Darwinism

[SenseiOtho]

Adaptation (what you creationists would have us call micro-evolution so that you can accept what evidence shows is happening while denying the possibility of speciation) is change, adaptation occurs all the time and as anyone (any 5 year old I imagine) could tell you one plus one equals two, something small plus something small equals something bigger. So it is with change ... small change plus small change plus small change plus small change plus (ad infinitum) results in much larger change, IOW adaptation (which even creationists, through the sheer hammering home of evidence, have been forced to admit occurs) happens and adaptation across sufficient time results in speciation. Change at the species level (given the currently accepted age of the Earth and the forces acting in the environment) is pretty much inevitable, new species will arise ...

interesting trying to switch the argument around on the non-evolutionist to show what keeps species stable. I still think the burden of proof lies on the evolutionist to show how drastic changes happen and if little change after little change can overcome stabilizing factors in life. It seems to be that Mendelian genetics within populations, the extreme rarity of beneficial mutation along with the problems of gene fixing, as well as gene self-regulating and repairing tends to keep life basically the same. Even in the era of modern research on the fruit fly and bacteria, we still find that there are limits to the change, with almost all changes being harmful or at best neutral. Even with bacterial drug resistance which is the only helpful change I know of, it still comes with a high cost. What's interesting yet rarely reported is that those resistant bacteria when placed back with the parent culture without the drug can't keep up reproductively, which means that natural selection would weed them out and there was no net gain. Only in specific extreme environments would they be dominate, and that's what we find in extreme temperatures and acidity environments (or hospitals). But not surprisingly they are still bacteria.

The fossil record gives plenty of evidence for the stability of life. It shows that the vast majority of animals appear suddenly and live for long periods of time with little change, then most go extinct pretty much how they appeared. I think there are a handful of fossils claimed to be transitional, yet even these are plagued with problems in showing that they are actually transitional and not just assumed to be due to some similarity in their bones. The "living fossils" that have been found when studied have been huge let downs. One such example is the coelacanth (walking fish transitional fossil) that supposedly went extinct 65 million years ago, but when found alive and studied they actually swim with those fins and don't walk with them. As I said the burden of proof is still on the evolutionist.

I guess technically you could say there has been speciation if you define a species as a reproductively isolated population, which is one (of about 5?) of the common definition in scientific research, but this just shows that two bird populations (for example) don't naturally reproduce in the wild. Many times they still can in captivity (a popular non-bird example being the lion and tiger = the liger), plus it doesn't show any new forms or changes in the higher levels above the species which is really where evolution must explain. The different species still have wings and beaks, their bones are still hollow and made for flying, they still lay eggs, etc. Not to mention that this definition of species leaves out the fossil record and any asexual reproducing life. I'm ok with this type of reproductive speciation by the way, because it is still limited and doesn't account for the massive variety between phyla, at least the actual evidence doesn't show that it does.

--as for the walking or rain drop analogy, the basic assumption of evolutionist seem to be that there is nothing working against change or regulating change within limits. As I've stated above this seems to be a bad assumption based on the evidence around us. One drop at a time doesn't make a lake if the sun is drying it up or the earth soaking it up. We do see puddles formed naturally and regularly under these conditions, lakes require more conditions than just rain. And you can't take one step at a time to get a mile away if the grand canyon is between the start and end.

kyu I'll answer some of your other objections later, but I'm still interested in if you have an answer to the problem of the Cambrian explosion, you waved it off in your last post and so I'm not sure if your conceding the point that it is a dilemma for evolution or just didn't have time to answer it.