Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

The pidgeons are still pidgeons and the dogs are still dogs. Not exactly the type of evidence required to show that all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population that just happened to have the ability to self-replicate. Methinks you don't know or understand what Creationists say about variation....

Wait just a second. It is up to you to provide POSITIVE evidence to support a theory. That has not been done with the theory of evolution. All we hear is "see this little change. that plus eons of time equals great change." What utter trash. The theory can't be objectively tested. It is useless.

Why are you asking me? Snapshots? Like a polaroid? The fossil record cannot tell us of a mechanism nor can it tell us if genetic change was responsible. The only way the fossil record is evidence for the ToE is if you already believe in the ToE. Gradual changes are not found in the fossil record. Why is it that only fully formed alleged intermediates are found? Where are all of nature's failed experiments?Welcome idthink.net - BlueHost.com[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-16-2003]

Sorry Mark but accomodations are not predictions. The only gradual changes we see arfe the snail evolving into a snail or a clam evolving into a clam. Otherwise there are jumps- that is the reason behind punk eek.Fossilization requires a quick burial- that goes against gradualism. It also shoots down how we date the GC.The only reason to believe a dinos forelimbs evolved into wings is faith. There isn't any evidence to support that claim- but if you can show me to be wrong I will look into it.

It's funny that you bring up bats because there isn't any fossil evidence for their alleged evolution. If bat's wings were just elongated arms/ fingers then it would be a given that the genes that govern the limbs/ fingers were what mutated. What happens if embryology falsifies that notion? BTW, homolgy has been falsified for years.Look up fossilization. If an organism isn't buried within 2 years tops it will not fossilize, it will deteriorate. Trace fossils left on the surface will erode.Flying squirrels glide, they don't fly. A variation of a regular squirrel. No big deal.

John Paul:
It's funny that you bring up bats because there isn't any fossil evidence for their alleged evolution.LP:
Like what would you consider acceptable evidence? Following the generations in a time machine?John Paul:
There isn't any evidence for the alleged bat evolution in the fossil record. Period. Bats appear fully formed- very similar to modern day bats.
The link you provide only shows the abstract. I know better than to place any weight on an abstract alone.http://www.trueorigin.org/homology.aspOn fossilization- I should have been more clear. I was talking about land organisms.On squirrels- I haven't given it much thought but given the fact that we see humans born with webbed fingers and toes AND they are still human, I don't see the big deal in a flap of skin forming between limbs. However now I may look into it a little deeper.

I can't help it that you don't understand the concept that limits exist in all facets of life. YOU have provided no eviodence that limits don't also apply to life itself. I am sick of asking YOU for that evidence. Just saying mutations can accumulate mena nothing without the evidence to back it up.As for homology I told you- Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Don't blame me for your laziness to read the evidence that disputes your theory.Icarnycteris is a bat. What's your point? I never said bats weren't found in the fossil record, I said their alleged evolution isn't evidenced in the fossil record.

crashfrog, We Have NEVER observed mutations accumulating in the way the theory of evolution requires. Genetic homeostasis- the observed limit. Also we know that even the most beneficial mutation has a greater chance of being lost in a population than it does of becoming fixed, never mind taking over that population. Sexual reproduction is the bane of the theory. Throw away half of the genes to reproduce? Not a good thing for you.YOU have not provided any evidence that m utations can accumulate. Don't accuse me of assertions when I am just following your lead.

Wow flies evolving into flies? LOL! By random mutation or by design?What way do we observe mutations accumulating?Sexual reproduction- where do I start? evolutionists can only offer assertions as to how that came about. Even Dawkins recognizes the difficulties it presents.[This message has been edited by John Paul, 12-17-2003]

Bats having similar DNA of mammals is to be expected- they ARE mammals. However that can just as easily be used as evidence for a common Creator or the same intelligent designer.Do we even know what the alleged ancestor of the bat was? Where is the fossil evidence to support that?

As for homology I told you- Denton's book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Don't blame me for your laziness to read the evidence that disputes your theory.JonF:
Geez, would you please stop giving us these irrelevant and outdated references?John Paul:
Nice assertion. Anything to back it up?JonF:
Denton's book was based on significant misundertandings and is, therefore, full of errors and misinformation. Although he hasn't formally renounced it, it's clear from his more recent writings that he no longer beleives his own claims.John Paul:
Again that was a nice assertion. Can you back it up?