@ Cofty
"Blunder 1 - "Are you suggesting macro evolution has occured in the past 150 years and has been observed?"
I explained that evolution happens gradually over very long periods of time and that your request for observed major change in the past century demonstrates woeful ignorance."
My request for evidence of macro evolution in the past 150 years and your inability to present same demonstrates that macro evolution has not occured in the past 150 years. Further it demonstrates that empirical evidence of macro evolution is not available from data collected in the said timeframe. It does nothing more/nothing less. Try not to be too emotive in your response - it simply shows you up.
"Blunder 2 - "But dawkins herring gull is i'm afraid the ultimate fail."
You keep going on about Herring Gulls but clearly have not the slightest idea why you feel compelled to do so. Let me help.
Dawkins has used ring species to demonstrate how arbitrary all attempts are to define species. Gulls are an excellent example of a ring species.
Perhaps you would like to have a go at defining species?"
Oh dear oh dear.
Your champion richard dawkins said regarding ring species in one of your treasured books " The best known case is the Herring Gull/Lesser Black-backed Gull ring. In Britain these are clearly distinct species, quite different in colour. Anybody can tell them apart. But if you follow the population of Herring Gulls westward round the North Pole to North America, then via Alaska across Siberia and back to Europe again, you notice a curious fact. The ‘Herring Gulls’ become less and less like Herring Gulls and more and more like Lesser Black-backed Gulls until it turns out that our European Lesser Black-backed Gulls actually are the other end of a ring that started out as Herring Gulls. At every stage around the ring, the birds are sufficiently similar to their neighbours to interbreed with them. Until, that is, the ends of the continuum are reached, in Europe. At this point, the Herring Gull and the Lesser Black-backed Gull never interbreed, although they are linked by a continuous series of interbreeding colleagues all the way round the world. The only thing that is special about ring species like these gulls is that the intermediates are still alive. All pairs of related species are potentially ring species. The intermediates must have lived once. It is just that in most cases they are now dead.” - Dawkins, R. Gaps In The Mind from A Devil’s Chaplain, p21, 2003; See also The Ancestors Tale p302, 2004
He is not the only 'scientist' in making this error. Ask me for more readers if you want.
The following is an excerpt on a a paper re this subject for you to read. Perhaps you should read real accounts like this rather than your evolutionary science fiction?
" In 2004 the Royal Society produced a paper entitled “The herring gull complex is not a ring species”. After taking a number samples and analyzing the data its contributors stated that “Larus gulls do not currently fulfill the essential criteria of a ring species” largely because “its endpoints do not overlap”."
" Another study concluded “ All three species may interbreed <Herring Gulls (Larus argentatus argenteus), Lesser Black-backed Gull (Larus fuscus graellsii/intermedius), Yellow-legged Gulls (Larus michahellis)>, as has been observed quite regularly in western Europe. The following are just examples, not an all-inclusive list. ” " - Hybrid Gulls Breeding in Belgium . By Peter Adriaens "Mixed breeding in western Europe”
" Another commentator adds “Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull interbreed to a limited degree where their ranges overlap, producing birds of intermediate appearance, which could be confused with Yellow-legged Gulls.” " - http://www.bird-center.net/articles/Hybridisation_in_gulls
"“ "In a similar experiment over a 4-year period, Harris (1970) interspecificially cross-fostered 496 HG chicks and 389 Lesser Black-backed Gull (L. fuscus) chicks. He found that growth and survival were similar to those of normally fostered young. The cross-fostered young, especially females, later tended to mate with the foster parent species and rear hybrid offspring." - Experimental Cross-Fostering of Herring Gull and Great Black-Backed Gull Chicks. Roderick Firth, Jr. http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v091n01/p0139-p0144.pdf
So when you read your books which tell you " Gulls are an excellent example of a ring species " please don't simply believe it. When you go to university hopefully they will teach you critical thinking and you will compare with other books which will prevent you simply copying what you have read and regurgitating such drivel i.e. " Gulls are an excellent example of a ring species " when in fact (and i use simply one of the above to reiterate) "The herring gull complex is not a ring species”.
Blunder 3 - "The theory is still theory."
This is the unmistakable hallmark of somebody has not the slightest clue about science. Please google "theory science definition" and save yourself from future embarrassment.
In one of your evolutionary books you treasure so highly and insist i read Mr Dawkins stated "One thing all real scientists agree upon is the fact of evolution itself. It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria. Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun. It is not a theory, and for pity's sake, let's stop confusing the philosophically naive by calling it so. Evolution is a fact."
Now most readers of this thread will no doubt see your inability to put 2 and 2 together so i will spell it out for you. In the context i was stating that evolutionary theory was still a theory and a very weak one at best. Gravity is a fact. We have the theory of gravity which is a theory that attempts to explain it. It is subject to change. Micro evolution is a fact. We have primarily two theories to explain it. One is evolutionary theory and the other the biblical creation model. The heat of the sun is a fact and so on and so forth. Then we get to Macro evolution. It is not a fact in the sense the others are because we do not feel it we cannot see it. We only have 2nd 3rd 4th hand evidence which fit both explanations creation/evolution to some degree. We debate this point a great deal of course. But please do not try and condscend by taking my words out of context. I could easily take dawkins out of context when he says "[evolution] is not a theory". Context please - it will make you look a little better.
"Blunder 4 - "There is no evidence of macro evolution."
I asked you to define this unscientific term but you have still to respond.
See previous post for definition or simply look at one of your books. Or wiki. easy
"The evidence that every living thing descended from a common ancestor is beyond dispute."
Eh no. Period.
"In particular paleontology"
Fossils? We shouldn't go there in this thread. It is not relevant to my statement that evolution is an extrapolation theory because for starters it is not empirical evidence. Secondly it won't help your argument if you want to discuss. Suggest a new thread for this though.
"genetics provide the most compelling evidence"
Enlighten me.
"If you are interested we could present a few highlights of this evidence for you but nobody is likely to take time to explain complicated stuff to sombody who isn't manging to follow simple stuff."
Emotive again but i will let it stand. Enlighten me.
"Blunder 5 - "Nobody has ever observed it like we have observed the effects of gravity etc."
So what? If you ever serve on a jury (god help us) will you ignore all the physical evidence, all the forensics and DNA because nobody observed the crime happen?
The exact same techniques that prove court cases beyond all reasonable doubt also prove you descended from a common ancestor with a chimp."
Prove it then.
@ NewChapter
My statement is primarily because of the scientific method. It would be worth somebody reiterating what it is. Its exactly the reason i would prefer to ignore 2nd hand evidence such as fossils in this particular argument. Although i am more than happy to discuss fossils. Apologies to anyone if i have hijacked this thread. more than happy to debate in another.
