So, are you now claiming evolutionists only have evidence for microevolution (speciation)?

Most creationists fully acknowledge that speciation occurs but that's as far as evolution goes.

As far as the quote, why would we take it out if it's true, it's what they meant, thus taken completely IN context?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

MAN are you stubborn...

>1. Evolutionists admit that the fossil record has "many seeming holes in it."

...and the problem with that would be... what?

>2. Other evolutionists claim that they really didn't mean that the fossil record has holes in it but rather, it's just "somewhat sparse."

...and the difference is... what?

>3. The same evolutionists state that since that is what would be expected if evolution is true, we should just ignore the lack of fossil evidence and believe in evolution anyway.

No one says ignore the fossil evidence because of it's "holes" - and there's plenty of other evidence in DNA, in what you call "microevolution", rock layers & radiocarbon dating, etc. Believe evolution for the ABUNDANCE of evidence.

A removal of the mined quote would be, at the very least, honest. Don't avoid the comment simply by attacking something different.

WiYC said:
"So, are you now claiming evolutionists only have evidence for microevolution (speciation)?"

Speciation IS macroevolution. Evolution at the species level or above is macroevolution.

WiYC said:
"Most creationists fully acknowledge that speciation occurs but that's as far as evolution goes."

Since speciation keeps on occurring, evolution goes very far, indeed. Evolution predicts a continual branching of life. We see it in what lives today and a relationship to the branching life of the past. If you accept evolutionary speciation, you have given up the game. Evolution has won the day. It is time for you to admit you are wrong, close your site, and take down the billboards.

Since you believe that speciation reflects the eventual evolution of the 'molecules to man' philosophy, please provide an example of an isolated population of organisms that have 'evolved' new more complex features.

Refer to your mouthpiece for help if you need it:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Even with forced breeding and laboratory experiments, isn't it interesting that no one can get a bacteria to be anything more than another bacteria?

Or a finch anything more than another finch

Or a rose anything more than another rose

Or a dog anything more than another dog

ON and on and on and on and on and on and on ....

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"So, are you now claiming evolutionists only have evidence for microevolution (speciation)?"

Speciation IS macroevolution. Evolution at the species level or above is macroevolution.

WiYC said:
"Most creationists fully acknowledge that speciation occurs but that's as far as evolution goes."

Since speciation keeps on occurring, evolution goes very far, indeed. Evolution predicts a continual branching of life. We see it in what lives today and a relationship to the branching life of the past. If you accept evolutionary speciation, you have given up the game. Evolution has won the day. It is time for you to admit you are wrong, close your site, and take down the billboards.

It is but one aspect of the evidence for evolution. It shows us evolution occurring today. It shows that the population of a single species have effectively split and become reproductively isolated, never to share their genes again. This is a profound and powerful transformation.

You can claim that evolution never produces anything all that dramatic but this is but one step. Each new species can split yet again. With time, you see the more profound changes that you doubt.

The fossil record confirms this, as does the genetic evidence which conforms to the tree inferred from the fossils.

You seem to want to change the way evolution operates to something that does not exist and then proclaim triumphantly that evolution does not exist. Evolution works with the material it has and makes the steps it can. Given time, that one step indeed becomes the start of a more dramatic process.

I went to the Darwin exhibit at the Field Museum last month. One part showed the species of Darwin's finches. From the small initial population of finches there were birds of wildly different size and morphology. They were so different that Darwin did not recognize many of them as finches. It was striking to see these stark differences and to know that these birds evolved in only a few million years from a small population.

In regard to your comment,

"I went to the Darwin exhibit at the Field Museum last month. One part showed the species of Darwin's finches. From the small initial population of finches there were birds of wildly different size and morphology. They were so different that Darwin did not recognize many of them as finches. It was striking to see these stark differences and to know that these birds evolved in only a few million years from a small population."

Please correct us if we are wrong, but were they still finches? A simple answer 'Yes' or 'No' is sufficient.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It is but one aspect of the evidence for evolution. It shows us evolution occurring today. It shows that the population of a single species have effectively split and become reproductively isolated, never to share their genes again. This is a profound and powerful transformation.

You can claim that evolution never produces anything all that dramatic but this is but one step. Each new species can split yet again. With time, you see the more profound changes that you doubt.

The fossil record confirms this, as does the genetic evidence which conforms to the tree inferred from the fossils.

You seem to want to change the way evolution operates to something that does not exist and then proclaim triumphantly that evolution does not exist. Evolution works with the material it has and makes the steps it can. Given time, that one step indeed becomes the start of a more dramatic process.

I went to the Darwin exhibit at the Field Museum last month. One part showed the species of Darwin's finches. From the small initial population of finches there were birds of wildly different size and morphology. They were so different that Darwin did not recognize many of them as finches. It was striking to see these stark differences and to know that these birds evolved in only a few million years from a small population.

The warbler finch (Certhidea olivacea) certainly didn't look like a finch. It seems to have taken the niche and morphology of a warbler. Although it retains some finch behaviors, it seems like something different now.

When you find that it actually evolved into "something different now" let us know.

Why is this so difficult for you? If you believe that a finch will turn into "something different now," then every organism around you would be a test case for evolution.

Surely by now, you could come up with something that actually changed into "something different now."

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

The warbler finch (Certhidea olivacea) certainly didn't look like a finch. It seems to have taken the niche and morphology of a warbler. Although it retains some finch behaviors, it seems like something different now.

"For some decades taxonomists have placed these birds in the family Emberizidae with the New World sparrows and Old World buntings (Sulloway 1982). However, the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy puts Darwin's finches with the tanagers (Monroe and Sibley 1993), and at least one recent work follows that example (Burns and Skutch 2003). The American Ornithologists' Union, in its North American check-list, places the Cocos Island Finch in the Emberizidae but with an asterisk indicating that the placement is probably wrong (AOU 1998–2006); in its tentative South American check-list, the Galápagos species are incertae sedis, of uncertain place (Remsen et al. 2007)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches#Taxonomy

WiYC said:
"When you find that it actually evolved into "something different now" let us know."

These birds are not easily classified. Darwin did not recognize them as all being finches because they had evolved into birds that don't make a living like other finches. Certhidea olivacea was called a wren by Darwin and its current common name is warbler finch because it seems more like a warbler.

WiYC:
"Why is this so difficult for you? If you believe that a finch will turn into "something different now," then every organism around you would be a test case for evolution."

It has been difficult to classify the birds because they came from some sort of finch but have evolved into birds that are different from what they were when they populated the islands. Darwin classified many of the species as something other than finches. The pending American Ornithologist's Union checklist for South America list them as "incertae sedis" of uncertain place.

WiYC:
"Surely by now, you could come up with something that actually changed into 'something different now.'"

You would begin to accept that the scientific evidence shows that Darwin's finches have evolved into something different. The work of the Grants has shown the power of natural selection on these birds continues. Why is this so difficult for you?

As I have tried to teach you many times before, speciation is macroevolution. If you accept speciation WiYC, you have given up the game. Speciation occurred in the past. We can see speciation occurring now. We know that all of species can split again later, repeatedly over time.

Yes, we know what you faith is.

Now, where is your proof that finches can evolve into something else but another finch.

We're waiting ...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

As I have tried to teach you many times before, speciation is macroevolution. If you accept speciation WiYC, you have given up the game. Speciation occurred in the past. We can see speciation occurring now. We know that all of species can split again later, repeatedly over time.

WiYC said:
"Yes, we know what you faith is."
Actually, you don't know what my faith is. That is a separate concern from my interest in science. The evidence of macroevolutionary changes is clear. I believe that God gave us this brain, and expects us to use it.

WiYC continued:
"Now, where is your proof that finches can evolve into something else but another finch.

We're waiting ..."

Both the warbler finch (Certhidia olivacea), and woodpecker finch (Cactospiza pallida) are something different. These birds have taken niches that would be occupied by other birds (if they had been on the Galapagos). They are considered Darwin's finches because the recent evolution maintains a number of characteristics of the parent species, like eggs, nesting or courtship behavior. The way that they make their living evolved away from the finch model.

Why is this so difficult for you?

Surely you could come up with something that actually evolved into something other than another specie of that parent kind.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"Yes, we know what you faith is."
Actually, you don't know what my faith is. That is a separate concern from my interest in science. The evidence of macroevolutionary changes is clear. I believe that God gave us this brain, and expects us to use it.

WiYC continued:
"Now, where is your proof that finches can evolve into something else but another finch.

We're waiting ..."

Both the warbler finch (Certhidia olivacea), and woodpecker finch (Cactospiza pallida) are something different. These birds have taken niches that would be occupied by other birds (if they had been on the Galapagos). They are considered Darwin's finches because the recent evolution maintains a number of characteristics of the parent species, like eggs, nesting or courtship behavior. The way that they make their living evolved away from the finch model.

WiYC:
"Why is this so difficult for you?"

It has not been difficult at all to show that macroevolutionary change has occurred in these birds. It is more your difficulty in accepting the truth that is the problem.

"Surely you could come up with something that actually evolved into something other than another specie of that parent kind."

The Darwin's finches have recently been classified as
incertae sedis at the family level. They are currently classifed as four different genera: Geospiza, Camarhynchus, Certhidea, and Pinaroloxias. There are fourteen species with at least one sub-species. Evolution proceeds by speciation. When speciation continues whole groups of species and subspecies are produced. All of these are produced from the original species and the ensuing varition and selection. This is how evolution is supposed to work and these birds confirm it beautifully.

WiYC said:
"As far as the quote, why would we take it out if it's true, it's what they meant, thus taken completely IN context?"

Let's start with your inaccurate lead in for that quote.

"Some Evolutionists do acknowledge that the fossil record is a disaster for their theory so they just go on to more interesting ways to deny the truth:"

I didn't see anything in the AAAS benchmarks that claimed that the fossil record is "a disaster" for the theory of evolution. In fact, the quote (and what follows the quote) only talks about how to help students with their difficulty in understanding evolution. As the others have indicated, your very selective quote misrepresents both the position of the AAAS. The standards indicate accurately that the fossil record supports evolution. Your quote makes it seem that scientists and AAAS think otherwise. This clearly is not the case.

To assume that you accurately reflect the context of the quote is another stretch on your part. The standards here are talking about a hypothetical student asking a question. The question betrays a lack of understanding about the nature of the fossil record, that the record by now should be complete. You consistently betray the same misunderstanding. You rely on this misunderstanding to insist that there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record. This simply is not true. When repeatedly asked for a creationist explanation for the fossil record, you change the subject or simply don't answer.

'Interesting that you whine so much about quotes when you could just shut us up with some proof ...

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

WiYC said:
"As far as the quote, why would we take it out if it's true, it's what they meant, thus taken completely IN context?"

Let's start with your inaccurate lead in for that quote.

"Some Evolutionists do acknowledge that the fossil record is a disaster for their theory so they just go on to more interesting ways to deny the truth:"

I didn't see anything in the AAAS benchmarks that claimed that the fossil record is "a disaster" for the theory of evolution. In fact, the quote (and what follows the quote) only talks about how to help students with their difficulty in understanding evolution. As the others have indicated, your very selective quote misrepresents both the position of the AAAS. The standards indicate accurately that the fossil record supports evolution. Your quote makes it seem that scientists and AAAS think otherwise. This clearly is not the case.

To assume that you accurately reflect the context of the quote is another stretch on your part. The standards here are talking about a hypothetical student asking a question. The question betrays a lack of understanding about the nature of the fossil record, that the record by now should be complete. You consistently betray the same misunderstanding. You rely on this misunderstanding to insist that there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record. This simply is not true. When repeatedly asked for a creationist explanation for the fossil record, you change the subject or simply don't answer.

WiYC said:
"Interesting that you whine so much about quotes when you could just shut us up with some proof ..."

We have provided evidence in the fossil record, genetics, comparative anatomy of related species, the timing of species in the fossil record, etc. You have ignored the evidence, changed the subject, or dropped the debate altogether. Most recently, you have used the excuse of someone posting under your name to shut down your playground and delete valid posts.

It is not whining to expect you to use sources honestly. I keep calling you on it because you continue to misrepresent the authors. We can certainly engage in intelligent debate, but it is up to you to decide whether that is important to you.