Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Esquilax]

Yes, I've read those and more, but they don't support your claim that this is "something the skinks have never been able to do before."

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?

I've already noted that your position regarding macro/micro is not unanimously held among biologists.

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

In response you've attempted a burden shift/argument from ignorance fallacy, claiming that unless I can prove macroevolution-specific mechanisms, your position stands. In another current thread you're protesting that gemini is using that tactic, yet you use it yourself.

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. 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.

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.

I'm not insisting that there's no evidence. I said I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence. That doesn't mean it's not out there. Just show it to me.

Compelling evidence of... what, exactly? That your positive claim isn't true? Now who's indulging in an argument from ignorance?

You're correct that it's not your problem. It's also not your problem that you can't seem to present scientific evidence proving your position. It's just not a problem at all.

Oh look, there it is again!