Summations Only

The best evidence of Macro Evolution as a fact is that we can look around us and see the diversity, and also look back in time and observe the fact that life forms changed over time.The ONLY explanation that explains what we see is the Theory of Evolution.There have been claims of "common design" but so far no evidence has ever been presented that supports the existence of any designer or of any model or method that designer might use.Until that happens the idea of design should be put at the same standing as pixie dust.

Utter bullshit. Sorry but that is all you present.Did you actually read what I wrote?In case you missed it I'll repost it for you. Macroevolution is a fact supported by the diversity, and we can also look back in time and observe the fact that life forms changed over time.Unless Intelligent Design presents a model and method the asserted Designer used as detailed and supported by evidence as the Theory of Evolution, and evidence of actual existence of the asserted Designer then it is of even less interesting than pixie dust.It really is that simple.How did the asserted designer do it?Do you have ANY evidence of either the existence of the designer and of the method that the designer used? Was it little Vice Grip pliers or a wee little John Deere tractor? Maybe she used duct tape?Until you present evidence of how the imagined designer did it you have nothing; not even pixie dust,

What macro-evolution is has been questioned throughout this thread, but it seems to me that macro-evolution is simply an artifact that depends on what is being observed; it is humans looking at two critters from a lineage that are each temporally and generationally distant.It is just the sum of a long series of micro-evolutionary changes caused by repeated mutation and selection.It seems to me that it really is that simple.

Actually, the answer to your question is "No".Mendel made some observation that involved statistics of hereditary traits, but even he showed that those traits did not ALWAYS hold true. There were cases where the hereditary rules did not hold true and something really unexpected happened.He set all that data set aside as "unexplained".Nothing in Mendel's work explained how things change, that understanding evolved over the next hundred and fifty years.

Yup, Mendel's observations largely hold true, and also the examples where they do not hold true are what drives evolution. I'm not suggesting that, I am stating that as a factual conclusion that is supported by ALL the evidence as well as reason, logic and reality.All exceptions to the rule are not like lawless bandits, most are like slight eccentricities, and some are like precocious children.It is those exceptions to the rule that are then filtered by Natural Selection to remove the "lawless bandits" that are the essence of evolution. You cannot leave out the exceptions since they are one of the major components of evolution.It is not what stays the same that is important but what changes.

No, the example you posted is evidence that Natural Selection happens.

I'm sorry but all you are posting is bullshit and word salad and has absolutely nothing to do with what Mendel discovered or anything else that I can tell.Nothing in Medel's work has anything to do with evolution (change over time), whether micro-evolution or macro-evolution.Edited by jar, : add definition of evolution

You still seem to be missing an opportunity here.The Theory of Evolution explains the model and mechanism that allows small changes over time to become big changes.Now if you actually had anything, here is your chance to propose some other model and mechanism that does as good a job explaining what is seen as the Theory of Evolution does.For example, if you propose design, then present the model and mechanism the designer uses to make the changes.Until you do that Intelligent Design will remain the fantasy that it is.

While Global Warming has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or even this sub-forum, we should all hope that the cause is anthropogenic since that is the very best possible scenario for humans.Start yet another thread on the subject and perhaps you can learn why that is the best possible scenario.