People were clearly already well aware of the mechanism of natural/artificial selection and its effect on a popularion, so what did Darwin come up with that advanced knowledge of "evolution" (ie, heritable changes on a population)?
They were not already well aware that the process, when continued for long periods of time, resulted in wildly different species.
Darwin figured it out and called his book "Origin of Species". It was about how different species originated; i.e. how they came to be different species..
Except that since ENCODE it has been clear that there is little junk DNA.
Their definition of "function" differs greatly from the common one in biology and even they have admitted that they way overstated their case. Transcription does not equate to any meaningful definition of biological function.
What is it with creationists and all/some/none? The fact that in some cases we cannot identify a species as new does not mean, as you assumed, that we cannot identify species as new in all cases.
I think that is a logic fail. Just what are you trying to say there?
Er, I tried to say what I said, in simple unambiguous English.
Don't. Or can't. Normally both. It doesn't matter, as Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.' The vast majority are not contentious - elephants and daphnia are different species.
Well that's alright then, so long as you don't tie macroevolution to speciation, since if you can't identify if it's a new species you can't say macroevolution has taken place.
Tangle's "Darwin - bless him said - 'we know them when we see them.'" is mocking your "we know them when we see them" referring to kinds.
Several people have pointed out that in some cases new species are difficult to identify, but in most cases identifying a new species is easy.
Therefore we can tie speciation to macroevolution because in almost all cases we can identify when speciation has taken place.
You took "some cases" to mean "all cases" in typical creationist fashion and said we can't tie speciation to macroevolution (obviously meaning in all cases, otherwise you would have inserted a caveat).
I pointed out that taking "some cases" to mean "all cases" is a logic failure.
The main objection to using this would be that it is now 60 years old.
quote:The problem [of the origin of the quotation] apparently stems from the confusion in the discourse of these three scientists between the fact of evolution and the explanation of this fact. None were creationists but they all felt that the explanations given for the understanding of evolution were insufficient, even totally inexact.
... to the creationist the source, the authority, is more important than the validity of the information, while for the scientific thinking people the validity of the information is more important than the source.