He won't give you a straight-forward answer to this question.

You'll get some variation of "all I'm saying is that the TOE doesn't sufficiently explain speciation"

I'll let Concerto speak for himself, but even if that's his position, my question is valid.

There is unification of micro and macro evolution, in that they are expressible in terms of the same empirical factor, mutations to dna. Even to the extent of using the exact same equation. The (artificially distinct) macro version of evolution is theoretically sufficient to account for species formation.

Sorry not seeing the difference.

Whoa, stop the presses...this may be a first!

Are you saying that (macro)evolution does not conflict with any of your religious beliefs?

Bump.

I re-watched AronRa's Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. I highly recommend it to everyone, and it should be required viewing for anyone wanting to discuss what evolution is. There are so many misperceptions by Creationists as to what science claims about evolution.

Regarding the topic at hand, the 11th Foundational Falsehood applies. I would appreciate it if any Creationist would take 10 minutes to watch this video and provide feedback ITT.

Also, the last couple of minutes of the series are good cliffs.

So Concerto believes that speciation does not occur under any circumstance other than specific creation? whaaaaaa, (admittedly it's an exercise in futility to attempt to negate something so well supported by evidence)

One has to be willfully ignorant to hold that position, and the only reason to be willfully ignorant on a topic such as this is to retain the emotional status quo provided by a particular belief system.. Sucks to be you.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent

To me it's just like conservatives and global warming.

With ANY scientific theory, perhaps short of the ones that are so well observed so as to take almost law-like status (e.g., gravity), it is possible to find some gap, some small point that hasn't been observed, some issue where scientists take the most logical explanation but perhaps haven't absolutely proven it.

And if you really want to believe in something contrary to the theory, all you have to do is seize on that small point and say "see, they haven't actually proven it yet!".

That's what conservatives do on global warming and that's what Concerto does on evolution.

people don't choose their sexuality
people can choose what they believe

those two immediately came to mind. I'm sure there's more but I'd have to ponder it for a while.

most don't have to look for explanation gaps. There was a nice Daily Show segment the other day on global warming where Aasif Mandvi mocks conservatives for their denial of science. He speaks with a Republican strategist who he basically gets her saying that evidence is wrong, gut feelings are more important then evidence, etc. Its very funny but just kind of makes one sad about the sad state of the republican party and their intellectual bankruptcy.

(clarification - gaps aren't necessary... their gut belief is more important then evidence, science, etc. People should just trust their gut... more faith based reasoning. Which always amuses me that they cannot resolve the fact that "faith based" reasoning leads to endless answers with equal proof (none)... so they should believe stuff that they believe because they believe it though they discount this reasoning when other people get different answers for the same reason.)


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...xrs=share_copy

Obviously edited for humor...no person could be that stupid.

Umm... have you seen the politics forum? Or the Freeper site? Certain unnamed posters on this forum?

there are people who sound exactly like that when they have all the time they want to compose their answers.

And... in terms of denying science/evidence in favor of feelings, I'm fairly certain one could find splendour posts saying the same thing if one wanted to read enough of her posts to find it.

You're right. I retract the second part of my statement.

I would want to see the unedited version of the interview before forming an opinion on Noelle Nikpour. I'm not saying she's not an idiot (some of those comments she makes are just stupid no matter how you edit it), but I'm not one to form my opinion of people based on TDS. Unless they're talking about Glenn Beck, because they're spot on regarding him.

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the show for various reasons...
(1) a lot of times they pick the people precisely because they know what their answers are going to be. Usually, they've already made such statements to a 'straight journalist.'
(2) As I said above, none of the comments she said are that rare. You can find similar statements by people made on their own accord. Again... you can find similar things on this very forum.
(3) I work in the media industry and know a few people who have worked on that show including a lawyer. I know their vetting process. The lawyers there are not going to let them edit things to a degree that would not withhold legal scrutiny should someone sue. Furthermore, I'm not even aware of any prominent people complaining that they were edited to misrepresent their views. If this was the case I'm pretty sure there would be a long record of such claims.

The show doesn't find its humor by making people out to be something they're not. The humor in the show comes from exposing people's contradictions, faulty logic, etc.

Fair enough.