Since I'm just butting in here, I'm going to restrict my post to just one comment you made. I'm sure any reply I could give to your post wouldn't be as erudite and well crafted as General Krull's. So I won't.
I was interested in the stuff you were saying about macroevolution. If you can give a good explanation how a mechanism that would prevent little changes acruing into big changes given sufficient time, I'd start to take your position on macroevolution much more seriously.
You say:
quote:
Dogs are always dogs even tho they come in many varieties.
There's no arguing with that. Dogs are dogs. Its a bit of a truism, really.
I'm never quite sure what to make of this kind of approach. It sounds to me like a big misunderstanding. I want to ask you - if macroevolution was true, would you EXPECT to see dogs turning into other things? I don't. I think that macroevolution probably happens, but also accept that a human timescale, even thousands of years, aren't going to see cats turn into dogs, or amoeba turn into frogs, or whatever else you think sounds silly. You are right. It IS silly expecting that to happen in a way that humans can see. But we can observe small changes in a more human timescale.
I think the onus is on you to explain, as I mentioned at the start of this post, what mechanism might concievably allow some small changes, but prevent larger ones - given sufficient time.
[edited to make my final paragraph clearer.]
This message has been edited by Tusko, 04-26-2005 02:41 PM
™ Version 4.2