But of course! When there is absolutely not a trace of evolution to be found, not a single transitional life form among the millions that exist today, call it the result of evolution. That way no evidence needs to be found, all that was really needed was for evolutionary theory to be confirmed was a declaration. The next declaration will be that the evolutionary process is complete, it was only a temporary thing.
kinda like proving Obama was born in Hawaii. Lacking any evidence such as a birth certificate, just declare it to be so.
Isn’t it amazing the lengths the Temple of Darwin will go to deny God’s creation!
You:
But of course! When there is absolutely not a trace of evolution to be found, not a single transitional life form among the millions that exist today, call it the result of evolution.
Right. Nothing like whales with legs.
Oh, wait, there are whales with legs. A whole series of them.
There are also new transitionals between reptiles and birds. But even the classic one, Archaeopterx, is sufficiently transitional that, while all creationists are certain that it isn't transitional, some declare it "100 percent bird," while others insist it was not a bird at all but only a reptile with faked feathers.
You have the same situation with the hominid Homo erectus. Creationists insist that all hominid fossils are EITHER ape or man, with no transitionals, but sometimes put particular erectus specimens in one category, and sometimes in the other, and sometimes can't agree among themselves in which category particlar fossils belong.
Or you had the insistence of someone like creationist fossil expert, Duane Gish, that there were no transitionals between reptiles and mammals, and besides none were even possible since reptiles all had their jaw jointed between the quadrate bone of the skull and the articular bone of the lower jaw, and mammals between the squamosal bone of the skull and the dentary bone of the lower jaw. So how could a tranistional possibly chew it's food while one skull/jaw articulation was unhinged and another created in its place, or how could it hear since (the homologue of) the articular bone of the reptilian jaw is found in the mammalian inner ear?
But, again, there is a whole series of transitionals, among the therapsid reptiles, in which the skull bones present in reptiles, but absent, vestigial or moved to the inner ear in mammals -- including those involved in the reptilian jaw joint -- are all gradually reduced in size and significance. Simultaneously, the squamosal and dentary bones of the mammalian jaw joint gradually grow in size, so much that they first come near to touching, and then finally, in a whole series of advanced theraspsids, do touch and articulate, even while the reptilian jaw joint remains active -- a double jointed jaw -- and then that articulation becomes less significant, and the reptilian jaw bones that will move to the inner ear become smaller and more loosely attached, and more intimately associated with the stapes (the single reptilian ear ossicle).
Again and again, transitionals which creationists have declared laughably impossible have subsequently turned up (the legged whales) or even were already know at the time of the creationist declaration (the double jaw jointed therapsids). Again and again, creationists declare that two groups are absolutely distinct, with no transitionals between, but then (at least when they dare to be specific) can't decide to which "distinct" group particular fossil forms belong.
Given that history, it's probably best that you simply assert that transitionals don't exist, refuse to engage the evidence, and stick to your bald assertion.
That way no evidence needs to be found, all that was really needed was for evolutionary theory to be confirmed was a declaration.
That's pretty funny, actually, since it is in glaring contradiction to the statement GGG made about horizontal gene transfer, even if neither of you are capable of seeing how.
IF it were indeed the case that evolution were baldly asserted without evidence, then how could the results of horizontal gene transfer possibly be incompatible with (or even artifactual to) that mere, evidence free, declaration?
IOW, the artifacts of genetic information having been transferred horizontally across evolutionary lineages can only stand out as artifacts after the evidentary case has been made; and indeed after it has been made not in some cursory, arm-waving, mere declaration fashion, but rather elucidated, analyzed and tested in extensive detail.
Anomalies can only stand as against evidence. Logically you can only declare anomaly by first acknowledging (at least putative) evidence. But instead you (via concurrance with GGG) declare that anomaly exists where, you simultaneously assert, no evidence has even been offered, and just ignore the contradiction.
The next declaration will be that the evolutionary process is complete, it was only a temporary thing.
This is ironic, seeing as how it is young earth creationists who insist on a global flood and the story of Noah's ark -- that is creationists like GGG and (presumably) yourself -- who are stuck with holding that evolution (even if you refuse to call it that) occurred temporarily, and at rates thousands of times faster than any evolutionist would countenance, in order to generate post-flood species diversity from the "kinds" preserved on the ark, and then abruptly stopped.
kinda like proving Obama was born in Hawaii. Lacking any evidence such as a birth certificate, just declare it to be so.
Ah, a "birther" too. Just goes to show that people who are fringey, kooky, paranoid and conspiratorialist about one thing, like evolution, are almost always the same way about other things as well.
Granted, I myself find it extremely odd, and therefore suspicious, that Obama hasn't released his long-form birth certificate. But, OTOH, if that helps to inspire kooks like you and the other birthers, who Obama and his supporters can then point to and ridicule as kooks, and pretend that such kooks are representative of all Obama critics, thus deligitimizing serious critics (EXACTLY as Clinton successfully did, btw, with the nutter murder, drug runner, etc, charges against him) then maybe his behavior in withholding the long form b.c. is NOT so unaccountable!
In any case, there is obviously not a "[lack] of any evidence" that Obama was born in Hawaii. The contemporary birth announcements in local papers are evidence. (Any normal person who knows about that alone will justifiably assume that you are a kook if you claim there is NO evidence.) Even the "Declaration of Live Birth" is evidence. No, it is obviously not the original document we are looking for, but it IS a form generated by the State of Hawaii indicating that a birth record for Obama does exist (if not a physical record, although they probably do have that too, then at the very least an entry in their computer database).