(May 8, 2014 at 2:14 pm)alpha male Wrote:(May 8, 2014 at 1:56 pm)coldwx Wrote: Right from the very website that was initially quoted.Finally. Back in the day, when you asked for evidence for macroevolution, this came up in about ten seconds. I think youtube is dumbing people down.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Anyway, the very first evidence is a bait and switch. The fundamental unity of life is not a prediction of macroevolution. It depends on the assumption that there is one and only one instance of abiogenesis. A different kind of life could be the result of a second instance of abiogenesis and would not contradict macroevolution.
I forgot about this bit of circularity in the first supposed evidence:
Quote:Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material.Well, yeah, as something with foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material would by definition not be from a known phylum.
This sounds similar to the rebuttals posited in Ashby Camp's critique of Theobald. I do try to read both arguments if the cogency of same demands it, as it appears you do as well. Theobald addresses some of those critique's here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html
Although now admittedly I am beginning to argue through proxy, which I dislike. Maybe it is because I have a splitting headache while attempting to plan my wife's surprise 40th.