Yes I do suppose that Dr. Dean Kenyon doesn't understand evolution. Any person claiming to be a scientist who can examine the quite literally overwhelming flood of evidence in favour of evolution and then come to the conclusion that it doesn't account for what we see is either mentally retarded...
It sounds like this Ross fella has read an awful lot of scientific material, not really understood it and then tried to shoehorn it into his worldview.
Agreed
http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/4-18.html
Yes there are two seperate processes. But...and it's that ever present but, mutation is always present.
It's the same thing, you can't just arbitrarily assign a line where you feel like it.
That's right, it's that wonderful mechanism called mutation that is always present that really makes all the difference. Why do you insist on ignoring this?
Ah, do you accept that if you go far enough back...
Yes, you did.
But if you ask a scientist whether over time the evolution caused by natural selection will give rise to macroevolution he will be forced to say 'no'. He cannot argue that natural selection does not give rise to evolution in and of itself. Same thing if you ask about Genetic...
I think this statement is complete rubbish. Natural selection and genetic drift do result in speciation/evolution. Please provide me with a peer reviewed, scientific source that echos your statement.
Phew that was a long sentence...:D
If your view is that creationists are correct then by definition you are saying that science is wrong. Creationist say there is a difference between macro/micro while Science says there isn't. It's pretty cut and dry.
My spidey sense tells me that this is...
Okay lets scrap all that and approach this from a different angle.
Are you saying that Science is wrong about 'Macro Evolution' but is right about 'Micro Evolution'?
Yes it is. Dogs are not clones...though Hwang had a good go at it.
Yes, it is. I am not a clone of my parents.
I know this...the point I am trying to make is that mutations are there...everytime.
It's perfectly clear, I'm not telling you that science is wrong, I'm saying that you are wrong.
Yes.
Are you still trying to convince me that Great Danes and Sausage dogs aren't mutants?
Yes
Your first point is also a 'scientific fact', though I'm loathe to use the term...but since you are, I will too.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding anything. I presented my counter to Ceridwens point and for now I stand by it.
What you are saying makes sense, but doesn't have any relevance to your micro vs. macro evolution argument.
This is utterly incorrect. Mutation leading to new genetic information...
Saying you don't know the answer is hardly a cop out. Not trying to find the answer and appealing to a divine cause is a cop out. :bonk:
edit - yay for my 500th post :jiggy:
Blah blah blah, wiffle waffle blah...
Here, let me spell it out for you.
Gravity is a fact. The theory of Gravity is the attempt to explain what gravity is and why when you throw something up it usually comes back down.
Evolution is a fact. The theory of Evolution is the attempt to explain...