Replies

papertyger: "Seeing as your initial premise hasn't ever been observed, and the entire reason you posited it was to give a basis for the rest of your assertion (thus making your hypothetical a circular argument), I'd pretty much call that "gratuitous" by definition."

So already, you start in with the "word salads"?
How about you back up a minute?
What exactly do you claim "hasn't ever been observed"?

And what evidence suggest that this alleged "hasn't ever been observed" is the "entire reason" I "posited" something.
And how, precisely, does "hasn't ever been observed" make my "posit" either "hypothetical" or "circular".

Appears to me like what you did here is string together a bunch of words which have no real meanings, but are intended generally as a educated-sounding insult.

papertyger: "You are committing the very illegitimate argument you accused."

What is that, again?
What, you just have a book of insults, randomly pick out sentences and throw them in your posts?
Your sentence here references nothing specific, but alleges an "illegitimate argument" which I am supposed to have "accused".
Can you quote that "illegitimate argument" and "accusation"?

papertyger: "Of course the "initial premise" goes in the opposite direction...it's called "stability."

Your word "stability" might refer to a number of ideas, the most basic of which is that DNA mutations-per-generation (typically less than 100) are relatively small compared to an overall human genome of 3 billion "base pairs".
That's why fossil and DNA analyses suggest it takes many generations (thousands to millions) for major changes in speciation.

papertyger: "And any researcher who claimed to have verified offspring are always of the same species as the parents would elicit nothing but a big 'duh.' "

But not always of the same "species" as their thousands-of-generations-removed ancestors.
That's because:

no off-spring are ever precisely the same as their parents, and
small changes accumulate, generation by generation, until
among separated sub-species a "species boundary" (again annalex's term) begins to form, and
they no longer interbreed, making them, by scientific definition, new "species".

papertyger: "In fact, it is well known by even non-scientists that apart from intentional breeding manipulation, successive generations of dogs will tend to revert back to the same approximately 35 pound carnivorous quadruped that typifies the species 'dog.' "

Well, first of all, dogs will never-ever revert back to their original wolf ancestors, and so there is a definite limit to how much "reversion" is possible.

Second, whatever "reversion" they make will never be back even to the exact same more recent dog ancestor they were bred from.

Third, any "reversion" will only survive and reproduce over the long term if it benefits from natural (or human) selection.

So, in that sense, human "intentional breeding manipulation" simply mimics the effects of evolution's natural selection.
But the key element that you refuse to acknowledge (and of course we all know why, don't we?) is the element of time.
Over thousands and millions of generations, small genetic mutations accumulate in separated sub-species until they become unable to interbreed, and scientists classify them as separated "species".

papertyger: "Finally, it is disingenuous at best to use any manner of "better" generational variation as a "something special" for the evolution we all know we are talking about here, as the genetics for said "improvement" is already resident in whatever species we're observing."

First, there's nothing "disingenuous at best" about it, since it's true, FRiend.
Of course, it is "disingenuous at best" to make false accusations, so cut it out. ;-)

Second, your "...evolution we all know we are talking about here..." is what exactly?
Scientifically speaking, there is only one evolution and it consists of 1) descent with modifications and 2) natural selection.
In other words, virtually all reproduction includes some small evolution.
Major evolution in nature takes time, lots of time.

papertyger: "The only legitimate example you could proffer would be something exhibiting a new body plan, or sensitivity, that is not already extant in the genome of its predecessors."

"Only legitimate example"? Of what, precisely?
"A new body plan"? Exactly how new, precisely how different?

In truth, now you are back to "word salads" which make no sense, scientifically or otherwise.
And I suspect "we all know" the reason for that, but let's just see how much "intellectual integrity" you really have, FRiend. ;-)

I understand your retreat to the “word salad” comment, and I’m sorry for you as I don’t know any way to get around it.

“Word Salad” is what “cognitive dissonance” looks like to the one suffering from it.

But the key element that you refuse to acknowledge (and of course we all know why, don't we?) is the element of time.

Yes, that is the key here, but rather as the "magic wand" evolutionists use to make the theory plausible.

"Time" is the one element evolutionists admit they can not evaluate, and they use it as a "theoretical curtain" to hide hopeful assumptions they can not actually demonstrate.