Evolution As Catch-All Explanation (give me that old time Temple of Darwin religion!)

Your assertion that micro+time=macro is nothing but a statement of faith disingenuously masquerading as scientific fact and has never been empirically demonstrated.
“What evidence do you have to support that assertion?”
Your unwavering support of a yet to be demonstrated claim.
“So you have no empirical evidence to support your assertion?”

Just your posts.

Of course you are always welcome to try to prove me wrong.

You could either do a demonstration of micro+time=macro, or you could recant and say that micro+time=macro is false.

When you get Escherichia coli to macro evolve into something besides bacteria, let me know.

“Just as I thought, you have no empirical evidence to show that any of those 14 points are not correct”

I never addressed your 14 points and to suggest that I have is disingenuous.

I asked you to back up your claim in post 31 that micro+time=macro and you referred me to your point 14 which did not address my question.

I have challenged you to provide a demonstration of your assertion and you have (apparently) declined.

Hence my assertion that your claim in post 31 is a statement of faith.

At what point does microevolution crease, wouldn’t a million years of microevolutionary changes add up to macroevolution?

The perceived difference between “microevolution and macroevolution” was not one of the 14 points because if you accept “microevolution” then you accept the premise of the evolutionary theory. So we are both in agreement, with the disagreement being of the amount of time involved.

If you have a problem with evolution then it is one of those 14 points.

Which one is it, and what evidence do you have to support your assertion?

“At what point does microevolution crease, wouldn’t a million years of microevolutionary changes add up to macroevolution?” [excerpt]

That is besides the point.

You stated as fact something that has never been observed to be true.

“The perceived difference between “microevolution and macroevolution” was not one of the 14 points because if you accept “microevolution” then you accept the premise of the evolutionary theory.” [excerpt]

Depends on who gets to define micro-evolution.

Something I have not addressed.

“So we are both in agreement, with the disagreement being of the amount of time involved.” [excerpt]

Not by a long shot.

“If you have a problem with evolution then it is one of those 14 points.” [excerpt]

My ‘problem’ is with your apparent lack of scientific objectivity.

“Which one is it, and what evidence do you have to support your assertion?” [excerpt]

Your refusal to demonstrate your claims supports my assertion that your claims are statements of faith.

Observation is not a matter of faith.

Number 14 does address your point it states that direct observation of living forms and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record support my assertion that there has been sufficient time to account for the diversity of life we see today.

What empirical evidence do you have to the contrary?

What do think the difference is between microevolution & macroevolution?

Which of the 14 points do you have a problem with?

“Observation is not a matter of faith.” [excerpt]

Do you believe that [colloquial] pond scum evolved into four legged land dwelling mammals?

Have you ever observed this happening?

Can you demonstrate it?

“Number 14 does address your point it states that direct observation of living forms and extinct forms indirectly observed from the fossil record support my assertion that there has been sufficient time to account for the diversity of life we see today.” [excerpt]

No. 14 is an explanation based on interpretation of historical evidence (not addressing the validity of said interpretation), and is not a demonstration.

In post 31 you made the forward looking assertion that micro+time=macro, and I asked you to provide a repeatable demonstration.

If you say that, ‘given enough time, micro evolution will lead to macro evolution’ and cannot and/or will not demonstrate it, your claim is only a statement of faith.

“What empirical evidence do you have to the contrary?” [excerpt]

I have not addressed any evidence that might contradict No. 14

“What do think the difference is between microevolution & macroevolution?” [excerpt]

Evolutionists define the words to have little to no difference in meaning.

They also assert that micro/macro is being observed.

However, what is being observed is constrained and does not fit their definition of micro. (contrary to what they say)

Like I said, it depends on who you allow to define the words and facts.

“Which of the 14 points do you have a problem with?” [excerpt]

We can deal with the 14 points once we deal with the lack of objectivity currently inherent to the poster of aforementioned points.

You are straying from the topic, and debating things that are not part of the theory of evolution

The pond scum question is a common misconception.

From the 14 points:

“While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things”

As far as the entire microevolution vs macroevolution rabbit trail, I have asked you several times to explain your understanding of the difference between the two.

Microevolution and macroevolution are both forms of evolution so debating the differences does nothing as far as addressing the 14 points that make up the core of the Theory of Evolution.

Which of the 14 points do you have a problem with, and what evidence do you have to support your position?

“You are straying from the topic, and debating things that are not part of the theory of evolution

The pond scum question is a common misconception.” [excerpt]

I guess you don't know what the word colloquial means.

“From the 14 points:” [excerpt]

Still trying to change the subject I see.

“As far as the entire microevolution vs macroevolution rabbit trail, I have asked you several times to explain your understanding of the difference between the two.” [excerpt]

It depends on how you want to define micro.

My understanding is that Evolutionists [errantly] consider it a distinction without a difference. (or incorrectly attribute what is observed to micro)

“Microevolution and macroevolution are both forms of evolution …” [excerpt]

Would those both be upward evolution?

“Which of the 14 points do you have a problem with, and what evidence do you have to support your position?” [excerpt]

Objectivity first, points later.

“I guess you don’t know what the word colloquial means.”

Oops my bad I missed that part, sorry about that.

Well how do you define micro?

Accepting microevolution and not accepting macroevolution is like saying I believe in atoms but I do not believe in protons.

And where in the 14 points does it state the evolution must be upward?

“Well how do you define micro?” [excerpt]

Variation and/or adaptation constrained to within any given kind. (IOW, what we can test and observe around us)

Although it would probably be more accurate to say, variation or adaptation, than microevolution. (evolutionists like their word and I don't really feel like trying to steal it from them right now)

“Accepting microevolution and not accepting macroevolution is like saying I believe in atoms but I do not believe in protons.” [excerpt]

I find the objective evidence supporting upwards micro/macro-evolution (as defined by Evolutionists) completely lacking. (ie, I reject both)

“And where in the 14 points does it state the evolution must be upward?” [excerpt]

Uh, if evolution is not an upwards process, then [because of genetic entropy] its called devolution and the result is most likely extinction.

In other words, you end up with, at best, what you started out with. (ie, soup)

For pond scum to turn into democrats, you need an upward process. (Ok, maybe not, but for primates you do)

There you go with the “soup” misconception…

So what do find lacking in the evidence?

All that evolution states is that the change somehow gives the organism a reproductive advantage. That change does not necessarily have to be upwards.

Well it is time for bed.

I would like to thank you for being courteous, and respectful

It has been a pleasure; I am positive that we will pick again where we left off

P.S. The Democrat / pond scum was pretty funny!

“There you go with the “soup” misconception…” [excerpt]

Soup being defined as that magic source material from which Evolutionists assert all life originated from.

I thought Darwin actually mentioned primordial soup, but I might be off. (Need to check Origins)

“So what do find lacking in the evidence?” [excerpt]

Mostly Objectivity in the interpretation thereof. (there is also the flawed methodology used)

“All that evolution states is that the change somehow gives the organism a reproductive advantage. That change does not necessarily have to be upwards.” [excerpt]

A process that yields an ever increasing advantage [whether it be reproductive or otherwise] is an upwards process.

“Well it is time for bed.” [excerpt]

Night!

“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).

What evidence is being misinterpreted?

What methodology is flawed, and how so?

“It is no valid objection that science as yet throws no light on the far higher problem of the essence or origin of life” (Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 6th edition, 1882. p. 421).

Some Evolutionists disagree with Darwin: From soup to cells — the origin of life

They go on to describe what [for all practical purposes] appears to be Evolutionary abiogenesis: How did life originate?

Of course, I think they are a bunch of loons...

“What evidence is being misinterpreted?” [excerpt]

All evidence is interpreted by Evolutionists to fit the Evolutionary framework, to the point that often the answer precedes the question. (tail wagging the dog)

“What methodology is flawed, and how so?” [excerpt]

The methodology used by Evolutionists is usually methodological naturalism.

A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt. […] I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method.
– Karl R. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery

In the end it boils down to what ‘we’ know [that is not necessarily verifiable] taking precedence over objectivity.

The Evolutionary establishment doesn't want long standing ‘facts’ to be challenged.

I believe that anything asserted as fact should be challenged and tested often in new ways. (including doing gravity experiments, etc)

Of course, they just say I'm anti-science and suggest that I jump off a building to see if gravity still works.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.