darkstarangel said:
Because yours is the most reasonable response ill reply to yours.
Basically all are observed with limitations to 5 & 8. Species vary as dominant & recessive genes are shuffled about during the generations. A simple punnet square demonstrates this perfectly. However, the assumption that mutations create new complex traits (not including the traits forming out of degeration)& change families & rather than just species.
Well thanks for saying I'm reasonable, but I have to ask...
what limitations to 5 & 8? In order to support this notion you really would have to actually cite a mechanism that would prevent change over time. Additionally, 'family change' is not a part of evolutionary theory, nor does it suggest family change. That is the old misrepresentation 'why doesn't a dog give birth to a cat' (though to your credit, you seem to be looking at this on a larger scale than parent-child transitions), which itself is simply a more [deliberately] absurd version of the old 'why are there still apes' argument, relying on the notion of evolution espousing a cross-over model rather than a divergent one.
And as for new complex traits: I'd point you to the formation of cecal valves in Podarcis sicula that were absent in their ancestral strain, E.Coli populations in Richard Lenski's long-term E.Coli experiment developing the ability to process citrate (which is an incredible innovation considering that the inability to process citrate is a detail used to identify E.Coli in the first place, and the famous 'nylon-eating bacteria'.
darkstarangel said:
The reason I call evolution superficial is that its based on external traits, especially from fossils despite their obscure details.
...Did you just forget about everything we've learned from DNA sequencing (and Genetics in general), ERVs, observed speciation, and the observed effects of attempted hybridization of various species, many of which are compatible enough to produce offspring but not enough for that offspring to be fertile? To say nothing of the fact that every single line of inquiry all points to the same conclusion?
darkstarangel said:
This is fair enough to base a hypothesis from but when more evidence is revealled to conflict with the theory the theory must adapt or die.
If you have such evidence, please provide it. Do remember, however, that a lack of data does not equate to contrary evidence.
darkstarangel said:
Sadly the hubris of many wont accept that we cant truly know & instead promote their theories as a fact & ommit details in the evidence that conflict with the theory. Abiogenesis is one of the oldest examples of these.
I'm afraid I must question how much you actually know about abiogenesis, as A) there is no single model for abiogenesis at present, and B) the details of those models are changing as new info is gathered and old experiments are being revisited to test them under the new proposed circumstances of ancient earth.
darkstarangel said:
Personally Im a Creationist out of convenience & this is plausible since you cant truly prove anything from the past.
Er, no. If your rationale is that you're accepting it 'for convenience' rather than actual agreement then the intellectually honest thing is to reject that explanation as well. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response, and far more honest than choosing an explanation you don't agree with.
darkstarangel said:
Its out of the evidence that I use to reveal flaws to the theory of evolution, which evolutionists themselves should be screening for. This is how science perfects itself, through self critisicm.
Eh, you have yet to actually present any evidence. The closest you got was suggesting that we didn't have an explanation for a given trait, which isn't an argument against the topic. A lack of knowledge of a given trait is simply that: a lack of knowledge about that trait. A flaw would have to produce solid data which
contradicts the predictions of the theory. For instance, we didn't change the atomic model from Thompson's 'Plum Pudding Model' to Rutherford's 'Planetary Model' because Thompson couldn't prove where the electrons were. We switched to the Planetary Model because the data (namely that an atom's mass and positive charge made up a small portion of its volume) went against the predictions of the Pudding Model (which called for roughly equal distribution of both) and lined up with the Planetary Model (Small dense positively charged center with electrons orbiting). Any evidence against evolution would have to rely on similar data that contradicts the model.
darkstarangel said:
Sorry evilneko that last response from me was for olrod not you. I appreciate your persistance.
Word of friendly advice: Use the quote button at the bottom right of a given post. It makes it clear who you're talking to and has the added benefit of notifying the person you're responding to via their inbox.
