Summations Only

Yes, there have been loci to which a mutation once applied, black moths result.
The problem with your assumption is that is known exactly what mutation produced these moths.Saying "potential" is just a placeholder for you telling us that you haven't really got a counter explanation.

You haven't shown that there is any extrapolation or anything absurd.

They are all small changes. All of the differences between the genomes of species are small changes like that found in the peppered moth. Extrapolation from what?

Then bet that dollar and demonstrate that it is the case.

I see that you can't offer anything but insults, which is a sure sign that the evidence is not on your side.

Otherwise known as a combination of random mutation and natural selection.

I already demonstrated to you that the theory of evolution is useful, so at this point you are just lying.

While that could be objective in one sense, it would be resting on an entirely arbitrary choice of significance. I'm not sure if an objective but wholly arbitrary definition is better than a wholly subjective one. It's not as if we actually need to be able to count species - what does it really matter whether there are 15, or 25, or 30 species of Titi monkey?

I wonder how many on that roster would be considered "true Christians" by YOU. You're famous for citing the accomplishments of Christians while conveniently forgetting that they were RC, CoE, etc. whom YOU don't consider real Christians.

Thanks for your honesty. Since you admit to being anti-science, I presume you agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in science classes.

In the same way, the potential for War and Peace exists in the Bible - all of the letters are there. All you need to do is rearrange them. So there's only "micro" difference between them?

It is arbitrary in the sense that most scientists view 95% confidence as a gold standard. However, it is objective in the sense that with p <= 0.05 there is a 5% chance that a single species would be mistaken for being two species. At one level or another, I suspect that the definition of species will be arbitrary since it is a continuum instead of a discontinuity. It is a bit like defining young and old, or short and tall.

Thank you for confirming what I've been suspecting, that you have no clue and don't know what you are talking about. You have never given any of this any thought, but rather you just regurgitate the bullshit lies that your handlers have been spoon-feeding you. You cannot respond to any questions about what you say because you are simply incapable; you don't know what you are talking about.I've seen that so many times since I started discussing "creation science" online in the late 1980's. The easiest way to anger a creationist would be to try to discuss his claims with him. It took me a while to figure out that it was because they didn't understand their own claims. They were just repeating something that they had heard, that sounded convincing to them even though they didn't understand it, and that they therefore could not possibly discuss. So they'd try to change the subject, come back with bullshit hyperbole, and act just like you're acting.I'll bet you don't even understand what "atheistic" means. I've seen it used in so many ways by creationists, even to the point of labeling the vast majority of theists and even the majority of Christians as "atheists". At the extreme pole of the spectrum, I've seen it used to describe all other positions that do not agree fully with the creationist's own particular extremely narrow theology, such that even many creationists would be considered "atheists".So why don't you explain what you mean by it? You refuse to, I think because you cannot, because you yourself don't understand what you mean by it. You seem to just use it to disparage anything or anybody that disagrees with you in the slightest bit. Like everything else, you haven't given it any thought.Think about this question and try something new, give an honest answer: What would be the consequences of evolution being true?Also, again that question that you avoided: When errors creep into religion as they inevitably must, how does religion handle them?We both know full well that religion does not correct those errors, but rather promotes them to Gospel.

The forum's search function shows that you've been blathering on for a rather long time about "applied science". Yet again, you display your ignorance of science and about reality. So if science can result in a tangible product, then you are satisfied. If not, then you feel that you can freely ignore it.Your supposed distinction between pure and applied science is meaningless, though understandable. You think in terms of theology and Bible study. In theology and especially in Bible study you are free to cherry-pick to your little heart's desire. Cherry-picking is when you are free to pick and choose the data you want and to ignore what you don't want. You point to the passages that support your position and are quite free to ignore the ones that contradict it. That's the wonderful thing about the Bible, that you can support just about any position possible with it; eg, both pro- and anti-slavery factions used the same Bible to support their own positions, often with the very same passages.Science is not quite as obliging, which I guess is why you hate it so much. You cannot cherry-pick scientific evidence. Unlike in theology, it has to all work together.I think that that is your problem. You think that you can pick and choose the scientific findings that you like (eg, the ones supporting computers and flush toilets) and also ignore the ones you don't like. No, it does not work that way. It all has to work or else there is a big problem.I even presented an actual case in Message 772 which you chose to completely ignore. Einsteinian relativity is considered by most to be very abstract, pure science, not at all part of your special "applied science." GPS position solutions depend on very precise timing solutions of the satellite signals arriving at the GPS receiver. That timing depends directly on the relativistic effects of being in different places within a gravity well (for the past two decades, I have been working on systems incorporating GPS receivers, so I am familiar with this topic).The bottom line here is that applied science depends directly on pure science. So your supposed dichotomy between pure and applied science is pure bollocks.You can cherry-pick your religion until Judgement Day and get away with it, but you cannot cherry-pick science!

Indeed, some taxonomists are lumpers and some are splitters, and have actually argued about how many species are involved.What is more important is the genetic lineage of the various Titi monkeys and their evolution from a common ancestor population.And that it is different from the Capuchin monkeys.Names are just labels we humans use to communicate.Enjoy