I've read it.

I understand the greater point, but still, its faster to say: "macroevolution" than to say "evoluton where one group of species has drifted far enough in their genetic pool to be distinguished from another group of species." I get your point, but still, it's a useful word that helps us focus a discussion. We know what we're talking about.


I directly addressed that:

Saying that this point would still be compatible with common design is not the same thing as arguing that it supports common design.

By the way: is there anything that's NOT compatible with common design? Is the hypothesis of common design falsifiable?

they do. god does not.

No one is saying that in theory small changes cannot amount to large changes, but the question at hand is whether or not the types of small changes that we see are capable of creating large changes. Or are the current mechanism that we attribute to the small changes capable of producing the larger changes.

Taking your analogy about small steps going to large distances. If I wanted to go from st. louis to NY by means of small steps, but the way that I walked caused me to drift to the left on every step, can you guarantee that I will ever make it to NY?

Also, as far as me being a "creationist" that really depends on what you mean by that. Most of all I am in this conversation because I just don't think that the arguments being presented hold water, whether or not the conclusion is true is of no mind to me for this purposes.

I am also a big advocate of differentiating between evolution and the mechanism of evolution. Two different arguments with two different sets of evidence (even though they can overlap). In other words, to prove that we went from point A to point B, is not to prove the means by which we went from point A to point B.

i dont think its the same because evolution isn't trying to get the organism to some goal...

the end is just whereever the process happened to take it...

That doesn't matter. We have the beginning and the end (tentative of course), now we are able to question whether or not one process is sufficient.

Again, the question is not "can small steps lead you somewhere, possibly somewhere far", but "can these small steps get you to where we are now".

A similar analogy. If today I was in st. louis, and on friday I was in Paris, and last week you saw me walk from my house to the store, would you be justified in assuming that I walked also from St. Louis to Paris? We have a beginning and we have an end, just like in the evolution of life.

better analogy:

If today I was in seattle, and 10 years later I was in new york, and last week you saw me walk from my house to the store, would you be justified in assuming that I walked also from seattle to new york?

and the answer is, without any additional data, yes, you would be just as justified in saying you walked from seattle to new york vs any other reasonable method. in fact, much more justified in saying you walked from seattle to new york, then you were magically transported to new york by an all-loving, all-powerful God. (j/k about that last part, but hopefully my point was understood)

Jib,

On a scale of 1-10, how thorough have you studied evolution, iyo? Please be as honest as possible.

I doubt he will disagree with this. After all, Jib was the guy who said if he saw someone dead one day, and walking around a few days later, the most plausible explanation was that he rose from the dead. (that may be off a bit from what he said, but the main statement is correct)

What do you mean by thorough? Thorough as far as what can be done in your spare time through the internet as an uneducated car salesman? Or thorough as in the full range of what could be studied?

the full range of what could be studied, sort of. obviously very few have the time to read enough to become an expert on the subject. where has the bulk of your knowledge on the subject come from? what have you read? *do you enjoy selling cars? i did it for a minute and hated it, but i could see if you worked with cool people it wouldn't be as bad. (probably applies to most sales jobs unless ur just printing money. i was a headhunter before the economy went to ****, and although i hated my co-workers it was irrelevant cuz the money was great)

Then on a scale from 1-10, 1 being virtually no studying, I would say 2 maybe 3. There is just so much out there to study if this is what I did for a living.

I have been selling cars for about 9 years or so. It is probably one of the toughest business you can get into. You get **** on from every direction. But there are some up sides, the places you work are usually pretty cool as everyone is the same type of personality. It's a very raw business, if someone PC hung out at a car dealership for a day I could not imagine how many law suits would follow, lol. I would not suggest that anyone get into it now.

I agree with you that the money is what matters though. If I can make $15k a month, I don't really care what environment I am in(short term anyway). I don't go to work to have fun, but to make money.

I do enjoy it sometimes. A lot less now that business has been ****. I do it because I am good at it and I could not go anywhere and make the same type of money, so I am stuck. That's why I have been working on website stuff.

I never said it was guaranteed that big changes would happen. I said under the right circumstances and given enough time.

I get the impression Concerto was saying it simply couldn't happen, and was denying the concept of "macro" evolution unless it was directly observed.

Fair enough. I would also add given the right mechanism.

I don't want to speak for him, but I believe he is saying simply that given the presence of small changes does not guarantee large changes, and that for one to justifiably extrapolate one to the other requires additional evidence. Don't you feel that is reasonable? I mean, there are countless things in life that we know are possible on a small scale that are just not possible on a large scale.

But jib, there's a mountain of additional evidence, accepted by a large scientific consensus. And it goes way farther than "show me the fossils"!

Well, from the point of view of science, something never having been observed can be a reason to at least suspect it of not being a reality.

Careful, you're nearing the so very unscientific argumentum ad ignorantiam danger zone.

Defining a species as a reproductively compatible population defines a barrier that has never been crossed (in a manner shown to be extendable to produce this "evolution" business).

Scientific propositions need to be more than just logical. They must also be reducible to exclusively observable (i.e. measurable) processes. Macro-evolution falls short of this criterion.

Observing (micro-evolution) processes change each of A1 to A2, B1 to B2 and C1 to C2 does not imply there exist (macro-evolution) processes that change all of A1, B1 and C1 to A2, B2 and C2.

Etc.

By "common design" I basically mean "creationism" (though I dislike -isms) such that common descent and common design are mutually incompatible.

Confirmation of common descent would falsify common design (as I have been using the term), but don't hold your breath. Evidence of similar genomes among species that resemble each other is what we would expect given either common descent or common design, which is why a "broken" gene argument doesn't help us here.

Mountain of evidence for what? Darwinian mechanisms being sufficient to be the driving force of evolution? I don't think so. There is a lot of speculation and just-so stories. Not a ton of evidence, which is why you see many many scientists moving away from darwinian mechanisms being the driving force. We just had a poster in the field of evolutionary biology (I believe that was his main field) and he agreed that darwinian mechanisms was not the focus any longer.

the difference between those and UFOlogy is the latter has scientific data and governmental documents backing up the theory, and the former does not (afaik)

you're correct obv that unidentified flying objects exist. it's undeniable. any time you see something flying in the sky and don't know what it is, it's an unidentified flying object.


I don't necessarily mean "alien space craft". What I mean is non terrestrial object.

when you have data indicating that something in the sky is maneuvering in such a way that it would be physically impossible for a human to be on board controlling it, and current published scientific knowledge suggests that it's not a naturally occurring animal, or anything that could have been made by man, then the scientific data clearly indicates that it is something that was not born or created on earth, and thus it is extra terrestrial.


furthermore, whatever these non terrestrial objects are, it is clear that they pose threats to national security (or at least in the military's mind), documented by the many cases in which military has scrambled defense air craft in response to the encroachment on air space.

absolutely not.

not space aliens, extra terrestrial intelligence.


the connection is the data which suggests the non terrestrial object is intelligently controlled by it's interaction with military air craft (and in the case of implants - data suggesting it was manufactured but not on earth)

if it's not controlled, but programmed to counter air craft, then that suggests intelligence as well.

Forget "darwinian mechanisms" and just stick with: "Theory of Evolution". We know there are a variety of mechanisms, including epigenetics (although from what I've read its still regarded as an offshoot of natural selection.) In any event, the theory of evolution has expanded greatly since Darwin and has a deep focus on genome analysis. Read the 29+ evidences for macroevolution and you'll see many of the evidences. Read Dawkins, Greatest Show On Earth: the evidence for evolution (you may not like him as a theologian, but as a biologist he's first rate). There is a mountain of evidence.

Where do the "non terrestrial" and "but not on earth" parts come from?

I don't think you should "share the gospel" with anyone. That's my personal opinion and view towards religions.

People can believe whatever they want, and there's no problem with that at all. And even having a religious discussion, such as "I believe ____" "___ really? I believe ____".

My problem is when someone suggests others follow their beliefs or tries to dissuade them from theirs.

wat


are you asking where the data is that suggests the objects are non terrestrial?

Yes, what does this data look like?