Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Esquilax]

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.

Perhaps. But there's still enough evidence to point to this being an evolutionary change that's still in progress, rather than something these skinks just do.

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

No, it doesn't. Like I've said before, you'll find scientists that disagree with pretty much any scientific concept, the idea that any field has unanimity vastly misunderstands how human beings work. But as I've said before, if these scientists believe that macroevolution works on a different set of mechanisms to microevolution, or if they think that there's some line preventing micro changes from accumulating, then they are making positive claims that require evidence.

Evidence that I would be happy to consider, if it's there. But so far, there's been a marked lack of it here, which is enough justification to shelve the idea until evidence comes to light.

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.

Well, actually, even if you had 1+1-1, you would still have gone somewhere and then come back, so it's not like there would be no indication that anything had happened. That quibble aside, you just keep showing that you aren't getting this; I'm not "talking out of both sides of my mouth," I'm being intellectually honest. Yes, there are some cases in which a trait evolves, and then regresses, so that no change overall occurs. Are you now saying that this happens in every case? What mechanism can you propose that makes this happen?

See above - you never got to 99.

Only if you're proposing that the mechanism prevents things from progressing past 2, which is still something you'd bear a burden of proof for. Pushing that burden back further doesn't absolve you of it.

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.

Quit shifting the burden of proof.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Oh, I get it. Alpha Male is the religion and ignorance part of the thread, demonstrating how some people wouldn't be able to discern evolution if it bent them over and called them Suzie.

[Bob Kelso]

Oh, I get it. Alpha Male is the religion and ignorance part of the thread, demonstrating how some people wouldn't be able to discern evolution if it bent them over and called them Suzie.

Basically.

Edit: Also, I'm only calling him Suzie from now on.

[Esquilax]

Oh, I get it. Alpha Male is the religion and ignorance part of the thread, demonstrating how some people wouldn't be able to discern evolution if it bent them over and called them Suzie.

That was the point, yes, that the more comprehensive and full one's understanding of evolution is, the more complete your acceptance of it becomes. I've yet to meet someone who fully understands evolution and yet still rejects some part of it, even if it's just through faith.

[John V]

Perhaps. But there's still enough evidence to point to this being an evolutionary change that's still in progress, rather than something these skinks just do.

These skinks are only evidence of evolution if you've already bought into evolution. That two things are different does not imply that one changed into the other. You assume that.

No, it doesn't. Like I've said before, you'll find scientists that disagree with pretty much any scientific concept, the idea that any field has unanimity vastly misunderstands how human beings work.

And you would be wrong to then present such concepts as givens.

But as I've said before, if these scientists believe that macroevolution works on a different set of mechanisms to microevolution, or if they think that there's some line preventing micro changes from accumulating, then they are making positive claims that require evidence.

Again, argument from ignorance. If you think microevolution has accumulated to the point of macroevolution, that's a positive claim that requires evidence, evidence which you're loath to provide.

Well, actually, even if you had 1+1-1, you would still have gone somewhere and then come back, so it's not like there would be no indication that anything had happened.

I didn't say that nothing happened. I agree that evolution, by one definition, has occurred in this situation. Whoop-dee-do.

That quibble aside, you just keep showing that you aren't getting this; I'm not "talking out of both sides of my mouth," I'm being intellectually honest. Yes, there are some cases in which a trait evolves, and then regresses, so that no change overall occurs. Are you now saying that this happens in every case? What mechanism can you propose that makes this happen?

Again with the argument from ignorance. Come on, another evolutionist even called you out on this.

[Esquilax]

These skinks are only evidence of evolution if you've already bought into evolution. That two things are different does not imply that one changed into the other. You assume that.

Except, again, we have the intermediate skinks that retain the eggshells, so we can chart the progression there. Evolution is observed, we understand that such mutations can occur and even what survival advantage this change would confer, whereas you're just asserting that evolution skipped over these skinks, in order to be intractable?

Ah, but then I remember the reason I brought up the skinks in the first place, your claim that mutations don't produce anything new, and I realize I don't even need to go to the skinks to undercut your claim. Just look to nylon-digesting flavobacteria, representing the result of a probable single step mutation that allowed them to digest a material that didn't exist until 1935. Further research shows that this new ability could be induced in other species that did not have it prior, either.

And you would be wrong to then present such concepts as givens.

Have I not been spending the last few pages explaining exactly why I think this to be the case, rather than just taking it as a given? Isn't that the point of a discussion?

Again, argument from ignorance. If you think microevolution has accumulated to the point of macroevolution, that's a positive claim that requires evidence, evidence which you're loath to provide.

Is this just how this is going to go? With the two of us circling around who has the burden of proof by disagreeing who's making a positive claim? Do you really not understand even what you're arguing?

Here's my evidence, listen closely: microevolution is an observed fact. It happens, mutations occur, and we know through observation that they can be retained in populations if natural selection favors them. You've agreed that this is so.

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? If I observe that gravity works, and makes things fall, do I need evidence that something will fall the last few inches before it hits the ground rather than floating off into space, or does my understanding and observation of the force of gravity not cover that?

You're making the claim that something that we observe, and can demonstrate to happen, needs additional evidence to show that it will continue to happen under the conditions that we've already observed it happening under. That's ridiculous. I don't have to provide evidence that gravity will continue to work on earth, when the only observations we have ever produced have been that gravity works.

I didn't say that nothing happened. I agree that evolution, by one definition, has occurred in this situation. Whoop-dee-do.

And that one definition of evolution is all there is. You're just making the absurd claim that it suddenly stops happening at a certain threshold for no reason, and then shift the burden of proof onto me to show that the thing we have all the evidence for will continue to be itself.

Again with the argument from ignorance. Come on, another evolutionist even called you out on this.

It's not an argument from ignorance, as "this phenomena that we observe to happen in every case will continue to happen barring outside interference" is not a positive claim, and as I've said multiple times, including in the very post you were responding to, I'm not saying that you're definitely wrong with your claim that some force prevents evolutionary changes from accruing to the point that a species change is required.

I am, again, stating that evidence would be required to be rationally justified in believing in this evolution-preventing phenomena, which is something that you, and the biologists that think as you do, have failed to provide.

[Sejanus]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Macroevolution

[Esquilax]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Macroevolution

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

And kind of the end of the argument, John.

[Brian37]

Debating evolution today is sad as if it needed to be. Scientists have to defend it unfortunately because morons refuse to accept reality. But there is no debate to be had, just superstitious fuckwads who cannot stand that time and evidence have passed them by.

[Sejanus]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Macroevolution

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

And kind of the end of the argument, John.

Yeah, the different chromosome number acts as a pre-zygotic reproductive isolating mechanism, leading to instant speciation or "macro-evolution". What do you have to say to that, alpha? Animal speciation by way of polyploidy is a rare occurence, it usually happens in plants. So these frogs are doubly cool.