Search results

From what in the cited study do you infer that the modifications are caused by the mere loss of information? How do you know that the modifications were not the product of an added gene, rather than a lost gene? The summary only states that the keryotypes are slightly different, i.e., the...

Hiding? LOL! I could say something incredibly satirical here, but I'll just keep my mouth shut and thank you for your support.

So far, my cited example satisfies all of your requirements. The worms no longer successfully interbreed, and that is a HUGE modification. If you're not going to reveal all of the criteria in advance, then I'm not going to play with you, because you can always add a new condition, to...

My cite satisfies your definition(s). You are simply dismissing it based on your unsupported opinion that it does not. Still waiting for you to answer the question of what are the precise "sufficient conditions" necessary to proving evolution?

The example that I offerred, is not the only one available. There are many others. But, based on your post, other examples would be insufficient unless they also were subjected to repeated experimentation. So, how many independent trials of such an experiment, would satisfy you that the...

The question remains: What is the minimum set of sufficient conditions, necessary to prove that evolution of a species has occured? Until you answer this question, no one can know if any proof will satisfy. PS. My offerred experiment satisfies your above stated definition of "evolution"...

One more time, what are the "sufficient conditions", by your definition, necessary to proving evolution?

Well, if you're gonna take the position that every example of speciation is a fraud, then I may as well stop now, because, you're basically saying, that no matter what evidence I produce, you will not accept it as valid, unless it supports your predetermined conclusion.

I have yet to see anyone on either side of the issue here, change their position in response to any of either of our posts. Your conclusion therefore has no merit, and, once again, is supported by nothing other than your own opinion.

Your statements following your definitions are merely your opinion. Furthermore, neither statement tells us what, by your definition "is" a "sufficient condition" of evolution. You have simply moved the target to a different location so as to avoid having to admit that the "worm has turned"...

Not at all. When you get your license to practice law, let me know, and I'll be happy to work with you to create a legal cause of action for declaratory relief that we can place before a real court, and we'll see whom gets whose ass handed to them.

Mutation is a well-estabilished and recognized part of the evolutionary process. So is reproductive isolation. You defined a species as separated by its inability to interbreed with its predecessor. My example fits your criteria. You now state that mutually infertile populations is not...

Your response speaks for itself. I would love to have you as a witness for any case where intelligent design was being promoted as a serious theory to be taught in a public school. Your comments above would end the controversy in the courtroom. I have never encountered anyone like you anywhere...

All of this conversation about Jefferson is irrelevant and immaterial. I have given you a published scientific example of speciation above. There are only three possible conclusions to be drawn from it: 1. The published experiment is a fraud. 2. The published experiment proves evolution. 3...

Once again, so what? Jefferson may have believed in intelligent design. However, his statement above that it is "impossible for the human mind not to percieve and feel a conviction of design," can be falsified right now, because I don't perceive this or feel anything of the kind...

So what? Jefferson is saying that he doesn't believe that Jesus was anything other than a great teacher -- certainly not the Son of God. All of this is utterly irrelevant to the topic. You have thrown out a red herring to distract instead of addressing the evolutionary evidence.

And, just in case someone wants to challenge vhehn's transcription of Jefferson's quote, the actual quote is found in a letter to John Adams, entitled CALVIN AND COSMOLOGY, written, at Monticello, April 11, 1823. (See...

And now, for something completely different. The following summary is taken from: Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220. Before you read it, I'm gonna tell you what it is --...

What a scientist believes about the existence of God is irrelevant because scientists do science, not theology, and it is in the area of science that I am giving the VAST majority opinion its weight of authority. If I wanted to discuss a consensus about God, I'd seek out an organization of...

We don't need to go to a dictionary -- I have a more authoritative source: "The theory of evolution explains how life on Earth has changed. In scientific terms, 'theory' does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch' as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena...