Quote:
Originally Posted by SixT4
What's going to stop the same thing happening over long periods of time? If the conditions were right and you had a long enough time frame, why can't one species change so drastically it's no longer considered the same species?
Possibly an inherent incapacity of species to accommodate that much cumulative change.
Then again, the reason could be X, Y or Z. Or maybe we don't know why it has never happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet
we've discussed an article dealing with those exact observations - or are you suggesting that studying the genomes of creatures is not observation?
When a conclusion is based on a properly evidenced scientific opinion, how can it be said to be taken on faith?
We seem to be talking past. I don't dispute that the evidence in the article could be construed as agreeing with common descent somewhat. Maybe you don't get how that is not such an interesting point to make considering we are trying to differentiate common descent from common design, which requires a different sort of evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by St Bernadino
OK, here you go. At this link is a short video by C0nc0rdance that addresses fallacies used by Casey Luskin of the DiscoTute in a recent article. The macro/micro discussion starts at 1:42 in the video.
Same fallacy all over again unfortunately: "Such terms both refer to the same common mechanism. A little change over time within a species and a little change over time between species is still a little change over time."
Nice assuming your conclusion.
The real, and sadly neglected, question is: Do the little
changes over time we actually observe (micro-evolution) ever in fact accumulate to produce the large
differences between species attributed to supposed macro-evolution?
I already addressed how the E. coli example doesn't help your case. If you can be bothered to make your point explicit (rather than link linkying), I'll bother to repeat myself from earlier.