I am talking about organic evolution...life from non-life...abiogenesis. No one has ever seen nor simulated the circumstances at which life can come from non-life. No one.
Why is this necessary when attempting to explain diversity of life that already exists (which is what evolution entails)? You do need a theory to explain how life originated I completely agree (and indeed we have some, though as I stated, none as well demonstrated as evolution - two such theories are divine intervention which is suggested by those who believe in theistic evolution and abiogenesis which is suggested by those who do not attempt to insert non-natural factors) it is however IRRELEVANT to the discussion of how life diversifies once it exists, which is the question at hand.
No it isn't irrelevant. You cannot logically claim that macroevolution is true if you don't know whether the alleged process that makes it true is in fact...TRUE. For example, if it is proven that life can't come from non-life, then evolution itself would be negated, because evolution is based on the assumption that life can come from non-life.
You (amongsts others) claim you know so much, but yet when you go back in time eventually, you will start drawing blanks, and there is no way you can fill in the blanks with knowledge moving forward to a point at which macroevolution started if you are not able to fill in the blanks going backwards.
We know (relatively well) what is currently the case. And right now, in the current, we have evidence of the past that we are able to examine to obtain information about the past (when we were not ourselves present). That is how discovery works, you start with information we actually have and you work out what we do not so as to fill those blanks. You cant just presuppose you have the answer at the outset; particularly if it does not match the evidence (though indeed such presuppositions can guide your efforts, any incidence of dissonance between expectation and observation must at all times result in observation taking precedence). Evolution does NOT state that life comes from non-life. You simply do not understand what it means, I am sorry but you do not. Evolution deals with the diversity of life, not its origins; it does not even
attempt to determine the origin of life.
If you believe in ID with evolution being limited, then you believe the origin of life is the same as that which determines the the diversity of life - god's interaction. It is a conflation which is almost (but not quite) defining of the position.
My point is, dogs produce dogs. However you want to slice the cake, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats. Whether you want to call them species, genuses, kinds, families, I really don't care. But the fact we recognize certain animals as dogs, and other animals as cats, etc, and the fact that each animal have only been seen to produce their own family, genus, kind, species, WHATEVER...that is all I am saying. I have no reason to think otherwise, and neither does anyone else, unless they are trying to push their religion on people.
Evolution is not a religion, it is laughabale to suggest as much and demeans your argument by associating lack of acceptance of evolution with (significantly worse) a lack of comprehension of what differentiates science from religion and that is the explicit identification of the capacity for error and indeed actually identifying things which if discovered would prove it wrong. See if you could actually disprove evolution, not only would you become famous, you would actually have the backing of the majority of the scientific community - because science is about fact. Even if we really like evolution, or really hate it, neither one of those factors matters in the face of evidence - were it proven evolution did not occur then science would abandon it as they have many other concepts over the years. That is the difference between science and religion; in science our subjective opinions do not matter - what matters is objectivity, the validity of a position and how well it is supported by the available evidence. Do not try to equate the two in an attempt to make a false equivalency between religious assertion and in scientifically supported models of understanding about observations. Observation > Assertion.
The schema we use for categorisations (genus, species etc) were RECENTLY created; therefore they would naturally be created with current organisms in mind - and during that relatively short period the amount of change that has occurred SINCE those categorisations were made is negligible and should be expected to be (indeed in some species, individuals that were alive at the time they were categorised are STILL alive - so you can easily see dsome species would have very few generations passed since categorisation). On the other hand changes that occurred BEFORE those categorisations were made (a far larger period of time) is many orders of magnitude more significant, thus it is entirely natural that we see a greater proportion of historical organisms that were in 'transition' than we do with current organisms (for which there is currently no categories to label the organisms that they might evolve into - we have yet to define the next significant set of characteristics which are to form the basis of categorisations for which future animals are likely to be identified as - if we HAD then perhaps what we currently see as differences within a diverse species such as dogs would actually be considered transitional organisms).
Why would they need to evolve? See that is the problem, why even make the hypothesis? It is unnecessary. It is pointless. Regardless of the circumstances, they will continue to produce dogs. Anything beyond this is scientifically unjustified.
Show me the transitional fossils of a grizzly bear.
Go look up Ursavis elemensis, the first organism to demonstrate the characteristics that we have since labelled to be the defining characteristics of bears (i.e. the 'first' 'bear'). That might give you a little insight as to what a 'dog' can give birth to - a slightly bigger, stronger, fatter variety with some slightly different denture (ed: oh and more flexible fore arms - that was a biggy that I forgot). That said, Bears are actually a reasonably tricky one (particularly the american varieties) due to that being one of the areas where there are relatively few transitional fossils (we have a blank period after the Ursavis elemensis for about 18 million years), but they do exist.
First of all, that is another thing that is crazy. You said "we can look at the structure of the teeth and notice that they are all sharp teeth made for tearing". Now, look at that; "made for". Who knew to make it for tearing? Who knew that the animal would be carnivorous so it needed teeth as such? All of this knowledge and "know how", from a process that doesn't think and can't see. Crazy.
Seriosuly? Getting hung up on a misphrase? This is rather sad. Perhaps you might be less inclined towards intentionally misconstruing my words if I had said:
'teeth that had a form which more easily facilitated tearing and were therefore useful to the organism in eating meat, which resulted in meat being a significant portion of the organisms' diet'.
