(May 8, 2014 at 1:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So it's your claim that these two otherwise identical groups of skinks have existed in parallel forever, and that the existence of intermediate variations on the same skink that retain the eggshells despite giving live birth for noticeably longer is just a coincidence?

No, as I haven't studied it enough to make such a claim, or to evaluate your claim that they're otherwise identical. But, the articles do not support your claim. you act as if all skink populations had been studied and found to be egg layers, and then a known population began live births. That's not the case.

Quote:Unanimity doesn't matter, as there's rarely complete consensus over any area of science, but leave it to a theist to demand absolutes.

It matters when you present one position as a given. It's not a given.

Quote:
My position stands because it's the one that's observed, the one with the evidence behind it. We can demonstrably show that small changes occur and are retained within populations, and it's simple logic that one plus one equals two even when it's applied to mutations within a population.

And it's simple logic (math actually) that 1+1-1=1, putting you right back where you started. You've been talking out of both sides of your mouth regarding the straight line.

Quote:You're attempting to inject an additional layer of complexity into the proceedings, a positive claim that, though one plus one does equal two, once the number gets to ninety-nine there's something preventing it from reaching one hundred, and I'm sorry if this makes you uncomfortable John, but that's something you are required to provide evidence for before it becomes remotely believable.

See above - you never got to 99.

Quote:The fact that, so far, rather than simply cutting the Gordian Knot and presenting evidence that microevolution is somehow prevented from continuing once it reaches the species threshold, you instead opt to sling around misapplied accusations of fallacies at me, is rather telling.

The fact that I just want scientific evidence for macroevolution - a term coined by and still used by evolutionists - but get everything but such evidence is rather telling.

Just one, big, long-ass argument from ignorance.

Right from the very website that was initially quoted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

(May 8, 2014 at 1:22 pm)alpha male Wrote: The fact that I just want scientific evidence for macroevolution - a term coined by and still used by evolutionists - but get everything but such evidence is rather telling.

Ask and you shall receive...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

If you actually bother to explore you will notice sections for confirmation, criticism and potential falsification in each discussion topic. The fact that scientists anticipate arguments does not mean what we know today is false. It certainly says nothing about the existence of God. Please remember that there isn't just one chain of evidence supporting macroevolution, but that all the disparate factual findings are explained by the theory of evolution. You have been asked a couple different ways, but have yet to provide an alternative explanation for the findings.

(May 8, 2014 at 1:56 pm)coldwx Wrote: Right from the very website that was initially quoted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

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.

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.

(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.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

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.

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.

So, he admits to having been shown this same link multiple times, and is what, just ignoring the information?

What the hell?

I would have to disagree with the supposition that once you've demonstrated microevolution you've thereby demonstrated macroevolution because macroevolution is "just more of the same." That's an unscientific assumption that a trend will, left to its own devices, continue in the same direction and at the same pace. This isn't a valid assumption in the general case, and it's not valid as an assumption in this case. We don't know enough about the mechanics of genetics to say that there are no limits to variability at the biological level "based solely on observation of microevolution in existing genetic populations." The conclusion that macroevolution occurs is one based on a pattern of evidence, it's an inference from a lot of evidence. In that respect, it is categorically different from microevolution. We can see microevolution and demonstrate it in the lab. The same can't be said for macroevolution; it must be inferred from a pattern of evidences. Thus I think there is a real barrier to both the demonstration of macroevolution, and the acceptance of it, which doesn't exist with microevolution. Both can be demonstrated to occur, yet the demonstration of macroevolution is categorically different from the demonstration of microevolution, and with that difference enters the possibility of doubt of the former, while simultaneously accepting the latter. This is not just pigheaded refusal to accept that microevolution and macroevolution as being the same; it's an acknowledgement that the evidence for one and the evidence for the other are unique. One can withhold assent for macroevolution without being inconsistent in one's acceptance of microevolution, and I don't think the burden is necessarily on the skeptic of macroevolution. If the evolution advocate's position is simply assuming that the trend of microevolution can extend beyond the boundaries of species, then he or she needs to demonstrate it with more than an assumption of uniformity of trend.

(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.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

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.

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.

(May 8, 2014 at 3:04 pm)rasetsu Wrote: I would have to disagree with the supposition that once you've demonstrated microevolution you've thereby demonstrated macroevolution because macroevolution is "just more of the same." That's an unscientific assumption that a trend will, left to its own devices, continue in the same direction and at the same pace. This isn't a valid assumption in the general case, and it's not valid as an assumption in this case. We don't know enough about the mechanics of genetics to say that there are no limits to variability at the biological level "based solely on observation of microevolution in existing genetic populations." The conclusion that macroevolution occurs is one based on a pattern of evidence, it's an inference from a lot of evidence. In that respect, it is categorically different from microevolution. We can see microevolution and demonstrate it in the lab. The same can't be said for macroevolution; it must be inferred from a pattern of evidences. Thus I think there is a real barrier to both the demonstration of macroevolution, and the acceptance of it, which doesn't exist with microevolution. Both can be demonstrated to occur, yet the demonstration of macroevolution is categorically different from the demonstration of microevolution, and with that difference enters the possibility of doubt of the former, while simultaneously accepting the latter. This is not just pigheaded refusal to accept that microevolution and macroevolution as being the same; it's an acknowledgement that the evidence for one and the evidence for the other are unique. One can withhold assent for macroevolution without being inconsistent in one's acceptance of microevolution, and I don't think the burden is necessarily on the skeptic of macroevolution. If the evolution advocate's position is simply assuming that the trend of microevolution can extend beyond the boundaries of species, then he or she needs to demonstrate it with more than an assumption of uniformity of trend.

Ring species, by exhibiting the entire process of speciation - ie "macro"evolution - simulataneously across space, rather than sequentially across time, provides independent demonstration that there is no binding genetic limitations of variability at biological level that would preclude speciation, whether we might otherwise be said to know enough about genetics to have been able to make this determination a priori or not.

To accept "micro" evolution while arbitrarily imposing some boundaries to its possible cummulative effect so as to preclude "macro" evolution make a great deal more presumption on understanding of genetics than the reverse. In one case, one extrapolate from what is proven, and the fact that no binding limits have been observed although not unlooked for. In another one asserts the limit must be there based on nothing whatsoever, other than a desire to subordinate biology and genetics to theology.

(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.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

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.

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.

You make a good point. I can't follow the link, but it sounds like the first part is all over the place, connecting things that don't really matter to the concept of macroevolution.