Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Now, stop. If something is observed to happen, and we have evidence of it happening, then is that not reason enough to infer that it will continue to happen, without the intervention of some outside force?

No, it isn't. rasetsu already explained this, and Mister Agenda kudoed it. To my knowledge they're not YECs, yet they see the error in your method. This isn't some creationist trick. Your argument is faulty - it's an extrapolation fallacy coupled with an argument from ignorance fallacy.

---

Heh, cool, I didn't know about the tree frog example, that's awesome.

And kind of the end of the argument, John.

Key line is, "At some point in their history..." This is the same as your skink. You see differences and assume change. Further, IIRC the only definition of macroevolution introduced in the thread was given by Mister Agenda: "Macroevolution is evolution above the species level leading to taxonomic divergence." Speciation itself is not macroevolution by this definition.

There's no cure for belligerent ignorance. He's literally incapable of understanding and retaining the information.

He's just repeating the same objections, over and over again, like a trained parrot.

It doesn't matter how many times it's explained to him: Alpha Male is either too brainwashed or too dense to understand why he's already accepted "macro" evolution.