Another reason to accept evolution.....

[Mystic]

Irreducible complexity is true whether you guys acknowledge or don't. It's a reality of the design of creation of God. Evolution happens with a synthesis of small changes and big changes, the small changes is small mutations while big changes is supernatural design changes.

Both are needed. Of course - asserting or denying one way or the other, won't change the design in nature, and it's all about how we reflect over the facts we know, to determine which theory is true.

My experience with Atheists, and most evolutionists are Atheists, is they don't know how to reflect over basic things properly let alone complex data that require more thought, so I can't rely on your scientists sorry. Their opinion absolutely now means nothing to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Is too true, fucking atheists, hurr durr!"

[Angrboda]

Other than the fact that we see the small mutations and no giant leaps in "the design", you mean?  Not for nothing...but if you want to propose giant leaps..you;re going to need an entirely new mechanism..because that;s not how biology works.

At that point, what relevance does biology or biological data have to this hypothetical magic trick?

Fossil evidence and design in some parts of biology of creatures, I believe clearly shows, both happen. Small mutations and big leaps.  Small mutations cannot lead to all design, even if they traversed linearly because of irreducible complexity of some designs in biology.

Misconceptions

---

Gould and Eldredge argued that punctuated equilibrium is in contrast to Darwin's version of evolution. They stated, "To Darwin, therefore, speciation entailed the same expectation as phyletic evolution: a long and insensibly graded chain of intermediate forms." Some scholars have argued that Darwin was not a phyletic gradualist.[3]

It is commonly believed that punctuated equilibrium is the opposite of gradualism. However, this is due to a misunderstanding of the definition of gradualism. Although PE is in contrast to phyletic gradualism, that evolution happens slowly and by transformation of species, it is nonetheless a form of gradualism in the sense that it predicts evolution by minor genetic changes between generations.

Some misconceptions of punctuated equilibrium are due to misunderstanding its tenets. PE's tenet of long periods of stasis in a fossil species does not mean that it does not change at all but rather that change varies around a mean and does not accumulate. Likewise PE's tenet that instances of change will appear instantaneous implies that such change will be rapid relative to geological terms but will in reality take many generations to occur.

RationalWiki || Punctuated equilibrium

[Mystic]

We can have one on one debate on this Jo... I believe both irreducible complexity and fossil evidence prove the case of design. If you wish so, let's do it. In fact, as far as fossil evidence, I have an argument for this that makes it very clear. But I'm waiting to present in a one on one debate.

[sdelsolray]

Irreducible complexity is true whether you guys acknowledge or don't. It's a reality of the design of creation of God.  
...

Just not in any way you can demonstrate.

...
Evolution happens with a synthesis of small changes and big changes, the small changes is small mutations while big changes is supernatural design changes.
...

You do not understand accumulation and natural selection, among (no doubt) other aspects of the biological theory of evolution.  Why am I not surprised?

...
Both are needed.  Of course - asserting or denying one way or the other, won't change the design in nature, and it's all about how we reflect over the facts we know, to determine which theory is true.
...

You present no alternative theory.  All you present are mere assertions, all keyed to your religious beliefs.

...
My experience with Atheists, and most evolutionists are Atheists, is they don't know how to reflect over basic things properly let alone complex data that require more thought....

Your are projecting.  I suspect you have had much practice projecting.

...
[S]o I can't rely on your scientists sorry. Their opinion absolutely now means nothing to me.

This explains much.

[Angrboda]

We can have one on one debate on this Jo... I believe both irreducible complexity and fossil evidence prove the case of design. If you wish so, let's do it. In fact, as far as fossil evidence, I have an argument for this that makes it very clear. But I'm waiting to present in a one on one debate.

Sorry, not interested at this time. We do already have a 400+ page thread on the topic, and you're always welcome to start your own thread. If you do indeed have a novel argument, I'm sure there would be plenty of interest.

[Mister Agenda]

My experience with Atheists, and most evolutionists are Atheists, is they don't know how to reflect over basic things properly let alone complex data that require more thought, so I can't rely on your scientists sorry. Their opinion absolutely now means nothing to me.

They aren't 'our' scientists. Plenty of those scientists are theists too. It's a small minority of Christian and Muslim fundamentalists that reject the finding of those scientists based on what they think the theological implications of the work of those scientists are. Literally hundred of believers are fine with what those scientists have discovered, because their idea of God isn't of a being that's stumped by how to make a universe where speciation takes care of itself by natural processes and doesn't require adding magic/miracles.

[Fake Messiah]

Fossil evidence and design in some parts of biology of creatures, I believe clearly shows, both happen. Small mutations and big leaps.

Well your belief is wrong.

My experience with Atheists, and most evolutionists are Atheists, is they don't know how to reflect over basic things properly let alone complex data that require more thought, so I can't rely on your scientists sorry. Their opinion absolutely now means nothing to me.

My experience with theists is that they want to believe something and ignore everything that contradicts it. Like you and so called "irreducible complexity". In a topic that you opened about it we showed it to you that it's wrong and you ignored it, made a show about leaving this forum and when you came back you pretend like it didn't happen.

[Mystic]

You oversimplify the issue. I understand evolution as presented by Naturalists.

---

I will have 1 on 1 debate with anyone on this issue.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you lay out a deck of cards in suites and remove one card from each suite you can deduce which cards are missing by looking above, below and to either side of the gap. Paleontologist do this on a grander scale.