Dogs will be Dogs will be ???

What other possibilities? What other testable hypotheses have been presented that attempt to account for the full range of diversity on this planet? You've been asked to point towards a design hypothesis repeatedly but always dodge the issue.Without a counter hypothesis you have nothing to argue for. You rely solely on the criticism of a ToE "framework" to define your position!Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Which "God"?
How?
When?
How can we test for him/her/it?Without working hypotheses for these questions you have no useful answers. The universe is underpinned by various forces. Knowledge of these forces enables us to better understand the Universe's workings. Gravity, for example, isn't a random process. Evolution is testable in many ways and your attempt to hide behind the "macro" canard indicates that you concede this.So called "macroevolution" is just "microevolution" over a long period of time. Until you are able to produce a working hypothesis to explain why evolution is limited to "microevolution" then you are just hand waving.ID has no answers beyond "Goddidit".Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Topic drift partly my fault too! I'll leave it there..

This is moving OT. We should start a new thread for this.

Your opinion does not make it a fact. Perhaps you could help us understand the concept outside intelligence by contributing to the "Spotting Beretta's designer" thread? Eye development presents no problems for evolution.Eye evolution AEye evolution BEdited by RickJB, : No reason given.

If, unlike scientists, you can truly "see outside the box" then perhaps you'd like to contribute to the discussion about the nature of a proposed designer in the Spotting Beretta's designer thread that I started and you appear to be ignoring.

All animals are and were transitionals. All are and were "fully functional". You are "debunking" a strawman version of the ToE.Besides, and with respect, your "instincts" about the matter count for precisely nothing.By the way, will you ever get around to telling us about your design hypothesis? All you seem capable of doing is picking holes in a non-existent, strawman version of the ToE.

Blah, blah, blah. Lots of handwaving but no content.How do you account for the correlation of ERV positions in the DNA of humans and apes?

Thing is, your "recipe" accurately reflects evolutionary change! We share many ERVs with creatures with whom we have a recent common ancestor (primates), whilst sharing far fewer with rodents, for example. The further back in time the common ancestor, the fewer ERV correlations.Plotting the occurence of ERVs gives a very clear evolutionary roadmap. Your "recipe" points squarely at evolution.... No, it's an observation made long after the ToE was proposed. ERVs exist. They are a fact. They are entirely consistent with the ToE.Furthermore, you have yet to share your ideas on a design hypothesis, so how about addressing your own assumptions?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Examples?Morphology is naturally limited to structural appearance. Similar traits can and do and arise independently. The existence of so-called "cyptic species" and the process of convergent evolution mean that a reliance on morphology alone can not always give a clear picture.The study of DNA has helped to solve this. The ability to study DNA gives biologists a tool to use alongside morphology, in the same way as a capenter uses a router to cut a hole and then sandpaper to make finer adjustments.Neither Morphology or the study of DNA contradict the ToE.Edited by RickJB, : Link added.

I denfinitely carry some responsibility for the topic drift.Apologies.

Um, the paper outlines the fact that they DID mutate - in 100 generations, no less. That's your evidence. Scientists watched it happen in a lab and wrote it down so others could replicate the experiment and confirm it for themselves. That's science in action.You now have to propose what else might have caused the Chlorella Vulgaris to change its structure. Magic? Divine intervention?

A quick online search yielded this citation:Organism Size Promotes the Evolution of Specialized Cells in Multicellular Digital Organisms
by Martin Willensdorfer, Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Harvard UniversityNCBIEdited by RickJB, : No reason given.

RAZD, for all your good intentions ID proponents like Beretta are simply not prepared to work on one topic in the manner that you favour.As soon as the evidence piles up they revert to a scattershot approach and muddy the waters by throwing out innumerable falshoods that cry out for a response.Beretta stopped engaging with you long before the thread drifted OT.In any case you are in the right. Perhaps the best way to ensure a very clean topic is to have a great debate with limited access.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.