Discussion on debate between Esquilax and His_Majesty.

[Esquilax]

Logically, all that he has to argue, is that for all we know, it's impossible that small changes over time would ever be sufficient to make a large enough change to change a reptile to a bird.

But why would it be impossible? What mechanism exists that would stop the changes from accumulating to the point where a new species designation would be required? I argued this in the thread; the term species isn't some inherent, magic boundary that can never be crossed. It's just a defintional label applied by human beings; saying that a new species has emerged just means that the organism has accumulated enough little changes that it's too different to be called the same species as its ancestor. This is a simple, logical observation; we know the small changes occur, and we know of no mechanism that would restrict them from crossing the artificially constructed human made species lines, therefore we have no reason to think they won't.

If he wanted to argue that it's impossible- and he did- then he's making an additional claim with its own burden of proof... that he hasn't bothered supporting. Meanwhile, there's plenty of evidence for my side, which I've actually posted for all to see.

Since the thread is that we have sufficient evidence to believe in evolution, it would be on you to prove it.

He doesn't have to argue or prove it, this time, it's on you, who is making the claim that the evidence is on your side.

And when I slapped down such evidence, his response was tantamount to a "nuh uh!"