Macro and Micro Evolution

Interesting. You were claiming that dogs to foxes would be macroevolution and impossible (actual evolutionary theory would say that they had a common ancestor).Now you say that "breeding new species" is just microevolution. And although foxes are not explicitly included in the "dog kind" in the referenced article they aren't so far off that there is clearly an unbridgeable gap.Perhaps you would like to explain why dogs to foxes would involve an unbridgeable gap.And when you're done with that you can explain why we find so many transitional fossils.

Other creationists put "kind" at family level which would include foxes and dogs as a single kind. You'd think that these "hard" limits are so hard to find.

OK do you disagree with it for scientific reasons or because your religion demands that you refuse to accetp the possibility.If you beleive for scientific reasons what are they ?

I'm afraid that you are wrong - the ossil evidence and DNA strongly support macroevolution.Post 94 seemed to be talking about fossil skin colour which is complete nonsense - fossils rarely preserve any sort of skin at all, and certainly not the colour.

The fossil record doesn't have that sort of resolution. It has all sorts of limits on what it does and does not preserve. Skin colour being an exaple of something you can't get from fossils.And the REALLY big problem is that the fossils that are missing are those for what you call "microevolution". Intermediates are relatively common for higher taxonomic levels.Now what about the DNA evidence. What is it about that that you think contradicts macroevolution ? The fact is that DNA analysis is a useful tool for working out evolutionary relationships.

So basically your argument is that if the PARTICUALR evidence you want to see isn't there then you can ignore the other evidence all together?We do have many transitional fossils which ARE evidence for macroevolution, even if you don't like it.As for your comments on DNA vague comments aboute being "too big" (what differences ? by what standard are they "too big"?) are hardly a serious objection.

Oh well it's obvious that your mind is closed to the truth.The evidence is there, but you don't want to accept it.

No, you're not wrong BECAUSE we disagree. But that doesn't change the fact that you refuse to accept the evidence - or even consider it- and then claim that it doesn't exist.The evidence is there. Refusing to think about it won't make it go away,

Oh Spetner's "theory". All he does is fiddle the figures enough to CLAIM that any example is a decrease in information. Hardly a convincing argument. If you think otherwise feel free to start up a thread to discuss it.

You think that Sonic has a good point ? If so then why is he running from discussion of the intermediate fossils we do have ?In fact it's pretty obvious that all he has is a closed mind and a deficiency in the honesty department.

I aksed repeatedly about the transitional fossils we have. You repeatedly refused to discuss them. So yes you did run from that discussion, and we both know it.As for calling me "BLIND" do you really think that adding one more to the list of your untruths is a convincing argument ?

I think you're giving him too much credit. Every time I asked him about transitional fossils he ignored it. He knew all along that the evidence supported evolution and he's just been lying through his teeth.

First you refuse to discuss the issue, then you use personal attacks to try and divert attention from the fact that you refuse to discuss the issue.Those are the facts.Lies and personal attacks won't change them.

So from YOUR perspectives posts containing nothing but personal attacks are cogent responses ?Like I said. You're a liar.But just to document this for anyone who wants to know the truth.I asked about transitional fossils - and for an explanation of how there was an unbridgeable gap between dogs and foxes (something that even many creationsts would disagree with) your reply (104) simply says that you don't agree that foxes and dogs could be related. No discussion of transitional fossils. The issue is not mentioned.In post 105 I ask if you have any scientific evidence to support your opinion that dogs and foxes could not be related. Your reply (p8) doesn't give a real reason.In post 109 I point out that the transitionals "missing" are those associated wiht what even you would call "microevolulution - at THAT point in the discussion at least (you do keep changing the definition !). Your reply - yes you guessed it - ignores the issue.In post 112 (p8) I ask AGAIN about transitional fossils. Your response (114) again ignores the point. By the time we get to post 122 you claim to have studied the fossil record (so obviously you KNOW that there are lots of transitional fossils - unless you were lying about that).SO yes, you HAVE run from the issue. You have repeatedly refused to address the issue of transtional fossils and yes you ARE lying about it.

YOu're right - lying WOULD require you to be aware of the truth.Want to explain how you could repeatedly dodge an issue without knowing about it ?Want to explain why you intorduced all those personal attacks ?Want to expain why I should not "assume the worst" OF YOU given your behaviour ?