID...why isn't it religion?

[Gerald McGrew]

No... You purposely deleted my quote about "seeding". You only responded to what you wanted to.

Sorry 'bout that. Post it again and I'll be more than happy to discuss it.

Ever heard of these scientists? Though it is hypothetical and currently unproven...

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/20/pan ... scientists

Sure I've heard of this. But your assertion was that the "majority of scientists" accept panspermia. "Majority of scientists" is a quantitative assertion. Can you back up this assertion?

Again... All ID is concerned with is finding design.

Ok, what specifically have they determined is "designed"?

Design could very well be from the supernatural or "seeding" from other planets or from aliens.

If it invokes the supernatural, it is untestable and thus, unscientific. If you disagree, please explain how you propose we test the supernatural.

Also a quote from our website...

"The claim has been made that ID has no place in science and is never used in the study of science. This is not true. In fact, all of the following areas of science use evidence of ID as the major or sole means of study. Even though the designer is not a supernatural agent, but intelligent humans, the principles involved in studying these areas of science can be applied to the study of supernatural ID."

1. Archeology: Is that rock formation natural or due to intelligent design?
2. Anthropology: Do sharp, pointed rocks occur naturally or are they designed by intelligent beings?
3. Forensics: Intelligent cause of death or natural circumstances?
4. SETI: Are those radio signals natural or caused by intelligent beings?"

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... esign.html

Can you give a specific example of any of these fields using the same "principles" that ID creationists have proposed?

Science does not "totally prove" things.

Then why do you propose calling Darwinian evolution a fact?? If you call it a fact, then it's already been proven.... How do you re-prove a fact?

Facts are observations. We observe populations evolving every single day, thus evolution is a "fact". "Proof" is for axiomatic systems like math, or for law. Science is about providing evidence.

Since every population we've ever studied evolves (we've never seen a population not evolve), why should we conclude that populations in the past didn't evolve?

Evolve in what way? Adapt to it's environment or morph into an entirely new species?

Both.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.

Ever heard of the separation between church and state? It is currently illegal to teach anything except naturalism in the public schools..

But that's not what you stated earlier. I explained that the earth and life sciences community have held the exact opposite of your opinion for over a century, and you responded: "Overwhelming opinion? Legally it's the ONLY opinion... ". I didn't say anything about public school curricula.

Well, now you're moving the goalposts on me. Earlier, you posted a link that gave the following definition for "macroevolution":

"Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species"

I operated in good faith from that definition (and even stated, "If you define macroevolution that way....."). You did not immediately point out that you defined "macroevolution" differently. But now that I've given an example that fully satisfies the above definition of "macroevolution" (that you provided), you suddenly present a new link that offers a completely different definition: "Extrapolation of microevolution to account for all changes in body designs, speciation, appearance of new phyla, etc."

Why did you do that?

To show you that it doesn't exist...

That doesn't make any sense. Again, why did you shift definitions in the middle of the discussion after I demonstrated it to be an observed fact?

"There are two major models of macroevolution (In the remainder of this article, I will refer to macroevolution simply as evolution, since this is the common usage). They are:

* Gradualism - Changes in the morphology of species are the result of gradual changes in the genomes of species. The apparent lack of gradualism in the fossil record is due to an incompleteness of the fossil record.
* Punctuated Equilibrium - Changes in morphology are due to species sorting following geographic isolation and major reductions in population numbers. The punctuated appearance of the fossil record is real.

Those definitions seem a little odd.

First, if "gradualism" is "gradual changes in the genomes of species", what is PE in terms of pace of genetic changes? If you're going to contrast the two, you should contrast them on the same terms.

The major problems with gradualism is that it is not reflected in the fossil record. By far, the fossil record is extremely discontinuous. There are a few examples of gradualism, but they are the exception.

Of course. Why would we expect the preservation and discovery of every species that's ever existed?

But what about the examples of gradualism that are in the fossil record? Do we just wave them away?

Even the most famous example of gradualism (the horse) suffers from a lack of intermediates for most species.

What exactly does that mean ("a lack of intermediates for most species")? Do you mean intermediates between species?

Here is an admission by an evolutionist:

"Eldredge and Gould not only showed that paleontologists had been out-of-step with biologists for decades, but also that they had unconsciously trying to force the fossil record into the gradualistic mode. The few supposed examples of gradual evolution were featured in the journals and textbooks, but paleontologists had long been mum about their 'dirty little trade secret:' most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction." Dr. Donald Prothero

What exactly do you think he's "admitting"?

The evidence against gradualism is extensive, but not readily admitted to in the popular press or textbooks. Although the fossil record for a given location on land may be discontinuous, the fossil record for organisms deposited in the ocean or large bodies of water is continuous. Studies by Stanley (3), Cheetham (4) and Stanley and Yang (5) examined all the available lineages of their respective groups (bryozoans and bivalves) through long intervals of time, using multivariate analysis of multiple character states. Both concluded that most of their species were static through millions of years, followed by the sudden appearance of new species. Williamson (6) examined the fossil record of mollusks in Lake Turkana, Kenya, and showed that there were multiple examples of rapid speciation and prolonged stasis, but no gradualism. Barnosky (7) examined a large number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages and found a few examples of gradualism, but many more which showed stasis and punctuation. Prothero examined all the mammals with a reasonably complete record from the Eocene-Oligocene (about 30-35 million years ago) beds of the Big Badlands of South Dakota and related areas in Wyoming and Nebraska (8). This study not only sampled every available lineage without bias, but also had much better time control from magnetic stratigraphy and wider geographic coverage than previous studies. With only one exception all of the Badlands mammals were static through millions of years, or speciated abruptly (if they changed at all). Stasis and sudden appearance of new species is the norm rather than the exception, as evidenced by the fossil record.

Ok...the fossil record shows examples of both gradual evolution and PE. And....?

Evolutionists have used the excuse that the fossil record is not complete enough to be an accurate representation of the history of life on the Earth.

I would agree that the fossil record will never give a complete picture of the past, but that does not mean it cannot tell us anything at all. Again, in the fossil record we see both gradual evolution and PE.

A recent book, The Adequacy of the Fossil Record (9), examined the fossil record in terms of its completeness, bias (over and under representation of certain species and groups of organisms), and stratigraphic range (its completeness for a species over the entire history of its existence). Their conclusions were that the fossil record is surprisingly complete, with about 10% of all species that have ever lived being represented.

90% missing is "surprisingly complete"?

There are some biases and stratigraphic incompleteness in the fossil record, but these problems can be estimated mathematically from the available data. There are many examples of stratigraphic gaps in the fossil record, with these gaps being the rule rather than the exception. In the past, it has been assumed that the gaps represent incompleteness of the fossil record. The authors suggest the "heretical" view that stratigraphic data should be used to test the phylogenetic relationships between species rather than assume that the relationships exist and that the fossil record is incomplete.

Ah, so if someone were to say....statistically analyze the relationship between stratigraphy and phylogenetics, would you agree that would be a valuable exercise?

The punctuated fossil record applies not only to individual species, but to entire periods of time, where entire communities of species remain unchanged for millions of years. These periods of "coordinated stasis" can be followed by periods when "upwards of 60% of species seem to be replaced over a period of a few hundred thousand years"(10). During the first 16 million years of the Tertiary period, 18 orders of mammals appeared. Many scientist had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals.

????? The evolution of mammals is one of the best represented events in the fossil record. It's often used to calibrate molecular clocks. The assertion, "Many scientists had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals" is an uncited, unreferenced bald assertion.

However, Dr. David Archibald (San Diego State University), looked at the numbers of fossil site spanning the period of 5 million years before and after the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary. Dr. Archibald found that sampling was equal for periods before and after the boundary, although only 11 genera were found in the 5 million years before the beginning of the Tertiary compared to 139 genera in the 5 million years following (11).

I wanted to look at the citation for this, and I was surprised to find that the cite isn't actually to Dr. Archibald's work! And when I clicked the link next to the cite, it didn't work ("Page not found"). All that seems rather odd.

The idea that the lack of transitional forms is due to gaps in the fossil record is not reasonable given the tremendous number of fossils that have been discovered in recent studies.

???? But this copy-n-paste was just attempting to address PE, which posits that the gaps are due to modes of speciation. So this assertion/conclusion does not follow from what came before.

Therefore, the old "evolution of the gaps" theory is not supported by the extensive fossil record that now exists. Gradualism, although it seems a more logical mode of evolution, is not supported by the fossil record.

But this copy-n-paste stated earlier that there are examples of gradual evolution evidenced in the fossil record. So how is something that is seen in the fossil record "not supported by the fossil record"?

Refutation of Punctuated Equilibrium

Punctuated equilibrium requires the occurrence of two unlikely events. First, a number of beneficial mutations must accumulate in a small number of individuals.

Where does this assertion come from? No cite, no reference?

Since the mutation rate is low, the species' population must be large in order to accumulate any beneficial mutations (most mutations are neutral and the remainder are mostly detrimental).

How is "low" defined above? What is a "low mutation rate"?

Next, these few individuals must become genetically isolated from the larger population (species sorting). Without genetic isolation (usually involving geographic isolation) the multiple mutations, needed to produce the punctuated appearance of a new species, would never get co-expressed.

Why is that unlikely? We see it happen.

Therefore, punctuated equilibrium requires the unlikely events of multiple mutations in presence of a few individuals of large population, and the unlikely genetic isolation of these specific individuals from the vast majority of the main population.

This seems to be a straw man argument. The total lack of citations or references in this section speaks volumes.

A recent study destroys the idea of species sorting (20, 21). Instead of becoming a new species, populations that suffer drastic reductions in numbers are characterized by decreased genetic variability and an expression of detrimental genes.

Sure, when you have "drastic reductions in numbers". PE does not require such dramatic reductions. Again, this is a straw man.

This happens because normally heterozygous (containing 2 different alleles of each gene) individuals become homozygous, due to inbreeding. As a result, detrimental, non-expressed, recessive genes become homozygous and, therefore, are expressed, resulting in a less fit population. The study examined the effect of a 35-year population decline of greater prairie chickens on their fitness and fertility. The results showed that population decline and isolation of the prairie chicken led to decreased genetic variability, reduced egg viability (from near 100% to less than 80%), and a decline of fertility rates (from 93% to 74%). Only after human intervention (which brought in genetically diverse individuals from other areas) did the population begin to recover. This study calls into serious question species sorting as the underlying mechanism of punctuated equilibrium. More recent studies have confirmed these results (22, 23).

That would be true if PE revolved around such dramatic population reductions. Since it doesn't, the author is guilty of argumentation via straw man.

Another study showed that low relatedness (high genetic diversity) is favored in social insects (24). This low relatedness improves the fitness of the colony, but prevents the kind of species sorting expected in punctuated equilibrium.

The paper does not say "prevents the kind of species sorting expected in punctuated equilibrium" at all.

I provided an example of the evolution of a new species, which is "macrovevolution" as defined by the link you provided.

Not that I'm aware of. By the way, please explain in detail how evolution accounted of a new species. Just don't point to a link...

I provided an example of observed speciation HERE. The new species is physiologically unable to breed with its parent species, but fully capable of breeding on its own.

As I said, I would be happy to discuss the Cambrian with you, but I would prefer to cover the topics we are discussing now first. Would you like to start another thread on the Cambrian?

Please do... And I want you to be very specific in great detail.

Ok.

By whom? Please be specific. And can I take it then that you are unable to provide a citation to a scientific source that claims "macroevolution is a fish morphing into a human"?

Are you serious? Can I ask how long you've been studying evolution? Please view this you tube link that explains the evolution of man from the "very" beginning... The link doesn't specifically address macro but it is implied...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIM1glECugU

You didn't answer the question. Who taught you that evolution is "a fish morphing into a human"? Also, "Youtube" is not a scientific source. So once again, can you provide a scientific source claiming that evolution is "a fish morphing into a human"?

Our topic is "ID...why isn't it religion?" You say that ID is a religion but why isn't your belief a religion??

Because it doesn't invoke the supernatural.

Again.... Where is your proof? If you don't have any proof then you have to accept it on faith. A religion. Your religion...

So in your mind, things are either absolutely proven or they are "faith" and "religion"?

Of course not. But it's obvious S.J. Gould held the opinion that transitional fossils are "abundant" and that he was very annoyed when creationists took his quotes out of context to make it seem as if he held the opposite view. Earlier, David stated that "transitional fossils" were evidence for macroevolution. You responded:

"Not according to evolutionist Stephen J. Gould."

Now, why would you quote a man who believed that transitional fossils are "abundant" and claim that he believed otherwise?

That question is for you... It seems blatant to me that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing here....

????? Why would the question be for me? You tried to quote Gould to support your assertion about the absence of transitional fossils. I showed where Gould very clearly stated that transitionals are "abundant" and expressed his frustration at creationists misquoting him as saying otherwise. And that's my issue? LOL!

I agree with Dawkins' statement. But it has nothing to do with the subject Gould was talking about.

Then your Darwinian evolution is faith based... A hypothesis... Your belief...

???? What does the origins of life have to do with "Darwinian evolution"? Further, are you operating from the position that "faith", "belief", and "religion" are insults?

[Gman]

Sorry 'bout that. Post it again and I'll be more than happy to discuss it.

Oh, so you are confessing you were wrong. You sure seemed sure that you were right earlier. Btw, we are discussing the topic now (in case you haven't noticed). I had to re-post it again because you intentionally removed it from the discussion.

Sure I've heard of this. But your assertion was that the "majority of scientists" accept panspermia. "Majority of scientists" is a quantitative assertion. Can you back up this assertion?

Are you trying to misinterpret what I said?? I never said “the” majority of scientists, I said “a” majority of scientist accept that the existence of intelligent life COULD exist elsewhere in the universe. I then gave you a reference to a team of scientists throughout the world…

Ok, what specifically have they determined is "designed"?

What specifically has Darwinian evolution determined new body designs, speciation or the appearance of new phyla?

If it invokes the supernatural, it is untestable and thus, unscientific. If you disagree, please explain how you propose we test the supernatural.

Like I said it doesn't always invoke the supernatural… I already explained it to you in another post.. Specified complexity can be the result of intelligent action. Therefore once specified complexity is identified, it can be scientifically inferred. Please explain how we test your Darwinian evolution? As an example the appearance of new phyla? Time?

Can you give a specific example of any of these fields using the same "principles" that ID creationists have proposed?

I have no idea what you are talking about… Be specific…

Facts are observations. We observe populations evolving every single day, thus evolution is a "fact". "Proof" is for axiomatic systems like math, or for law. Science is about providing evidence.

Then you have just contradicted yourself… You stated before “Science does not "totally prove" things,” facts are not only just observations but they are also known as what is truthful. Therefore your statement is not really correct… There are theories, yes, but no smoking guns on either side when it comes to the topic of origins. What we have here are only “weights” of evidence in favor of one view and sometimes neglecting the other. Sometimes even scientists don't always agree on the scientific outcome of the evolutionary predictions either.

Both.

Evidence please..

But that's not what you stated earlier. I explained that the earth and life sciences community have held the exact opposite of your opinion for over a century, and you responded: "Overwhelming opinion? Legally it's the ONLY opinion... ". I didn't say anything about public school curricula.

And who do think make up the earth and life sciences community? Layman?

That doesn't make any sense. Again, why did you shift definitions in the middle of the discussion after I demonstrated it to be an observed fact?

What's the matter? You can't find a response to that? Do you think creationist came up with the term “macroevolution?”

Of course. Why would we expect the preservation and discovery of every species that's ever existed?

But what about the examples of gradualism that are in the fossil record? Do we just wave them away?

No, but that doesn't mean it's a slam dunk for evolution either…

What exactly does that mean ("a lack of intermediates for most species")? Do you mean intermediates between species?

I fail to see the problem… If you read closely he was talking about the horse species..

What exactly do you think he's "admitting"?

Probably that most species appear suddenly in the fossil record and show no appreciable change for millions of years until their extinction…

I would agree that the fossil record will never give a complete picture of the past, but that does not mean it cannot tell us anything at all. Again, in the fossil record we see both gradual evolution and PE.

Examples?

90% missing is "surprisingly complete"?

That's hardly a smoking gun in my opinion..

Ah, so if someone were to say....statistically analyze the relationship between stratigraphy and phylogenetics, would you agree that would be a valuable exercise?

Sure, works better than assuming it. Please explain in detail your evidence..

????? The evolution of mammals is one of the best represented events in the fossil record. It's often used to calibrate molecular clocks. The assertion, "Many scientists had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals" is an uncited, unreferenced bald assertion.

Your references that they hadn't?

????? I wanted to look at the citation for this, and I was surprised to find that the cite isn't actually to Dr. Archibald's work! And when I clicked the link next to the cite, it didn't work ("Page not found"). All that seems rather odd.

??? LOL.. Ever hear of googling broken links before? Dennis Normile was quoting Dr. Archibald's work…

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/image ... eeting.htm

????????? But this copy-n-paste was just attempting to address PE, which posits that the gaps are due to modes of speciation. So this assertion/conclusion does not follow from what came before.

How so?

But this copy-n-paste stated earlier that there are examples of gradual evolution evidenced in the fossil record. So how is something that is seen in the fossil record "not supported by the fossil record"?

Because it is not seen in the fossil record. It is assumed…

Where does this assertion come from? No cite, no reference?

Where is your evidence that it is an assertion?

How is "low" defined above? What is a "low mutation rate"?

Gee… Let's see what Wikipedia says about mutation rates..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

Why is that unlikely? We see it happen.

References??

This seems to be a straw man argument. The total lack of citations or references in this section speaks volumes.
Sure, when you have "drastic reductions in numbers". PE does not require such dramatic reductions. Again, this is a straw man.

How so? Let's see some of your citations to refute it..

That would be true if PE revolved around such dramatic population reductions. Since it doesn't, the author is guilty of argumentation via straw man.

And where is your proof that PE doesn't revolve around such dramatic population reductions?

The paper does not say "prevents the kind of species sorting expected in punctuated equilibrium" at all.

Where?

I provided an example of observed speciation HERE. The new species is physiologically unable to breed with its parent species, but fully capable of breeding on its own.

How so???? This copy-n-paste Botany link does not prove anything.. Explain what your copy-n-paste means then if you think it is so relevant.

You didn't answer the question. Who taught you that evolution is "a fish morphing into a human"? Also, "Youtube" is not a scientific source. So once again, can you provide a scientific source claiming that evolution is "a fish morphing into a human"?

Gee that is a bold assertion… Are you surprised by my statement??? Everyone get's taught this in science class. "Youtube" is not a scientific source???? Youtube is USED by scientists. Please show the statement by Youtube where scientists are not allowed to post there then…

Because it doesn't invoke the supernatural.

It may not invoke the supernatural but only the hypothetical..

So in your mind, things are either absolutely proven or they are "faith" and "religion"?

Absolutely proven by whom?? You?

????? Why would the question be for me? You tried to quote Gould to support your assertion about the absence of transitional fossils. I showed where Gould very clearly stated that transitionals are "abundant" and expressed his frustration at creationists misquoting him as saying otherwise. And that's my issue? LOL!

That is right!! The onus is on you to show why Gould quoted one thing then said something completely different in another… Hmmm, could it be perhaps he had contrary evidence?

????????? What does the origins of life have to do with "Darwinian evolution"?

?????? Everything… Everything has a starting place doesn't it??? You can't have your chicken without the egg can you??

????????? Further, are you operating from the position that "faith", "belief", and "religion" are insults?

Only when you say they are unquestionable facts…

[Gerald McGrew]

Sorry 'bout that. Post it again and I'll be more than happy to discuss it.

Oh, so you are confessing you were wrong. You sure seemed sure that you were right earlier. Btw, we are discussing the topic now (in case you haven't noticed).

Ok.

I never said “the” majority of scientists, I said “a” majority of scientist accept that the existence of intelligent life COULD exist elsewhere in the universe.

Well, that's hardly earth-shattering. I certainly would agree that intelligent life could exist elsewhere.

Ok, what specifically have they determined is "designed"?

What specifically has Darwinian evolution determined new body designs, speciation or the appearance of new phyla?

You didn't answer the question: What specifically have ID creationists determined to be "designed"?

If it invokes the supernatural, it is untestable and thus, unscientific. If you disagree, please explain how you propose we test the supernatural.

Like I said it doesn't always invoke the supernatural…

But the fact that it does (even if it isn't "always"), renders it untestable and thus, unscientific.

Specified complexity can be the result of intelligent action. Therefore once specified complexity is identified, it can be scientifically inferred.

Can you give a specific example of something being identified as "specified complexity"?

Please explain how we test your Darwinian evolution? As an example the appearance of new phyla? Time?

We can subject populations to differential selective pressures and watch them evolve in response. We've done so countless times. Example; a population of yeast was subjected to limited food availability and evolved new genes in response.

Can you give a specific example of any of these fields using the same "principles" that ID creationists have proposed?

I have no idea what you are talking about… Be specific…

You claimed that archeology, forensics, and SETI use "principles" that can be used to study the supernatural. Please provide an specific example of these fields using said principles.

You stated before “Science does not "totally prove" things,” facts are not only just observations but they are also known as what is truthful. Therefore your statement is not really correct…

Observations are just that...observations.

Both.

Evidence please..

I've already provided you with an example of the evolution of a new species (the Tragopogon spp. paper) and just above is an example of evolution in yeast. Thus evolutionary adaptation and the evolution of new species have been observed.

But that's not what you stated earlier. I explained that the earth and life sciences community have held the exact opposite of your opinion for over a century, and you responded: "Overwhelming opinion? Legally it's the ONLY opinion... ". I didn't say anything about public school curricula.

And who do think make up the earth and life sciences community? Layman?

You're still not making sense. The earth and life sciences community, made up of earth and life scientists, have held the opposite of your opinion on evolutionary biology for over 100 years. That is not a legal question, that's simply a fact.

That doesn't make any sense. Again, why did you shift definitions in the middle of the discussion after I demonstrated it to be an observed fact?

What's the matter? You can't find a response to that? Do you think creationist came up with the term “macroevolution?”

You didn't answer the question: Why did you shift definitions in the middle of the discussion?

But what about the examples of gradualism that are in the fossil record? Do we just wave them away?

No, but that doesn't mean it's a slam dunk for evolution either…

Ah, so you acknowledge that examples of gradual evolution are in the fossil record.

What exactly does that mean ("a lack of intermediates for most species")? Do you mean intermediates between species?

I fail to see the problem… If you read closely he was talking about the horse species..

Right, but what does "a lack of intermediates for most species" refer to? A lack of intermediate species, a lack of intermediates between species, or something else?

I would agree that the fossil record will never give a complete picture of the past, but that does not mean it cannot tell us anything at all. Again, in the fossil record we see both gradual evolution and PE.

Examples?

Why do you need examples? You have been posting above that there are examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record. Are you disagreeing with your own posts?

Ah, so if someone were to say....statistically analyze the relationship between stratigraphy and phylogenetics, would you agree that would be a valuable exercise?

Sure, works better than assuming it. Please explain in detail your evidence..

Well, it's certainly not my evidence, but it's exactly what I described above. CLICK HERE to see a statistical analysis of the congruence between cladistics and stratigraphy. As you can see in Table 1, there is a very, very statistically significant relationship between cladistics (groupings of organisms according to their evolutionary relationships) and stratigraphy (the manner in which they appear in the fossil record).

????? The evolution of mammals is one of the best represented events in the fossil record. It's often used to calibrate molecular clocks. The assertion, "Many scientists had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals" is an uncited, unreferenced bald assertion.

Your references that they hadn't?

Logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. If you're going to post that "Many scientists had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals", the burden of proof is on you to support your assertion.

Dennis Normile was quoting Dr. Archibald's work…

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/image ... eeting.htm

Interesting...the reason I was so interested in looking at that was to figure out how Archibald's work supports the creationist argument. After reading that website, I don't see much of anything creationists can cite to support their cause.

????????? But this copy-n-paste was just attempting to address PE, which posits that the gaps are due to modes of speciation. So this assertion/conclusion does not follow from what came before.

How so?

PE argues that the rarity of transitionals between species are due to modes of speciation; the statement from the copy-n-paste claimes that PE argues "the lack of transitional forms is due to gaps in the fossil record".

But this copy-n-paste stated earlier that there are examples of gradual evolution evidenced in the fossil record. So how is something that is seen in the fossil record "not supported by the fossil record"?

Because it is not seen in the fossil record. It is assumed…

Then why did your copy-n-paste state "Barnosky (7) examined a large number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages and found a few examples of gradualism"? Again, are you disagreeing with your own posts?

Where does this assertion come from? No cite, no reference?

Where is your evidence that it is an assertion?

LOL! Probably the statement itself: "Punctuated equilibrium requires the occurrence of two unlikely events. First, a number of beneficial mutations must accumulate in a small number of individuals." Any support for this assertion?

How is "low" defined above? What is a "low mutation rate"?

Gee… Let's see what Wikipedia says about mutation rates..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

That's fine and all, but doesn't answer the question. How is "low mutation rate" defined in the statement: "Since the mutation rate is low...."?

Why is that unlikely? We see it happen.

References??

The Tragopogon spp. example I linked to above is a very good example of this sort of speciation. The new species (small population) only appears in areas where the two parental species' ranges overlap (large population).

This seems to be a straw man argument. The total lack of citations or references in this section speaks volumes.
Sure, when you have "drastic reductions in numbers". PE does not require such dramatic reductions. Again, this is a straw man.

How so? Let's see some of your citations to refute it..

Again, logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. You posted the assertion, thus it falls upon you to back it up.

And where is your proof that PE doesn't revolve around such dramatic population reductions?

Again, logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. If you're going to claim that PE requires "dramatic population reductions", it falls upon you to support the claim.

The paper does not say "prevents the kind of species sorting expected in punctuated equilibrium" at all.

Where?

LOL! Where does the paper not say that? Um....nowhere...or is it everywhere? Again, if you're going to claim that the paper says high genetic diversity "prevents PE", it falls upon you to show where it does.

How so???? This copy-n-paste Botany link does not prove anything.. Explain what your copy-n-paste means then if you think it is so relevant.

The paper describes the evolution of a new species that is capable of breeding on its own, but is unable to breed with its parent species.

You didn't answer the question. Who taught you that evolution is "a fish morphing into a human"? Also, "Youtube" is not a scientific source. So once again, can you provide a scientific source claiming that evolution is "a fish morphing into a human"?

Gee that is a bold assertion… Are you surprised by my statement??? Everyone get's taught this in science class. "Youtube" is not a scientific source???? Youtube is USED by scientists. Please show the statement by Youtube where scientists are not allowed to post there then…

Again: Who taught you that evolution is "a fish morphing into a human"? Also, I asked for a scientific source that claims evolution is a "fish morphing into a human". The YouTube video 1) doesn't say who made it, so we can't say it's from a scientific source, and 2) never claims "evolution is a fish morphing into a human" (in fact, it shows numerous organisms between fish and humans). So not only does it not support your assertion, it directly contradicts it.

Can you provide a scientific source claiming that "evolution is a fish morphing into a human"?

So in your mind, things are either absolutely proven or they are "faith" and "religion"?

Absolutely proven by whom?? You?

You continue to ask for "proof"...what exactly do you consider to be "proof"?

The onus is on you to show why Gould quoted one thing then said something completely different in another… Hmmm, could it be perhaps he had contrary evidence?

Oh, well that's easy. You misapplied his quote. You tried to imply that Gould didn't feel the existence of transitional fossils was evidence for "macroevolution" (your exact words were, "Not according to evolutionist Stephen J. Gould", after David claimed transitional fossils were evidence for "macroevolution"). As I showed, Gould clearly held the view that transitional fossils are "abundant" and was quite irritated at creationists for trying to misquote him as saying otherwise.

You were exactly who he was talking about.

????????? What does the origins of life have to do with "Darwinian evolution"?

?????? Everything… Everything has a starting place doesn't it??? You can't have your chicken without the egg can you??

Evolutionary theory is compatable with whatever origins of the first self-replicators scenario you care to name, be it via chemistry, panspermia, supernatural creation, or some other means.

????????? Further, are you operating from the position that "faith", "belief", and "religion" are insults?

Only when you say they are unquestionable facts…

Ah, so you do feel "faith", "belief", and "religion" are insults. Very interesting.

Also, you have a few questions left unaddressed:

What makes macroevolution unscientific?

If "gradualism" is "gradual changes in the genomes of species", what is PE in terms of pace of genetic changes?

Why would we expect the fossil preservation and discovery of every species that's ever existed?

[Gman]

Well, that's hardly earth-shattering. I certainly would agree that intelligent life could exist elsewhere.

Oh, so you see it as a possibility too then…

You didn't answer the question: What specifically have ID creationists determined to be "designed"?

Can you give a specific example of something being identified as "specified complexity"?

Gee, well let's see…. Where has evolution ever been documented to produce a living cell, an eye, a bacterial flagella, a kidney, a monkey, a human, etc… Do you want more?

But the fact that it does (even if it isn't "always"), renders it untestable and thus, unscientific.

Again… I have already provided you evidence where ID does NOT require a supernatural designer. So how do you test Darwinian evolution? You still have NOT addressed this question…. Therefore your assertion is unscientific also….

We can subject populations to differential selective pressures and watch them evolve in response. We've done so countless times. Example; a population of yeast was subjected to limited food availability and evolved new genes in response.

Yeast?? LOL… So scientists are adding in information? Why don't we see this happening naturally?? Again, how does this prove your macroevolution? Why aren't the scientist admitting that it does? How do you go from yeast to apes to humans with this example? You have NOT given countless responses you are simply avoiding the question...

You claimed that archeology, forensics, and SETI use "principles" that can be used to study the supernatural. Please provide an specific example of these fields using said principles.

Have you read the article yet??? Here it is again then…

“ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

Likewise, rocks do not naturally have pointed ends with patterns of chips along the sides. This pattern is extremely unlikely through natural processes, so we say that it exhibits intelligent design. In the science of forensics, scientists examine patterns of trauma, for example, to determine if it has a natural or intelligent cause. ID is already used in many areas of science.

Probably the best example is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Radio waves can be produced by a variety of natural and "intelligent" processes. Naturally-produced radio waves exhibit patterns of changes in wavelength that are due to random or periodic variation over time. There is no pattern that would indicate any kind of intelligence designed the signal. However, over short periods of time, the pattern could occur by chance with the probability inversely related to the length of time that the signal demonstrates a pattern. Therefore, by examining the signal statistically, scientists can determine if its cause is intelligent or natural. Thus far, intelligent design theory has eliminated (falsified) all extraterrestrial examples of radio waves monitored as being the product of intelligent design.”

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... esign.html

Observations are just that...observations.

Then you contradicted yourself…

I've already provided you with an example of the evolution of a new species (the Tragopogon spp. paper) and just above is an example of evolution in yeast. Thus evolutionary adaptation and the evolution of new species have been observed.

A real barn burner... That's right folks, apparently we evolved from plants or weeds… According to Wikipedia Tragopogon are a type of flowering plants within the family Asteraceae. Again, answer the question… How does this prove Darwinian evolution???

You're still not making sense. The earth and life sciences community, made up of earth and life scientists, have held the opposite of your opinion on evolutionary biology for over 100 years. That is not a legal question, that's simply a fact.

The theory of evolution has been around longer than 100 years.. Only a minority of people believed in it then. Just because someone believes that, does NOT make it a fact. Because it has never been observed… Now it is illegal for anyone to oppose it in the public classrooms since the separation of church and state.. So it's not surprising that no one would oppose it. That is, unless they wanted to get laughed at or perhaps lose their job.

That doesn't make any sense. Again, why did you shift definitions in the middle of the discussion after I demonstrated it to be an observed fact?

Shift what??? Of course it makes sense… Macroevolution does NOT exist… It is not an observed fact. Certain forms of microevolution "could" be deemed as factual but not your macroevolution which are changes in body designs or new speciation.

Ah, so you acknowledge that examples of gradual evolution are in the fossil record.

Not at all… Scientist may have “candidates” for their gradual evolution, but nothing is concrete evidence. Again, hardly a slam dunk… What don't you understand about that??

Right, but what does "a lack of intermediates for most species" refer to? A lack of intermediate species, a lack of intermediates between species, or something else?

Both..

Why do you need examples? You have been posting above that there are examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record. Are you disagreeing with your own posts?

Why do I need examples?? You say that the fossil record will never give a complete example of the past but then you say in the fossil record we see both gradual evolution and PE??? Where is your evidence?? Again, answer the question…

Well, it's certainly not my evidence, but it's exactly what I described above. CLICK HERE to see a statistical analysis of the congruence between cladistics and stratigraphy. As you can see in Table 1, there is a very, very statistically significant relationship between cladistics (groupings of organisms according to their evolutionary relationships) and stratigraphy (the manner in which they appear in the fossil record).

So??? Significant relationships??? How is this factual? I thought you said macroevolution was factual.. How does this support macroevolution?

Logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. If you're going to post that "Many scientists had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals", the burden of proof is on you to support your assertion.

LOL… You were the one making the statement that it was an assertion. So the burden of proof is on you to show that it is. Don't talk to me about shifting the burden of proof… Where is your proof??? It should be easy for you then…

Interesting...the reason I was so interested in looking at that was to figure out how Archibald's work supports the creationist argument. After reading that website, I don't see much of anything creationists can cite to support their cause.

Oh, so you can't confess you made a goof??? Earlier you said that you were surprised to find that the site isn't actually to Dr. Archibald's work not realizing that Dennis Normile was actually quoting Dr. Archibald's work!! Now you say it doesn't support creationists… So tell me who is moving the goalposts??

PE argues that the rarity of transitionals between species are due to modes of speciation; the statement from the copy-n-paste claimes that PE argues "the lack of transitional forms is due to gaps in the fossil record".

Oh, so you are admitting that there are rarities of transitionals between species?? I thought it was factual a common thing??

Then why did your copy-n-paste state "Barnosky (7) examined a large number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages and found a few examples of gradualism"? Again, are you disagreeing with your own posts?

No, you just didn't state it correctly… The other part of the sentence was “but many more which showed stasis and punctuation.” Therefore his assumptions were wrong….

LOL! Probably the statement itself: "Punctuated equilibrium requires the occurrence of two unlikely events. First, a number of beneficial mutations must accumulate in a small number of individuals." Any support for this assertion?

Again… You can't answer the question that it is an assertion…

that's fine and all, but doesn't answer the question. How is "low mutation rate" defined in the statement: "Since the mutation rate is low...."?

Are mutation rates high?? Please show then where mutation rates are high in species…

The Tragopogon spp. example I linked to above is a very good example of this sort of speciation. The new species (small population) only appears in areas where the two parental species' ranges overlap (large population).

In plants??? How did mammals evolve from plants then?

Again, logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. You posted the assertion, thus it falls upon you to back it up.

Again, logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. If you're going to claim that PE requires "dramatic population reductions", it falls upon you to support the claim.

No… You are calling it an assertion thus the burden of proof is on you to back up YOUR claim that it is an assertion!! Answer the question….

LOL! Where does the paper not say that? Um....nowhere...or is it everywhere? Again, if you're going to claim that the paper says high genetic diversity "prevents PE", it falls upon you to show where it does.

Incorrect… In fact he does make a reference to it in reference 24.

24. Reed, D.H., A.C. Nicholas and G.E. Stratton. 2006. Inbreeding levels and prey abundance interact to determine fecundity in natural populations of two species of wolf spider. Conserv. Genet. doi:10.1007/s10592-006-9260-4.

The paper describes the evolution of a new species that is capable of breeding on its own, but is unable to breed with its parent species.

In plants with the help of scientists?? What earth shattering evidence for macro evolution.

Again: Who taught you that evolution is "a fish morphing into a human"? Also, I asked for a scientific source that claims evolution is a "fish morphing into a human". The YouTube video 1) doesn't say who made it, so we can't say it's from a scientific source, and 2) never claims "evolution is a fish morphing into a human" (in fact, it shows numerous organisms between fish and humans). So not only does it not support your assertion, it directly contradicts it.

Can you provide a scientific source claiming that "evolution is a fish morphing into a human"?

LOL… Ok, this is by far the most …. statement you have made. Again, EVERYONE get's taught this stuff in either biology, anthropology, or a paleontology class. For me it was biology… Just to prove my point I decided to look at a biology book today called “Biology - Concepts and Connections” Copyright 2008, by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece , Martha R. Taylor , Eric J. Simon, Jean L. Dickey. In it on page 263 they display an evolutionary tree much like this one.



As you can clearly see the diagram shows FISHES (or lungfishes) as being the common ancestor of all mammals just as the book explains..

Ok if you don't believe me, would you trust Carl Sagan on YouTube? Do you know who Carl Sagan is???? Carl Sagan is one of the most highly successful popularizer of astronomy, astrophysics and other natural sciences.

Watch this….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZtRn1fst-g

Actually if you want to refute these claims is probably because there is no proof of it. So in that case I will agree with you…

You continue to ask for "proof"...what exactly do you consider to be "proof"?

Let's see what the dictionary say about proof then. I would agree with what the dictionary says...

Oh, well that's easy. You misapplied his quote. You tried to imply that Gould didn't feel the existence of transitional fossils was evidence for "macroevolution" (your exact words were, "Not according to evolutionist Stephen J. Gould", after David claimed transitional fossils were evidence for "macroevolution"). As I showed, Gould clearly held the view that transitional fossils are "abundant" and was quite irritated at creationists for trying to misquote him as saying otherwise.

You were exactly who he was talking about.

You still haven't explained what Gould meant by his statement... I don't understand, do you think Gould was quoting a creationist?

Evolutionary theory is compatable with whatever origins of the first self-replicators scenario you care to name, be it via chemistry, panspermia, supernatural creation, or some other means.

Again as you stated, “logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. You posted the assertion, thus it falls upon you to back it up.” Let's see that egg then…

Also, you have a few questions left unaddressed:

What makes macroevolution unscientific?

If "gradualism" is "gradual changes in the genomes of species", what is PE in terms of pace of genetic changes?

Why would we expect the fossil preservation and discovery of every species that's ever existed?

Again those are questions for you. So far you have given no solid evidence to your claims. I'm NOT convinced of any of your evidence…. My belief is that God exists and that He created everything. Don't you?

[Gerald McGrew]

You didn't answer the question: What specifically have ID creationists determined to be "designed"?

Can you give a specific example of something being identified as "specified complexity"?

Gee, well let's see…. Where has evolution ever been documented to produce a living cell, an eye, a bacterial flagella, a kidney, a monkey, a human, etc… Do you want more?

Are you saying that ID creationists have determined "a living cell, an eye, a bacterial flagella, a kidney, a monkey, a human, etc" are all "designed"?

Again… I have already provided you evidence where ID does NOT require a supernatural designer.

Where?

So how do you test Darwinian evolution? You still have NOT addressed this question…. Therefore your assertion is unscientific also….

No, I answered your question by describing how evolution via mutation and natural selection can be tested and documented in the lab.

We can subject populations to differential selective pressures and watch them evolve in response. We've done so countless times. Example; a population of yeast was subjected to limited food availability and evolved new genes in response.

Yeast?? LOL… So scientists are adding in information?

No one "added information". They simply introduced the population to a different environment and watched them evolve in response, Darwinian evolution in action.

Why don't we see this happening naturally?? Again, how does this prove your macroevolution? Why aren't the scientist admitting that it does? How do you go from yeast to apes to humans with this example? You have NOT given countless responses you are simply avoiding the question...

?????? First, this does happen "naturally". Second, I gave this example in response to your request for an example of how to test Darwinian evolution, not "macroevolution" or "how to go from yeast to apes to humans". Again, you're moving the goalposts after having your demand answered.

Show me X!

Here is X.

Nope, that's not Y!

“ID is already used in many areas of science. In archeology, we know that stones don't naturally occur in square shapes piled on top of each other. They show signs of intelligent design (although the designer is not supernatural). A recent example is an underwater rock formation off the coast of Cuba. According to the discoverers, the formation consist of smooth, geometrically shaped, granite-like rocks that are laid out in structures resembling pyramids, roads and other structures at more than 2,000 feet in a 7-3/4 mile-square area. How does it exhibit intelligent design? Natural formations of rocks do not have geometric shapes arranged in recognizable structures.

So the "principle of ID" that these fields use is "if it's not natural, it's intelligently designed"?

I've already provided you with an example of the evolution of a new species (the Tragopogon spp. paper) and just above is an example of evolution in yeast. Thus evolutionary adaptation and the evolution of new species have been observed.

A real barn burner... That's right folks, apparently we evolved from plants or weeds… According to Wikipedia Tragopogon are a type of flowering plants within the family Asteraceae. Again, answer the question… How does this prove Darwinian evolution???

Once again, you move the goalposts upon having your demands answered. I provided that example in response to your demand of an example of the evolution of a new species. Now you're trying to wave it away, apparently because of something to do with "we evolved from plants or weeds".

Show me X!

Here's X.

Nope, that's not Y!

That doesn't make any sense. Again, why did you shift definitions in the middle of the discussion after I demonstrated it to be an observed fact?

Shift what???

When I aked you how you were defining "macroevolution", you linked to the Wikipedia site which defined it as evolution above the species level. But once I gave an example of observed evolution that met that criterion, you immediately switched definitions to something to do with the origin of phyla. Why?

Ah, so you acknowledge that examples of gradual evolution are in the fossil record.

Not at all… Scientist may have “candidates” for their gradual evolution, but nothing is concrete evidence. Again, hardly a slam dunk… What don't you understand about that??

I don't understand why you would post that scientists have found examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record, only to later deny that they have. Do you not stand by the material you post?

Right, but what does "a lack of intermediates for most species" refer to? A lack of intermediate species, a lack of intermediates between species, or something else?

Both..

Ok, so what specific specimens in the horse fossil record are lacking intermediates?

You say that the fossil record will never give a complete example of the past but then you say in the fossil record we see both gradual evolution and PE??? Where is your evidence?? Again, answer the question…

I'm simply citing your own posts. You posted:

Barnosky (7) examined a large number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages and found a few examples of gradualism but many more which showed stasis and punctuation.

You stated yourself that both gradual evolution and PE are evidenced in the fossil record.

Well, it's certainly not my evidence, but it's exactly what I described above. CLICK HERE to see a statistical analysis of the congruence between cladistics and stratigraphy. As you can see in Table 1, there is a very, very statistically significant relationship between cladistics (groupings of organisms according to their evolutionary relationships) and stratigraphy (the manner in which they appear in the fossil record).

So??? Significant relationships??? How is this factual? I thought you said macroevolution was factual.. How does this support macroevolution?

Again you're moving the goalposts. I asked you: "if someone were to say....statistically analyze the relationship between stratigraphy and phylogenetics, would you agree that would be a valuable exercise?". You responded, "Sure, works better than assuming it." But once I provide exactly what I described, you again revert back to moving the goalposts.

Show me X!

Here's X.

Nope, that's not Y!

Logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. If you're going to post that "Many scientists had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals", the burden of proof is on you to support your assertion.

LOL… You were the one making the statement that it was an assertion. So the burden of proof is on you to show that it is.

Do you understand what an assertion is? It's simply a statement or claim. Are you denying that "Many scientists had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals" is not a statement or claim?

Oh, so you can't confess you made a goof??? Earlier you said that you were surprised to find that the site isn't actually to Dr. Archibald's work not realizing that Dennis Normile was actually quoting Dr. Archibald's work!! Now you say it doesn't support creationists… So tell me who is moving the goalposts??

???? I simply observed that the link at the webpage didn't work. You provided a working link and I read the webpage. After reading it, I noted that it didn't seem to contain anything that a creationist should be citing to support their argument.

So I guess, thanks for the link and the article.

Oh, so you are admitting that there are rarities of transitionals between species?? I thought it was factual a common thing??

Of course species-species transitional fossils are rare (but not absent). And I never claimed they were common.

Then why did your copy-n-paste state "Barnosky (7) examined a large number of different lineages of mammals, from mammoths to shrews and rodents that lived during the last two million years of the Ice Ages and found a few examples of gradualism"? Again, are you disagreeing with your own posts?

No, you just didn't state it correctly… The other part of the sentence was “but many more which showed stasis and punctuation.” Therefore his assumptions were wrong….

Right, Barnosky found examples of both gradual evolution and PE in the mammalian fossil record, as stated in your own post.

LOL! Probably the statement itself: "Punctuated equilibrium requires the occurrence of two unlikely events. First, a number of beneficial mutations must accumulate in a small number of individuals." Any support for this assertion?

Again… You can't answer the question that it is an assertion…

???? Are you denying that the statement above about PE is a statement?

that's fine and all, but doesn't answer the question. How is "low mutation rate" defined in the statement: "Since the mutation rate is low...."?

Are mutation rates high?? Please show then where mutation rates are high in species…

You didn't answer the question: How is "low mutation rate" defined in that statement?

The Tragopogon spp. example I linked to above is a very good example of this sort of speciation. The new species (small population) only appears in areas where the two parental species' ranges overlap (large population).

In plants??? How did mammals evolve from plants then?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you really don't know what PE centers on, do you? Do you understand the difference in modes of speciation between Darwinian gradualism and PE?

Again, logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. You posted the assertion, thus it falls upon you to back it up.

Again, logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. If you're going to claim that PE requires "dramatic population reductions", it falls upon you to support the claim.

No… You are calling it an assertion thus the burden of proof is on you to back up YOUR claim that it is an assertion!! Answer the question….

Again, are you denying that those are statements?

LOL! Where does the paper not say that? Um....nowhere...or is it everywhere? Again, if you're going to claim that the paper says high genetic diversity "prevents PE", it falls upon you to show where it does.

Incorrect… In fact he does make a reference to it in reference 24.

24. Reed, D.H., A.C. Nicholas and G.E. Stratton. 2006. Inbreeding levels and prey abundance interact to determine fecundity in natural populations of two species of wolf spider. Conserv. Genet. doi:10.1007/s10592-006-9260-4.

????? No, that doesn't say anything about "preventing the kind of species sorting required in PE".

The paper describes the evolution of a new species that is capable of breeding on its own, but is unable to breed with its parent species.

In plants with the help of scientists?? What earth shattering evidence for macro evolution.

You obviously didn't read the paper. The new species evolved in the wild.

Can you provide a scientific source claiming that "evolution is a fish morphing into a human"?

Again, EVERYONE get's taught this stuff in either biology, anthropology, or a paleontology class. For me it was biology… Just to prove my point I decided to look at a biology book today called “Biology - Concepts and Connections” Copyright 2008, by Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece , Martha R. Taylor , Eric J. Simon, Jean L. Dickey. In it on page 263 they display an evolutionary tree much like this one.

Funny...even that image shows amphibians and mammals between fish and humans. Not exactly "a fish morphing into a human", is it?

As you can clearly see the diagram shows FISHES (or lungfishes) as being the common ancestor of all mammals just as the book explains..

So to you, there is no difference between "fish are ancestral to mammals" and "evolution is a fish morphing into a human"? You don't see any distinction between those two statements?

Ok if you don't believe me, would you trust Carl Sagan on YouTube? Do you know who Carl Sagan is???? Carl Sagan is one of the most highly successful popularizer of astronomy, astrophysics and other natural sciences.

Watch this….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZtRn1fst-g

No where does Sagan claim "evolution is a fish morphing into a human".

You still haven't explained what Gould meant by his statement... I don't understand, do you think Gould was quoting a creationist?

Gould was simply explaining his view that the fossil record contains many examples of PE. You attempted to twist that into him saying that transitional fossils don't exist at all.

Evolutionary theory is compatable with whatever origins of the first self-replicators scenario you care to name, be it via chemistry, panspermia, supernatural creation, or some other means.

Again as you stated, “logical fallacy: shifting the burden of proof. You posted the assertion, thus it falls upon you to back it up.” Let's see that egg then…

?????? How am I shifting anything? I didn't ask you to substantiate my statement at all.

Also, you have a few questions left unaddressed:

What makes macroevolution unscientific?

If "gradualism" is "gradual changes in the genomes of species", what is PE in terms of pace of genetic changes?

Why would we expect the fossil preservation and discovery of every species that's ever existed?

Again those are questions for you. So far you have given no solid evidence to your claims. I'm NOT convinced of any of your evidence…. My belief is that God exists and that He created everything. Don't you?

So you're just going to completely ignore those questions?

[Gman]

Are you saying that ID creationists have determined "a living cell, an eye, a bacterial flagella, a kidney, a monkey, a human, etc" are all "designed"?

Of course.. Anything evolution can't prove...

Where?

Read my previous posts...

No, I answered your question by describing how evolution via mutation and natural selection can be tested and documented in the lab.

You did nothing of the like... You could not document evolution creating a new species of a mammal... I asked you for a "phyla" not a "phylum" of plants...

No one "added information". They simply introduced the population to a different environment and watched them evolve in response, Darwinian evolution in action.

Scientists introduced the population to a different environment? You don't call that playing god?

?????? First, this does happen "naturally". Second, I gave this example in response to your request for an example of how to test Darwinian evolution, not "macroevolution" or "how to go from yeast to apes to humans". Again, you're moving the goalposts after having your demand answered.

Show me X!

Here is X.

Nope, that's not Y!

You have failed the question.... Even YOU admitted that scientists introduced the population to a different environment. That means it did not happen naturally... Again, we ARE talking about your macroevolution... You're moving the goalposts after having your demand answered.

Quote from another post... "And you know other micro biologists may argue that the basic information for such a change may have already been present within the DNA of the original parental strain???"

So the "principle of ID" that these fields use is "if it's not natural, it's intelligently designed"?

Sometimes...

Once again, you move the goalposts upon having your demands answered. I provided that example in response to your demand of an example of the evolution of a new species. Now you're trying to wave it away, apparently because of something to do with "we evolved from plants or weeds".

Show me X!

Here's X.

Nope, that's not Y!

Again you have failed to provide evidenced for macroevolution.... Same thing over again...

When I aked you how you were defining "macroevolution", you linked to the Wikipedia site which defined it as evolution above the species level. But once I gave an example of observed evolution that met that criterion, you immediately switched definitions to something to do with the origin of phyla. Why?

You have not provided any evidence for MACROEVOLUTION, only MICROEVOLUTION... Microevolution is not the same as macroevolution...

I don't understand why you would post that scientists have found examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record, only to later deny that they have. Do you not stand by the material you post?

They did NOT find examples of gradual evolution. It was assumed.. You intentionally deleted the rest of the quote to try to prove your point... You misrepresented the authors work....

Ok, so what specific specimens in the horse fossil record are lacking intermediates?

Edit:
Here... http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html or http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/horse.html

You stated yourself that both gradual evolution and PE are evidenced in the fossil record.

That was your assumption..

Again you're moving the goalposts. I asked you: "if someone were to say....statistically analyze the relationship between stratigraphy and phylogenetics, would you agree that would be a valuable exercise?". You responded, "Sure, works better than assuming it." But once I provide exactly what I described, you again revert back to moving the goalposts.

Show me X!

Here's X.

Nope, that's not Y!

Again you have failed to provide evidenced for macroevolution..... Same question over again.

Do you understand what an assertion is? It's simply a statement or claim. Are you denying that "Many scientists had claimed that gaps in the fossil record could account for the apparent sudden appearance of mammals" is not a statement or claim?

Again you can't refute the claim. I'm sorry to hear that..

???? I simply observed that the link at the webpage didn't work. You provided a working link and I read the webpage. After reading it, I noted that it didn't seem to contain anything that a creationist should be citing to support their argument.

So I guess, thanks for the link and the article.

Thanks but I don't believe you...

Of course species-species transitional fossils are rare (but not absent). And I never claimed they were common.

Then it isn't as factual as you think...

???? Are you denying that the statement above about PE is a statement?

Again you have failed to answer the question... Sorry.

You didn't answer the question: How is "low mutation rate" defined in that statement?

Because high mutation rates do not exist in mammals. Well maybe the ones near a nuclear plant..

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you really don't know what PE centers on, do you? Do you understand the difference in modes of speciation between Darwinian gradualism and PE?

Do you understand that your quote offers no evidence for macroevolution?

Again, are you denying that those are statements?

You seem to be claiming it was an assertion, not me.. I asked you to back up that claim and you couldn't...

????? No, that doesn't say anything about "preventing the kind of species sorting required in PE".

Read it again...

You obviously didn't read the paper. The new species evolved in the wild.

Right.. Species of plants, when scientists introduced the population to a different environment. This does NOT prove macroevolution by any means.. Again, other micro biologists may argue that the basic information for such a change may have already been present within the DNA of the original parental strain.

Funny...even that image shows amphibians and mammals between fish and humans. Not exactly "a fish morphing into a human", is it?

Funny you are denying the truth...

So to you, there is no difference between "fish are ancestral to mammals" and "evolution is a fish morphing into a human"? You don't see any distinction between those two statements?

No where does Sagan claim "evolution is a fish morphing into a human".

This type of arrogance I won't allow on this panel.. I have CLEARLY shown the video by Sagan of a lungfish morphing into a mammal.
Here.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZtRn1fst-g

I'm sorry, but you are expelled...

Gould was simply explaining his view that the fossil record contains many examples of PE. You attempted to twist that into him saying that transitional fossils don't exist at all.

Again you have failed to answer the question.. Gould simply stated "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism." He did not say, don't exist at all..

?????? How am I shifting anything? I didn't ask you to substantiate my statement at all.

Then you have no response to my question...

So you're just going to completely ignore those questions?

I have answered some of your questions, but I have asked you to clarify some of yours and you refused and then said I was moving the goalposts. That is a ridiculous claim. So there is no reason to go on with the discussion.. Sorry.

[JC333]

This is getting incredibly long to read. Enjoying the read though.

[IgoFan]

Regarding Judge Jones's prejudice on the Dover ID trial:

[...] His mind was made up from the get go. [...]

I met Judge Jones at one of his post-trial lectures.

One of my questions was whether, before his assignment to the trial, he had known about ID, a lot about evolution, or the ID/evolution controversy. He told me no, and that he had to spend a lot of time during the trial understanding both sides of the issue.

What is your evidence that "His mind was made up from the get go."?

[godslanguage]

ID is obviously not religion, anyone who thinks otherwise is living in Lala land.

[Kurieuo]

Regarding Judge Jones's prejudice on the Dover ID trial:

[...] His mind was made up from the get go. [...]

I met Judge Jones at one of his post-trial lectures.

One of my questions was whether, before his assignment to the trial, he had known about ID, a lot about evolution, or the ID/evolution controversy. He told me no, and that he had to spend a lot of time during the trial understanding both sides of the issue.

What is your evidence that "His mind was made up from the get go."?

Come on... would one seriously expect him to respond any other way? In that same post you quoted my words from, you should be able to find what it is he spent a lot of time reading (and copying and pasting from).

[IgoFan]

Regarding Judge Jones's prejudice on the Dover ID trial:

[...] His mind was made up from the get go. [...]

I met Judge Jones at one of his post-trial lectures.

One of my questions was whether, before his assignment to the trial, he had known about ID, a lot about evolution, or the ID/evolution controversy. He told me no, and that he had to spend a lot of time during the trial understanding both sides of the issue.

What is your evidence that "His mind was made up from the get go."?

Come on... would one seriously expect him to respond any other way? In that same post you quoted my words from, you should be able to find what it is he spent a lot of time reading (and copying and pasting from).

So either Judge Jones, a devout Christian, blatantly lied to me and everyone around me,
or...
you jumped to an incorrect conclusion about "His mind was made up from the get go."

[ElShamah]

i just stumbled over this thread, so i don't know if what i think has been expressed.

Isn't the evolution theory not much more than a supposition ? no proofs ? then why is it called scientific ? Why does the origin of the world and the universe have to be teached as science at public schools ?
I had religion teaching at school as a kid, the first three years. The professor was just telling us the story of the old testament, the five books of moses. I loved the stories. This was the base for my faith, later.
If Genesis would be teached just as religion at schools, that would be enough. In fact, ID could be teached as religion additionally to Genesis , why not ? i don't see any reason, why it coulnt be done so.


Angelo

[sosam29]

There is one good documentary Called "Expelled" Based on Current agenda in Education Field by Educationist to Put away creation theory and they are using pressuring tactic to make all those dare to talk about ID. So that will create fear in the minds of teachers who are open minded and proposes another opinion to Theory of Evolution based in ID.

[IgoFan]

OK, still no evidence other than personal bias that "His mind was made up from the get go." Let's move on.

I thought everyone knew by now that Judge Jones didn't do any real judging, but just cut and paste ACLU's brief.
[...]
Jones was lazy.

A judge can use none, any, or all of an amicus curiae as he wishes. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR. Even Supreme Court justices copy from them in their decisions.

If a judge thinks that the trial evidence agrees with an amicus, re-writing it in his own words is a counter-productive waste of his time, especially in cases with scientific testimony like that in Kitzmiller.

You obviously disagree with Judge Jones's ruling, but calling him lazy is another unsupported conclusion from personal bias. If Judge Jones had agreed with the ID creationists and had included their amicus from the FTE (Foundation for Thought and Ethics) in his decision, would you be calling him lazy?

[Kurieuo]

I find your manner quite insulting. The substance in my previous responses are there for all to read and judge. God bless.