Summations Only

That is my point, inference, guess, speculation, conjecture. There it is again infer.
I am not arguing that variations can effect species. The problem is the extrapolation to those changes will over billions of years turn a dinosaur into a bird, or, what ever you think that horse came from into the horse.The fossil record has its tree, molecular biology has their tree/trees. When DNA is followed it points to one tree, when RNA is followed it points gives a different picture.I sure would like a response to the photoreceptor and flagellum.

Sweet, this is what I am talking about. I will give this a read and get back to you thanks.The 29 evidences, I have read some of them, all of which were variations but I will go through all of them.

Wow, yurrr shuuur hung up on the definition thing M8. Now, how about giving it a shot at answering my questions on complexity being built by Darwinian means, yes, even your definition of macro-evolution.If I am understanding you correctly, with the current definition of macro-evolution on the table, as long as evolutionists can cite examples of speciation, no other evidence is required to prove common descent? Can I quote you on my site?I don't care so much about what you call it, I am interested in how it occurs? Something a little more substantial than, changes of millions of years, and a little deeper than, one fish can't seem to breed with another one.

I am not surprised.Lots of arguing about definitions, and species, and how that proves macro-evolution. convenient for evolutionary scientists to have defined macro-evolution so that it can be proved so easily. You have turned this thread into a battle of the definitions. It has been more important to satisfy the minimalist definition of macro-evolution than to offer the evidence for the overiding principal for it, large morphological changes occur. The only defence offered for that is, "enough time will do it". The rest is arguing about speciation, which many believe is just variation or micro-evolution. The only difference is evolutionary scientists decided it wasn't.I have read, speciation is defined as an isolated repoductive community. Although many separate species are able to reproduce with each other. I guess that doesn't matter.The over all consensus here is that because small changes within a species are observed, the big leap to, enough time can invent whole new body plans 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=10.No one seems interested that the best microbiology has been able to accomplish is 1+1=2. No one is interested in the boundries and limitations of mutational changes, or that just about all the changes involve loss of information. Information loss, cannot build anything new. Just faith that enough time can do the job.Anyone could look at old fossils and make relational assumptions. Especially if they are commonly designed.Oh, Ida pushes back divergence x of years, oh wait, Ida is just a lemur, never mind. Because evolution is a "fact", the relationships made between fossils are contrived. Trees, branches, divergence, is just an attempt to make sense of a premise that may very well be wrong.I see nothing here, no evidence outside variation to suggest evolution can invent new organs, limbs, or body plans. The cornerstone, and backbone of this belief, is TIME. Certainly over billions of years anything can happen, right!Thanks guys for the excersize in futility. I was hoping to read something new but its the same ol thing, variation has no limits time cannot overcome.My blog on this subject is called "evolution's shell game"http://evolutionnointelligenceallowed.wordpress.com/I believe the science of mapping ancestrial descent is in the mess it is because the theory is flawed. Paleo's homologies are not matching molecular homologies (some are some are a mess), and even within molecular homologies branching is conflicting. IE: DNA and RNA. the once simple tree is now discribed by scientists as a "mosaic", or a "thicket" because there is no clear line of descent. The seemingly all over the place similarities are better explained by common design. What may look related, is only because of the similar design features.Dawkins once said that nature only has the appearance of design. Maybe, because it was. I know I have not changed anyones minds here and that wan't my goal anyhow. Most of you if not all think I am an IDiot, conspirator who just wants to kill science and force religion on school students. That I have not one cintilla of evidence to believe what I say I believe. It's all eithre a ploy, or I am just plain stupid. I have heard is all before, many times.Let me leave on this note:
I can see the logic in believing in common ancestry. There are some complelling evidences. IE: progression of fossils in strata, variation in the species, common looking features in the fossil record, and similar genome homologies. I am not saying your all nuts. Many very smart people believe common ancestry to be logical, and I can see how they get there.I however, don't get all the way there when adding in common design. Design theory is more compelling to me given the barriers mutation and change have come up against over 150 years to trying to engineer changes in labs.The fact that scientists have not been able to produce anything even close to changes beyond "speciation", tells me many could be very wrong about entire body plan changes. Not just new species, used in the context that they are actually new animals. The definition of species doesn't even require a morphological change. So arguing that macro-evolution is proven by speciation doen't do much for me or many others. Especially when the definition is inconsistant anyways. IE: interspecies breeding does occur, so how can species be defined as an isolated reproductive community.I respect everyone here, I respect the conclusions made here and the logic used in getting there. I have an opposing position which makes me your opponent, not your enemy.Thanks everyone, I enjoyed the discussion.

No sir,
No huff. This is just going round and round. My intent was to get a few of the best reasons for common descent not explain a complete alternative theory. Appartently I need to do that before I can get an answer.
I wasn't asking for proof of anything just some best reasons. The reasons I did get, time, micro=macro are not new or novel explanations. I was just seeing if there was anything new.I get all the explanations presented here as to why I don't get it. The thread was to answer a simple question. for example:if the same was said in regard to ID the next 35 replies wouldn't be what do you think it is. It would have beenInformation theory
specified complexity
irreducibly complex systems
known instances of intelligent causation
apparent common designNo body has to agree with it, but that would be a few of the answers off the top, not the runnaround I received, my goodness. The course of this turned into disputing ID and ridiculing its supporters rather than simply giving a few best explanations.I have been around this block a few times and recognize the pattern. I did enjoy the discourse, although I was hoping to learn something new.One new thing I learned past couple days is a paper by Matzke that was updated 2009, regarding the evolutoin of the bacterial flagellum. He makes a possibly convincing case for a step by step evolution of it. Mike Gene has writen a very detailed report on the IC of the flagellum and Matzke's paper caused him to have to rethink a couple aspects. There is controversy over it but it was a solid good effort to show how evolution can get beyond one or two steps. These are the kinds of things I was hoping to learn from your members. Instead it was the same old dismantal and destroy.Arguing back and forth doesn't interest me like others. present facts, accept them agree with the arguement or not and move onto the next one. No one is going to convince anyone to change their world views here so bickering servs no purpose.I thank you Mr. Admin for keeping a hand on the thread. If I got out of line, my appologies to anyone who may have been offended.I will data mine the site for any new perspectives and information. I'll probably pop up again for another thrashing on another subject so your boys better keep up to date on current events, so I don't catch anybody with their "genes" down, sort o speak.I enjoy a challenge. Cheers,

Turn you car off before you close the garage door dude! What that means is, I am going to read this site....and that respect thing... that hurt!Hey, anyone want to talk about the Global Warming Farce! I am guessing maybe there might be some support here for the anthropogenic Warming hypothesis.Edited by idscience, : No reason given.Edited by idscience, : No reason given.Edited by idscience, : No reason given.