Always talking about micro-evolution?

Because you haven't shown anyone the oceans or mountain ranges that you think are in the way. You claim that there are barriers but have no clue about what they might be.

---

Common sense isn't

In other words you don't like the evidence so you don't bother. Too bad.You might need to show just how it is flawed, what the changes are and why the changes are a problem. Otherwise it looks a lot like you both don't know what you are talking about and are rejecting something before you have actually examined any evidence.It might be an idea to start with smaller changes and work from there to your micro to elephant issue.Do you agree at all that new species and genera arise and, according to many creationists arise in a few centuries.

---

Common sense isn't

Oooh we wouldn't want to get technical and confuse anyone would we?

---

Common sense isn't

It seems to me that the papers that Mammuthus refered to were analysing exactly that issue. The abstracts don't show any statistical calculations which is what I think you want. You'd need to read the whole paper for the exact numbers.

---

Common sense isn't

I did reply as to why I asked you to come on over to the flood thread.I am skeptical of how much you really want to listen and learn. I think that starting with something a bit less complex and with more clear cut results might show where other more complex things might go.As I said, I also want to see creationist dragged into that thread because it is a fairly straight forward issue (if anything is) that they have no answer for but a bunch of hand waving contradictory made up ideas. So I figure it will be quicker to see if we get answers like "agree to disagree" which is a reasonable answer when discussing matters of opinion. It is a rather silly answer when there is evidence which can be used to resolve the issue. That is the nice thing about those things which can be approached by science. They are, eventually, amenable to resolution. Agreeing to disagree becomes an untenable idea when there is enough data. If this is where someone will run to hide then I'm not willing to invest as much effort.If we were working in one of the faith and belief threads you might want to test me to see if I would actually read biblical passages for example. If I didn't when they were pointed out to me then you might wonder why you should bother.If I started off with "Christians are all cannibals it says so in the Bible" and you asked for chaper and verse and I didn't supply it but kept making similar statments you might wonder about how bright I am.If my opening post was of that nature you might want to try to see if I was willing to listen for a bit or not.

Yea, I'd like that translation too actually. I'm too lazy to try to learn about those terms.However, it does seem that the answers you asked for were there even though you reacted rather badly. I suggest an apology might be in order.

Pretty well all of post 51. You were a bit snarky and then asked the question again as if you hadn't been given the answer. In fact you didn't understand that you had been.

Sorry about the word. It is an English experssion I picked up from my Mum.Yes I do get snarky now and then when I get impatient. We all do I suppose.As for Mammuthus: I don't know if you realize but he is actually a research scientist. I have even worked in a research lab once upon a time and have also listened to and read over exchanges between researchers. You were treated with the respect that a collegue of his would get. He didn't try to push you aside with a line or two of anecdotal chit chat. He gave you a series of serious researches done in the area you asked about. He probably didn't have time or even stop to think that they might be hard to understand for the layman. Or if he did he expected that the readers here would ask for an explanation. I have to do that now and then.All of the above is a guess at what went on but it is exactly the kind of thing I've seen before. There is a long exchange between Mammuthus and some others about the extinction of mega fauna (Mammuthus's area of research) and there was quite a bit of that sort of thing in it if I recall correctly.When scientists get down the nitty gritty in an argument there are exchanges of a WHOLE lot more than the little bit shown here.

Why do you think that question makes any sense? Could you explain what you think would have to go on?It shows a very limited understanding of the very nature of change with selection (either fitness derived or sexual).

Your question was answered by loudmouth in the previous post. Now it is your turn to think about it a bit.

One problem with thinking that you can calculate a probablility for the woodduck's pattern is that there are a huge number of different patterns, all of which would do just as well. And how many is that? I dunno.You're picking the result as if it was the only possible one, it isn't.This is a common misunderstanding. There is no target to the evolutionary process.(as an aside: many years ago a number of us were driving by a lake in the interior of BC. My friend, the driver, pointed to the lake and said, "Hey look, wood ducks". My first wife looked form the back seat and replied, "No, there're not, they moved.". We were lucky that the driver managed to stay on the road.)

Yup, it would take some pretty clever stuff to design it. That idea of God at least suggests he is really smart. Not like some Greek, human like God on a mountain.However, it has the dangerous characteristic of being God in a gap. That is a gap which may well be closed in the next couple of decades

You could start a new topic of your own if you'd like. Many people who don't think it is true actually come to this judegement without haveing looked at any of that or having any clue what the whole subject is actually about. I know this seem astonishing but there you are. LOL, yea, it is difficult isn't it? But there are good reasons for naming the way they do. Partly it is historical. That is the way the Linnean system of naming all things was set up. They fit into the big picture.
They make sure the names are very precise and argue a lot about it. If you've ever tried to buy a particular plant for the garden you might realize how necessary this precision is. You want a "sheepdog bell" and only get a blank stare or get a different plant than what you call a "sheepdog bell" (i'm making that up). However,if you ask for a Canihairous dingleous you should get precisely the plant you want because that name is world wide. This is the question you should us to open a new thread.

An interesting analogy, I'm glad the POTM directed me here.It seems most Christians would agree with you in saying God is the founder, the intiator. The systems he set up were, unlike the poorly constructed ones that a man would set up, not in need of continued tinkering.The laws He set up have run for over 13 billion years with no obvious tinkering. Now that is impressive!If you are one who thinks he had to tinker over and over to get it to where He wanted the God you worship is a small god indeed. Certainly compared to the God of the majority of Christians.

And what is it that I am speaking against?And what is it that theist evolutionists believe? Tinkering? I don't think that's right with the definition of theist evolution that most use.