Republicans Belief in Evolution plummets

[Orange_Crush]

It really is baiting and switching. Go back and read what he is saying.

No, I haven't read it. ...

...

No. You haven't read it. The reason this is important is because if you are going to accuse someone of baiting and switching, it is by definition imperative that you know their original argument, in its original form. You haven't taken the trouble to do that.

You claim that Behe is baiting and switching because you have read some of his critics accuse him of bating and switching. You claim to have read "a lot of pro-ID articles", and Behe's "online stuff". You do this without ever having read his original treatment of the subject (DBB), where he originally laid out the 'bait'. You appear to have missed the mountainous amount of times he has had to say, "Critic X has misrepresented my argument; I said in DBB, page xxx..."

I have read his original presentation of his argument. I even bought his 10th anniversary edition where he added an additional chapter to respond, point by point, to his critics. He added that chapter right in the book alongside his original presentation of his thesis. He put the rebuttals right alongside your supposed 'bait'-- with references to the places in the book (his original argument) to the points they were misrepresenting!

Your linked rhetoric make a specific claim to the subject of bait/switch, which was debunked with one simple reference to Behe's original work. That would seem to be enough for any reasonable person, but obviously it isn't. (I'll remind you that the spurious claim for bait/switch was made by an individual that still brags about lying to discredit ID.)

I know enough about the subject matter to make an informed decision on what I think is and isn't science.

You are at complete liberty to draw your own conclusions, of course.

However, I think getting in a pissing match over who has study what is pointless, but I think I saw where you were going with this.

If you think it's pointless whether you know the author-in-question's original argument before deciding whether they have committed a bait/switch, then more power to you.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

The thing about these replies, and I've read them from both sides, is that there is really very little burden of proof on the critic. Instead of rehashing what Crush and rjd are speaking to, I'm going to move on. It's devolved (no pun intended) into little more than emotional outbursts. There is plenty of explanation directly from Behe and Meyer to be found. What I've seen in response is mudslinging and name calling, with a failure to understand the basics of the argument. I pointed that out to RJD, and he seemed unphased, and chose to google criticisms of the theory without understanding what is being argued from irreducible complexity arguments. Fine.

Amen. I'll join you.

:hi:

RJD,
This is a serious question. Are you saying that sound logic is importand or isn't important?

...

So, why point out fallacy? Because thinking is important.

...

If this seems unreasonable to you, then do not expect me to engage you with any sincerity. FWIW,

And amen.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

We moved on from Science and Philosophy, now it is a conspiracy.

Heh... Again... The irony is palpable.

 

[MercyPercy]

My god is an awesome god he reeeiiigns from heaven and earth

 

[Orange_Crush]

My god is an awesome god he reeeiiigns from heaven and earth

I am pretty convinced Santa Clause only reins at the N Pole.

 

[MercyPercy]

Conspiring to indoctrinate our children into secular heathens, willfully veiling them in scientific ignorance instead if teaching them the truth if the lord.

It makes me so mad I might start singing hymns.

 

[Septic]

Conspiring to indoctrinate our children into secular heathens, willfully veiling them in scientific ignorance instead if teaching them the truth if the lord.

It makes me so mad I might start singing hymns.

And My Personal Favorite:

 

[rjd970]

Roust and OC, you guys can have the last word, I'm done with this thread. At this point it is pointless to continue and I honestly have better things to do. I've made my points, I stand by them, and feel good about what I've argued here. You guys can lobby or whatever you want to get ID identified as legitimate science, you guys seem to think it is obvious, and that's fine. More power to you.

eace2:

 

[Roustabout]

Information is information. It is new information. Genetic code = information.

How do you want to define as "new"? New chromosome structure? X amount of different nucleotide combinations?

Finally a little time to respond.
If you do want to get into the technical terms, I have an article that sees to be relevant to what you are asking. To Build New Animals, No New Genetic Information Needed? More in Reply in Charles Marshall - Evolution News & Views

Yes, when we discuss new, we need to be using the word in the same way. Here is the problem as I see it. You have made several statements such as 'information is information,' and 'change is change.' Is that true? I don't think it is, and I also see it creating some problems. When someone mentioned macro evolution, you than attempted to argue for macro evolution, citing an example. When I pointed out the problem with your example, you simply dismissed that you don't see any difference in micro and macro. Well, if you don't see any difference, then why are you presenting an example of 'macro' that isn't consistent with how those who actually use the term? I don't see anyway else to take this except dishonesty.

So, on mutlitple occassions now you have reduced terminology to where it is essentially arbirtary and meaningless. "Change is change." If that is your starting then I just can't take you seriously, regardless of your technical knowledge. Trait inheritance is not arbiritary.

Information is not just information. And change is not just change. The resulting diversity among a class is not an explanation for the origins of the information being diversified. How information is passed on to offspring is anything but arbitrary. The way you are using the terms makes it appear that it was as likely that your parents could have produced a baboon as a human. In heridity, the parents have only a set amount of information to work with. Your parents produced you. There wasn't any chance you would be born with feathers instead of skin, or wings instead of arms, etc. Any variety we see is based on the combination of existing genetic info. So eye color, skin color, hair color, etc, is limited to what is there. (coding for hair, skin, etc.)
As we 'evolve' we are not developing new information but only various combinations of existing information. So, how does that account for the origin of the information in the first place? (and I'm not talking about abiogenesis here.) Not to mention that these combinations result in the LOSS of data over time. You cannot explain molecules to man by the diluting the
existing gene pool. We are talking about very specific body types that require very specific genetic code to account for.

Well, what about mutation? What about it? We can recognize mutations in DNA, and we know that the basic building blocks that code for traits are not simply the result of mutation.

8188 mentioned the donkey and speciation. I do challenge him to find where I said any such thing regarding speciation. Anyone honset knows that the term itself does NOT have hard boundaries and is always a source of debate WITHIN the science community. It is again dishonest to make a conclusion and then reshape the terminology to back up a conclusion. Those terms are all man made. They do attempt to categorize, but the categories themselves do NOT obejctively exist. We know from observation that what constitutes speciation in say a fruitfly is different than what constitutes speciation in an equine. Thus my puzzled response when he leaped from bacteria to donkeys.

 

[FLVOL69]

And My Personal Favorite:

So I take it you've been church shopping... Good boy , keep trying one of those churches will welcome you in.

 

[Septic]

It is again dishonest to make a conclusion and then reshape the terminology to back up a conclusion.

Ironic that you should say that.

 

[BartW]

This thread has gone to sh!te so I'll just pop in to say...

The "no new information" angle is a tired argument.

Macroevolution is defined as a change at the species level or above. Speciation occurs when populations can no longer interbreed. Speciation has been observed many times.

:hi:

 

[Roustabout]

This thread has gone to sh!te so I'll just pop in to say...

The "no new information" angle is a tired argument.

Macroevolution is defined as a change at the species level or above. Speciation occurs when populations can no longer interbreed. Speciation has been observed many times.

:hi:

I have no problem with someone saying speciation occurs when pops can't interbreed.
However, every text book definition of macro that I came acorss states that it occurs ABOVE the species level. Yours states at the species level.

Macroevolution

Guess who I found that defined it as being "at" the species level? Drum roll........Talk Origins. Well done sir. I might as well start citing answers in genesis.

 

[BartW]

I have no problem with someone saying speciation occurs when pops can't interbreed.
However, nearly every text book example of macro states that it occurs ABOVE the species level. Yours states at the species level.

Macroevolution

Guess who I found that defined it as being "at" the species level? Drum roll........Talk Origins. Well done sir. I might as well start citing answers in genesis.

That definition came straight out of my 300 level bio class on evolution. If you google it it's the first definition that pops up (wikipedia). I figured you might see the link and get :realmad:

The difference between linking TalkOrigins and AiG is that TalkOrigins cites reputable scientific journals whereas AiG cites explicitly creationist gobbledygook. But whatever helps you sleep at night buddy

 

[Roustabout]

That definition came straight out of my 300 level bio class on evolution. If you google it it's the first definition that pops up (wikipedia). I figured you might see the link and get :realmad:

The difference between linking TalkOrigins and AiG is that TalkOrigins cites reputable scientific journals whereas AiG cites explicitly creationist gobbledygook. But whatever helps you sleep at night buddy

I've got definitions from Berkley among others. Evolution 101: Macroevolution

Another source says this.

The tree of life has many branches that all connect to a common ancestor, and the diversity of life on the tree results from evolutionary processes. Just as we* (people)organize life on earth into hierarchies, we would like to do the same for evolutionary processes and patterns. Thus, many scientists propose that evolution can be divided into two distinct hierarchical processes -- microevolution and macroevolution -- although the distinction between them is somewhat artificial.

*emphasis mine
Artificial? Clear as mud.


Do you admit that the term species does not have hard boundries? And now, we can see that neither does the usage of the term macro. This isn't my opinion. This is a fact based on just what little research I've done since we started arguing over the terminology. But, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not claiming that speciation confirms this or that. Like I exampled before, these are NOT objective terms. They are subjective, and it seems that many are willing to move the goalpost wherever needed to signal the kick 'good.' Does that help you sleep at night? See, I can make snakry remarks, but the reality is that I've presented some legit challenges to the terms, the evidence and the descrepencies. See, I don't expect those like Septic or Percy to get it. They mock people of faith for swallowing fairytales, and hyposcritically swallow Darwin's pablum.
You seem to at least have enough sense to apply your skepticism equally. Sir, you are not.

Interesting too, that one cited extinction as an example of macroevolution. I'm not making this s=== up.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Finally a little time to respond.
If you do want to get into the technical terms, I have an article that sees to be relevant to what you are asking. To Build New Animals, No New Genetic Information Needed? More in Reply in Charles Marshall - Evolution News & Views

Yes, when we discuss new, we need to be using the word in the same way. Here is the problem as I see it. You have made several statements such as 'information is information,' and 'change is change.' Is that true? I don't think it is, and I also see it creating some problems. When someone mentioned macro evolution, you than attempted to argue for macro evolution, citing an example. When I pointed out the problem with your example, you simply dismissed that you don't see any difference in micro and macro. Well, if you don't see any difference, then why are you presenting an example of 'macro' that isn't consistent with how those who actually use the term? I don't see anyway else to take this except dishonesty.

So, on mutlitple occassions now you have reduced terminology to where it is essentially arbirtary and meaningless. "Change is change." If that is your starting then I just can't take you seriously, regardless of your technical knowledge. Trait inheritance is not arbiritary.

Information is not just information. And change is not just change. The resulting diversity among a class is not an explanation for the origins of the information being diversified. How information is passed on to offspring is anything but arbitrary. The way you are using the terms makes it appear that it was as likely that your parents could have produced a baboon as a human. In heridity, the parents have only a set amount of information to work with. Your parents produced you. There wasn't any chance you would be born with feathers instead of skin, or wings instead of arms, etc. Any variety we see is based on the combination of existing genetic info. So eye color, skin color, hair color, etc, is limited to what is there. (coding for hair, skin, etc.)
As we 'evolve' we are not developing new information but only various combinations of existing information. So, how does that account for the origin of the information in the first place? (and I'm not talking about abiogenesis here.) Not to mention that these combinations result in the LOSS of data over time. You cannot explain molecules to man by the diluting the
existing gene pool. We are talking about very specific body types that require very specific genetic code to account for.

Well, what about mutation? What about it? We can recognize mutations in DNA, and we know that the basic building blocks that code for traits are not simply the result of mutation.

8188 mentioned the donkey and speciation. I do challenge him to find where I said any such thing regarding speciation. Anyone honset knows that the term itself does NOT have hard boundaries and is always a source of debate WITHIN the science community. It is again dishonest to make a conclusion and then reshape the terminology to back up a conclusion. Those terms are all man made. They do attempt to categorize, but the categories themselves do NOT obejctively exist. We know from observation that what constitutes speciation in say a fruitfly is different than what constitutes speciation in an equine. Thus my puzzled response when he leaped from bacteria to donkeys.

Information is information. I don't know how much more simply I can state it. It doesn't matter if it is a book, a piece of DNA, a computer code, electro-chemical impulses in your brain, or a random particle. The information of a particle; its mass, position, velocity, etc (as a whole and its individual components) can be boiled down to information. You seem to be caught up on how the information came into the existence rather than the fact that genetic codes are ultimately just information. Your point of contention is really another discussion completely and has nothing to do with evolution/speciation to which my post was referring to. But to answer you point of contention, I think where information/natural laws originate from is inconsequential as I think it is from a level of reality that we are currently (and possibly forever) hopeless of ever gaining understanding of. Hence, why I am and natural law/mathematical pantheist.

On to the semantics point about "change", "macro", and "micro". I was using those terms because others widely (and in my opinion falsely) use them. I reject the notion that there is an essential difference between microorganism and macro-organisms when it comes to following natural laws. Religious people who reject evolution of humans often recognize evolution of bacteria, prokaryotes, and various other eukaryotic organisms as "micro" evolution. This is nonsense. Natural laws act on all objects of the universe regardless of size or scale. Hence, the brouhaha in the physics community (and rightly so) over major discrepancies between quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics. As far as "change" is concerned, life is change (Heraclitus quote). Whether it is Mitotic recombination, DNA replication screw ups, or endosymbiotic foreign DNA in a host, the information and thus the biological organism is constantly in a state of change. The change doesn't have to be dramatic phenotypically or even genotypically, from one generation to the next. Most of the time it is subtle; sometimes it is dramatic (legs instead of an antennae, extra wings, extra chromosomes, etc).

You seem to take "arbitrary" as "completely arbitrary with no constraints". Mutations, Mitotic recombination, and the like are arbitrary. I don't think even they are truly arbitrary (different context) but that is another post for another day. But for the context in which we are talking, they are arbitrary. Although they have constraints in the way the happen and where they usual happen (CFS in Mitotic recombination) within the genome, they nevertheless act arbitrarily within those constraints. Thankfully, these constraints, in combination with DNA repair mechanisms and PCD measures, prevent your misguided idea of arbitrary baboonism coming to fruition.

This idea of information loss is nonsense. There are five basic "letters" in which genetic information is coded: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), thymine (T), uracil (U). You can think of them as letters in our alphabet which make up words (codons) which in turn make up sentences (proteins) or you can think of them a 0's and 1's in a binary system. It doesn't really matter. They are just tools for carrying information. When there is a new allele created, that is new information put into the system that did not exist before. You would not say that differentiation of computer code is not new computer code or that it is information lost because it still uses 0's, 1's, and similar logic as those before it. The rearrangement and combination possibilities of letters in our alphabet, in binary code, or genetic code is limitless. However, that does not take away from the constraints of needing paper to write words on, hardware to run the binary code, or genetic/biologic material/resources/environment needed to make genotype into viable phenotype. In other words, the information side of the equation is limitless while the resource side of the equation definitely has limits and constraints (at least for the time being).

As for speciation, I agree with most of what you say. It is a human construct for conceptualizing the diversity of life (including "class" of animals that you reference all the time; which is really less about the biological classification definition and more of a substitute for a Platonic form given your theology). Biological life could care less how humans classify it. However, having said that, the method of classification really falls into two camps; those organisms existing currently and those that existed in the past but are now extinct. Those that are existing currently are mainly classified based on traits and sexual compatibility while those that are extinct are mainly classified via DNA differences. As with the Yorkie example, although they have not officially classified dogs which are very different via traits and no longer naturally sexually compatible as separate species, they nevertheless are functionally different species. In other words, humans have artificially sped up the process of evolution to create speciation within the canine world. A Great Dane and a Yorkie are functionally different species.

 

[Vol8188]

I've got definitions from Berkley among others. Evolution 101: Macroevolution

Another source says this.

*emphasis mine
Artificial? Clear as mud.


Do you admit that the term species does not have hard boundries? And now, we can see that neither does the usage of the term macro. This isn't my opinion. This is a fact based on just what little research I've done since we started arguing over the terminology. But, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not claiming that speciation confirms this or that. Like I exampled before, these are NOT objective terms. They are subjective, and it seems that many are willing to move the goalpost wherever needed to signal the kick 'good.' Does that help you sleep at night? See, I can make snakry remarks, but the reality is that I've presented some legit challenges to the terms, the evidence and the descrepencies. See, I don't expect those like Septic or Percy to get it. They mock people of faith for swallowing fairytales, and hyposcritically swallow Darwin's pablum.
You seem to at least have enough sense to apply your skepticism equally. Sir, you are not.

Interesting too, that one cited extinction as an example of macroevolution. I'm not making this s=== up.

The term species has a very hard boundary. They must be capable of producing viable offspring.

 

[Septic]

See, I don't expect those like Septic or Percy to get it. They mock people of faith for swallowing fairytales, and hyposcritically swallow Darwin's pablum.

Yeah well, I trust the scientific method to work forward testing, debunking and proving answers to the great questions. As an atheist, I can admit that science doesn't have all the answers but the beauty of science is that it methods are designed to seek points at which queries fail.

Religious people, such as yourself have started with an answer and work your way back shoring up arguments with sandbags along the way. Meanwhile claiming "we're" using <insert logic fallacy here>.

IF Darwin's theory fails, I can freely admit that I will change my position. My guess is that the majority of religious people would not and as evidenced here, have not despite 150 years of fruitless searching for a definitive 'gotcha' to Darwins theory.

 

[Roustabout]

Yeah well, I trust the scientific method to work forward testing, debunking and proving answers to the great questions. As an atheist, I can admit that science doesn't have all the answers but the beauty of science is that it methods are designed to seek points at which queries fail.

Religious people, such as yourself have started with an answer and work your way back shoring up arguments with sandbags along the way. Meanwhile claiming "we're" using <insert logic fallacy here>.

IF Darwin's theory fails, I can freely admit that I will change my position. My guess is that the majority of religious people would not and as evidenced here, have not despite 150 years of fruitless searching for a definitive 'gotcha' to Darwins theory.

I would say that we are honest about our presuppositions and you......., well.....

Have you ever heard the phrase, 'too big to fail.' Yup.

The fact is that Darwin's theory, in many ways, has failed. Darwin said if such and such is found, then my theory would be falsified. Even staunch evolutionists would agree.

 

[Roustabout]

Information is information. I don't know how much more simply I can state it. It doesn't matter if it is a book, a piece of DNA, a computer code, electro-chemical impulses in your brain, or a random particle. The information of a particle; its mass, position, velocity, etc (as a whole and its individual components) can be boiled down to information. You seem to be caught up on how the information came into the existence rather than the fact that genetic codes are ultimately just information. Your point of contention is really another discussion completely and has nothing to do with evolution/speciation to which my post was referring to. But to answer you point of contention, I think where information/natural laws originate from is inconsequential as I think it is from a level of reality that we are currently (and possibly forever) hopeless of ever gaining understanding of. Hence, why I am and natural law/mathematical pantheist.

On to the semantics point about "change", "macro", and "micro". I was using those terms because others widely (and in my opinion falsely) use them. I reject the notion that there is an essential difference between microorganism and macro-organisms when it comes to following natural laws. Religious people who reject evolution of humans often recognize evolution of bacteria, prokaryotes, and various other eukaryotic organisms as "micro" evolution. This is nonsense. Natural laws act on all objects of the universe regardless of size or scale. Hence, the brouhaha in the physics community (and rightly so) over major discrepancies between quantum mechanics and Einsteinian physics. As far as "change" is concerned, life is change (Heraclitus quote). Whether it is Mitotic recombination, DNA replication screw ups, or endosymbiotic foreign DNA in a host, the information and thus the biological organism is constantly in a state of change. The change doesn't have to be dramatic phenotypically or even genotypically, from one generation to the next. Most of the time it is subtle; sometimes it is dramatic (legs instead of an antennae, extra wings, extra chromosomes, etc).

You seem to take "arbitrary" as "completely arbitrary with no constraints". Mutations, Mitotic recombination, and the like are arbitrary. I don't think even they are truly arbitrary (different context) but that is another post for another day. But for the context in which we are talking, they are arbitrary. Although they have constraints in the way the happen and where they usual happen (CFS in Mitotic recombination) within the genome, they nevertheless act arbitrarily within those constraints. Thankfully, these constraints, in combination with DNA repair mechanisms and PCD measures, prevent your misguided idea of arbitrary baboonism coming to fruition.

This idea of information loss is nonsense. There are five basic "letters" in which genetic information is coded: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), thymine (T), uracil (U). You can think of them as letters in our alphabet which make up words (codons) which in turn make up sentences (proteins) or you can think of them a 0's and 1's in a binary system. It doesn't really matter. They are just tools for carrying information. When there is a new allele created, that is new information put into the system that did not exist before. You would not say that differentiation of computer code is not new computer code or that it is information lost because it still uses 0's, 1's, and similar logic as those before it. The rearrangement and combination possibilities of letters in our alphabet, in binary code, or genetic code is limitless. However, that does not take away from the constraints of needing paper to write words on, hardware to run the binary code, or genetic/biologic material/resources/environment needed to make genotype into viable phenotype. In other words, the information side of the equation is limitless while the resource side of the equation definitely has limits and constraints (at least for the time being).

As for speciation, I agree with most of what you say. It is a human construct for conceptualizing the diversity of life (including "class" of animals that you reference all the time; which is really less about the biological classification definition and more of a substitute for a Platonic form given your theology). Biological life could care less how humans classify it. However, having said that, the method of classification really falls into two camps; those organisms existing currently and those that existed in the past but are now extinct. Those that are existing currently are mainly classified based on traits and sexual compatibility while those that are extinct are mainly classified via DNA differences. As with the Yorkie example, although they have not officially classified dogs which are very different via traits and no longer naturally sexually compatible as separate species, they nevertheless are functionally different species. In other words, humans have artificially sped up the process of evolution to create speciation within the canine world. A Great Dane and a Yorkie are functionally different species.

Interesting that there really isn't that much in the content of your post that any ID proponent, including myself would argue with. For the most part, I agree, we are arguing semantics. But like I said, take it up with pro-Darwin science. I've already exampled a FAILURE to agree on the terms. How is that my responsibility to explain. That isn't my problem, it is your problem.

Your objections to 'loss' etc. seem rooted in nothing more than the issue of dealing with layman's terms versus technical terms.

Maybe you should take the Yorkie issue up with 8188, because those two different species can produce viable offspring. Granted this isn't going to happen naturally because of size restrictions on breeding, and depending on whose the bi**h, the litter may not survive. But genetically it's still viable. They are both still dogs. But the natural part isn't an issue, because under natural conditions you will never get a Yorkie. Never. Citing selective breeding as an example of speeding up evolution is just not correct, and I'm surprised you would mention it considering the implications to your own position. It's perverting it.

The point I'm making in loss of info is that to get to a yorkie or a great dane, certain features are being selected for. In this case an intelligent agenst is guiding the process. Hmm, I guess you could call that Intelligent Design. Still, only CERTAIN traits are being selected for, or we should say against. The point being that a pure canine like a wolf, still has all the genetic make up to work its way DOWN to a yorkie. This is not working it's way up. Sorry, but change isn't change and your refusal to say so is in conflict with the evidence. Question. Can the Yorkie works its way back up to a wolf?

Atrophy is not the same as origination. Both are change.

Take the appendix for example. There is a LOSS of function. The genetic traits (information) for an appendix are being selected against, because its FUNCTION is no longer needed. But what you are saying is that change is change. That the dissapearance of a trait (change) is the same as the origin (change) of a trait. Sorry, but that doesn't pass the smell test, and anyone with a modicum of sense can reason through this and see that this is outright false.

I'll give you a simple example. If I leave my car outsie, and unattended for a few years, it will rust. There will be REAL changes, chemically, that the car goes through in the process. What you are implying is that this change is in essence no different than the changes required for the origin of the car, and the materials that compose the car, in the first place. :blink:

It is extremely odd that several of the examples of information you reference are evidence of Intelligent Design. :ermm:
Binary code= Intelligent programmer
Genetic code= Blind processes

Got it!!

Edit:I do understand that the basic building blocks are the same infor. I really do. But that is an oversimplificaiton to make it appear that molecules to man is easily explained. As if I can code for feathers, or fins.

 

[BartW]

I've got definitions from Berkley among others. Evolution 101: Macroevolution

Another source says this.

*emphasis mine
Artificial? Clear as mud.


Do you admit that the term species does not have hard boundries? And now, we can see that neither does the usage of the term macro. This isn't my opinion. This is a fact based on just what little research I've done since we started arguing over the terminology. But, the burden of proof isn't on me. I'm not claiming that speciation confirms this or that. Like I exampled before, these are NOT objective terms. They are subjective, and it seems that many are willing to move the goalpost wherever needed to signal the kick 'good.' Does that help you sleep at night? See, I can make snakry remarks, but the reality is that I've presented some legit challenges to the terms, the evidence and the descrepencies. See, I don't expect those like Septic or Percy to get it. They mock people of faith for swallowing fairytales, and hyposcritically swallow Darwin's pablum.
You seem to at least have enough sense to apply your skepticism equally. Sir, you are not.

Interesting too, that one cited extinction as an example of macroevolution. I'm not making this s=== up.

You're not understanding the context. He's saying that the distinction between micro and macroevolution are artificial because macroevolution is just microevolution extrapolated over time.

Admittedly species has always been difficult to define in such a way that it includes all unusual mating situations (notably asexual reproduction) but all biologists agree on working definition. From Berkeley's site,

"The biological species concept defines a species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature"

 

[Roustabout]

For those in the "consensus" department.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdVBfIWE6sg

And on ID, and clarifying the argument.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY8P-V3Iqxk

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

 

[Tennesseefan2019]

I've never believed in evolution

 

[utvolpj]

I've never believed in evolution