Thousands of years of animal breeding have demonstrated that there are real limits to how radically animals can be changed from their "original" form. For instance, wolves were bred to produce many different breeds of dogs, but harmful mutations limit how far this process can be taken.
Please demonstrate to us that human breeding of dogs introduced targeted mutations into their genomes.
quote:"In just 26 generations, we managed to create relationships between the shape and size of (fruit) fly wings that were more extreme than those resulting from more than 50 million years of evolution." - Geir H. Bolstad, researcher at the Norwegian for Nature Research. (sciencedaily.com, "58,000 fruit flies shed light on 100-year old evolutionary question", 2015)
And yet, if you read the entire article all of the changes in wing morphology reversed back to the original shape in only 15 generations when natural conditions returned. Does that not tell you something?
Not silly at all. If such an evolution is possible then it ought to be possible to hypothesize a plausible series of genetic changes that could bring it about over millions of years. A mutation here, a mutation there, etc. Since obviously nobody can do this and won't even try, we know the ToE is a complete krock.
But there IS NO MUTATION in Dredge's scenario. Animal breeders do not induce mutations.
I haven't finished reading to the end of the thread yet, but so far Dredge isn't engaging with any of the information provided to him. I'd like to see him explain how people are wrong in their criticisms of his views, but instead he's just ignoring them, making discussion impossible.
If you are dealing with just a single population through time, how do you determine when they have become a new species? It's a bit like trying to determine when some goes from being skinny to being fat. It's easy to see the differences between the end points, but there isn't a single microsecond in time where they go from being skinny to fat.
This is a bit different for two populations of sexually reproducing organisms that split off from one another. In this case, we can determine if they are different species by looking at gene flow and divergence. If there isn't any significant interbreeding between the two populations resulting in the genes of the two populations diverging then they are separate species. Obviously, we can't see if fossils can interbreed with other fossils or with living populations.
And so, as usual, it's a little more complex than the comic-book version of evolution that anti-evos frequently peddle.
At the risk of continuing off topic, I think it might be a 'good conversation to have' about lying and forum courtesy.
I understand your frustrations but might it be that Our Lady Of Faith is an actual bonafide batshit crazy religious person with delusions of sanity?
As calculus is beyond the mental grasp of a 4th grader so reality is beyond the mental grasp of this poor demented crazy person?
Think bag lady flailing around mumbling in the corner of the parking lot with nothing in her grocery cart but a bible.
I agree, I don't believe that a 'true believer' is necessarily lying. They firmly believe what they say. I think that a lie implies the intent to deceive or report false information. While the information is false, if someone believes it, then it is not necessarily a lie. The question becomes one of when can a deceiver be considered consciously corrected. In this case, our experience says 'never'. So, as Ned stated, it's all a waste of time.
Having said this, I think it is also true that the casual dismissal (without evidence or reason) of someone's extensive and carefully written post strains the fabric of forum civility and should be discouraged.
I mean, did we really expect this thread to go any differently?