[/font][/color]
Do you play the lotto much? Despite the incredibly small odds of any single person winning, someone still manages to win.
I am so unlucky that I do not gamble in any form. I won't even bet that I will lose. Your claim does not even begin to account for what I said. It is a silly argument as stated but let's pretend it did as you desire for a minute. To get what we have without either something vastly beyond any thing we know of or the supernatural would be the equivalent of the same person winning a lottery with greater odds than all the lotteries on Earth time after time, arguably millions of times over but without question multiple times. Got a game reference that will help with that? When I win every state lottery every year for a hundred years then the metaphor might work. Contingent probability creates appalling numbers from the already absurd almost instantly.
Is the hole designed specifically for the puddle that fills it or does the puddle come to fill it through natural means?
To use this argument you would have to demonstrate any theory at all that makes the universe known to exist a natural necessity and every argument similar to this is dismissed as fast as mentioned in my experience. Do this and that might help a little with the natural but would not even apply or be debated for what created the natural. Water has a natural necessity to fit in a hole if liquid.
The fertility barrier only prevents different species from breeding during the same generation. Evolution takes much longer than a single generation so there is no inconsistency.
I have no capacity, nor do I think much of anyone else would to evaluate what exact impact the fertility barrier has on evolution. My argument was only that it would seem inconsistent with it. I will confess that I have no firm grasp on the effect or impact of this idea.
Considering that every individual human carries about 200 mutations in their 3 billion base pair genome, Barney's math appears a little faulty. And since Barney is actually a medical doctor, not a geneticist, I wouldn't consider him an expert in this field.
Neither of these things shows that his math is faulty. Are you stating that this signature "Geneticist Barney Maddox, 1992 " is a lie? I will state that I disagree with his opening statement that any change is negative, though the rest seems logical. However the fact that the vast majority of genetic mutations are negative and result in destruction is conceded, agreed? I would think this can even be computer simulated.
The discovery of more and more pre-Cambrian life is showing us that changes during the Cambrian period aren't quite as drastic as creationists would like you to believe. The Cambrian appears to be more of a horizon beyond which fossils are less prevalent than a barrier to evolution.
I did not get that idea from creationism. It has as far as I known been a virtual universal concession. I can provide as many quotes as needed from any side within reason.
http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=94664
The link went to a debate by people like us. Was that intentional?
Yes, it is an example of evolution creating new functions where they didn't exist before.
No, it isn't and this one has been observed unlike 99.9% of evolution. There is a zero probability that an insect will have the exact random mutations necessary to resist a chemical at the instant needed. What happens is that the resistance is already within the insect types genome (maybe recessive etc..) but is active in a few individuals. When sprayed all the rest die off and only those that have active genes to resist the spray survive to breed a population with those genes "selected", "activated" or whatever terminology you wish. No new information was created and only old information was selected for. I only use this to determine to level of education in the topic. It is not an argument that evolution does not occur.
There is no single evolutionary change that separates one species from another which is why it takes so long.
Then how can macro-evolution be an accurate term? Every thing is just one version of the same thing if there are no species distinctions.
Because it takes a very long time. It took 33,000 years to breed wolves into dogs and 9,000 years to domesticate cows. Why do you think new species can arise so quickly?
Dogs have a turn over rate of at least a year. Insects have rates that are a day or only hours. Why have not we ever created a non fly from a fly in those millions of opportunities? Germs may even be faster and I would look there if I was you.
8. A creature with no eye structure at all branching out into many different lines of evolution that all produced eyes by seperate paths is inconsistent with evolution.
Evolution is a blind creator. I have never heard a evolutionist say that if we started over we would have anything identical to what we have. Only engineers intend to solve things the same way. Random mutation should have created as many solutions as problems. 10 (for instance) independent random actions should never produce identical results over and over and over. For that matter why would independent genes select the exact components necessary for our eye and the exact visual cortex and optic nerves necessary to create a whole within the same time frame, and even if managed once it would have had to do the same vastly improbable thing a million times over to explain reality (actually trillions and trillions). Convergent design is not a symptom of random events even if selection is present. It is however a universal element in design. I will give you credit for improving your civility in this post.
