Creationists

[UltimateReality]

go read the Bush appointed conservative Republican Judges' INDEPENDENT ruling on Intelligent design.
Dover v. Kitzmiller

Yeah, cause we know judges in America are always un-biased. Don't be a fool. There are two sides to every story...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/its_time_for_so054551.html

You can never win on lies so go ahead and admit all you have is a religous argument ONLY.
We all know there is nothing whatsoever scientific about any of your arguments.

You're projecting again.

Yeah, you've read alot and now you know. Unfortunately, everything you have read that has made you such an expert was carefully selected for you. Evidence of your brainwashing and lies...

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/wikipedia_and_t055991.html

 

[UltimateReality]

Gadawg,

Not like you would ever spend an hour enlightening yourself but this would be a great start...

Centre for Intelligent Design Lecture 2011 by Stephen Meyer on 'Signature in the Cell'. - YouTube

 

[UltimateReality]

Yeah, your theory isn't in crisis.

"Some of the Altenberg 16 or A-16, as I like to call them, have hinted that they’re trying to steer science in a more honest direction, that is, by addressing non-centrality of the gene. They say that the "Modern Evolutionary Synthesis", also called neo-Darwinism – which cobbled together the budding field of population genetics and paleontology, etc., 70 years ago – also marginalized the inquiry into morphology. And that it is then – in the 1930s and 1940s – that the seeds of corruption were planted and an Evolution industry born.

I broke the story about the Altenberg affair last March with the assistance of Alastair Thompson and the team at Scoop Media, the independent news agency based in New Zealand. (Chapter 2, "Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?")

But will the A-16 deliver? Will they help rid us of the natural selection "survival of the fittest" mentality that has plagued civilization for a century and a half, and on which Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are based, now that the cat is out of the bag that selection is politics not science? That selection cannot be measured exactly. That it is not the mechanism of evolution. That it is an abstract rusty tool left over from 19th century British imperial exploits.

Or will the A-16 tip-toe around the issue, appease the Darwin industry and protect foundation grants?"

Gadawg, I thought you said all scientist agreed on evolution... OOPS!!!!

Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry | Scoop News

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/03/the_most_produc057081.html

 

[Gadawg73]

go read the Bush appointed conservative Republican Judges' INDEPENDENT ruling on Intelligent design.
Dover v. Kitzmiller

Yeah, cause we know judges in America are always un-biased. Don't be a fool. There are two sides to every story...

It's Time for Some Folks to Get Over Dover - Evolution News & Views

You can never win on lies so go ahead and admit all you have is a religous argument ONLY.
We all know there is nothing whatsoever scientific about any of your arguments.

You're projecting again.

Yeah, you've read alot and now you know. Unfortunately, everything you have read that has made you such an expert was carefully selected for you. Evidence of your brainwashing and lies...

Wikipedia and the Sociology of Darwinian Belief - Evolution News & Views

White flag acknowledged from your lines.
Unconditional surrender accepted.

 

[daws101]

Hey! Why come the Darwinist fools never talk about the origins of plant life. The earth is teaming with it. So when the first complex DNA self-assembled itself, when did it choose to become a plant or an animal. Maybe our common ancestor is a flower, or seaweed, or some nasty mold. Maybe it's just like Avatar and we are all connected to the trees.

Ohhh yahuh! Theres that pesky origin of life thing the Darwinian fools have absolutely no explanation for. What was the last poster saying about proof??

because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...

Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.

The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.

Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.

the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
or conditions?
there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
for all you know this is the way it happened : [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0]2001 a space odyssey - YouTube[/ame]
BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.

 

[daws101]

Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go? Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.

you go back as far as it takes..

you can stow this bullshit:"continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists" right now.
it's a ploy to sound legitimate and it don't fly!
you CREATIONISTS are the only ones claiming to have a definitive answer, with no solid evidence ,besides being totally non scientific it screams of desperation.

Can you prove our answers are wrong ?

asked and answered

 

[daws101]

Then answer me one question if it is so cut and dry Mr. Smarty Pants, how far back do you go? Where is the line? Where does the origin of life issue stop and evolutionary theory begin? What is the common ancestor you are so fond of referring to if you have it so figured out? So typical... continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists, as if it is a putdown somehow inferring their beliefs are soley based on religion, and with a complete lack of understanding that ID theory relies on science alone, and then act like a baby when ID theorists keep bringing up the point on how you have ZERO answers for the origin of life. What you seem complete inept at understanding is that your stupid theory is based on a house of cards. You claim common ancestry but you can't definitively say when or where that started. So how can you build an entire world view on an unknown? Oh wait, that is what you accuse us of doing. Nevermind.

you go back as far as it takes..

you can stow this bullshit:"continually call Intelligent Design proponents Creationists" right now.
it's a ploy to sound legitimate and it don't fly!
you CREATIONISTS are the only ones claiming to have a definitive answer, with no solid evidence ,besides being totally non scientific it screams of desperation.

Blah, Blah, Blah... we're scientific and you're not. Same old tired Darwinists party line.

brilliant retort fonz! don't shit your depends while throwing this tantrum!

 

[Youwerecreated]

because the origin of life on earth, is a different subject /science.it's only creationists in your self perpetuating ignorance try to blur the line between the two.
a common trick used by scam artist's and religious nut jobs since Darwin first proposed the theory ...

Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.

The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.

Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.

the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
or conditions?
there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
for all you know this is the way it happened : [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0]2001 a space odyssey - YouTube[/ame]
BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.

Only an imbecile can't see design in nature.

The only observed evolution is microevolution because of the vast Dna information and this evolution only occurs within a family,not from one family to another.

 

[daws101]

Listen numb nuts, according to your view everything came about naturally that includes Macro-evolution.

The origins question needs to be answered whether you believe in evolution or not.

Don't you think maybe if life began naturally that makes origins connected with evolution ? quit with your nonsense.

the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
or conditions?
there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
for all you know this is the way it happened : [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML1OZCHixR0]2001 a space odyssey - YouTube[/ame]
BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.

Only an imbecile can't see design in nature.

The only observed evolution is microevolution because of the vast Dna information and this evolution only occurs within a family,not from one family to another.

you have no proof that the design you bather on about is nothing more then an ongoing NATURAL PROCESS DUE TO THE CONDITIONS.
ONLY AN ILLITERATE ASSHOLE ATTEMPTING TO RATIONALIZE A FANTASY WOULD CLAIM THAT AS FACT.

 

[UltimateReality]

the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
or conditions?
there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
for all you know this is the way it happened : 2001 a space odyssey - YouTube
BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.

Only an imbecile can't see design in nature.

The only observed evolution is microevolution because of the vast Dna information and this evolution only occurs within a family,not from one family to another.

you have no proof that the design you bather on about is nothing more then an ongoing NATURAL PROCESS DUE TO THE CONDITIONS.
ONLY AN ILLITERATE ASSHOLE ATTEMPTING TO RATIONALIZE A FANTASY WOULD CLAIM THAT AS FACT.

You think you have proof?? You are more delusional than I thought. The theory Stephen Meyer lays out is the best explanation for the complex code we find. But that would take an hour of your life to actually listen to the TOTALLY SCIENTIFIC argument he lays out. You won't listen to it and comment, because you just rather argue and name call. So in your total ignorance of the VERY SOLID theory that is presented, it is you that apears as an ignorant, illiterate, sphincter:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbluTDb1Nfs]http://youtu.be/NbluTDb1Nfs[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

the only nonsense on this thread is yours.
if you are implying that natural means unaffected by undue influences aka a god. then yes I do.
as to origins: do you understand the concept of parameters?
or conditions?
there is no logical reason not to expect life to develop NATURALLY IF THE PROPER CONDITIONS ARE MET.
you have no evidence that these conditions were manufactured (and unnatural process ) by an intelligence.
for all you know this is the way it happened : 2001 a space odyssey - YouTube
BTW notice how the "god" makes only a tiny change, a suggestion really to change the already occurring evolution.

Only an imbecile can't see design in nature.

The only observed evolution is microevolution because of the vast Dna information and this evolution only occurs within a family,not from one family to another.

you have no proof that the design you bather on about is nothing more then an ongoing NATURAL PROCESS DUE TO THE CONDITIONS.
ONLY AN ILLITERATE ASSHOLE ATTEMPTING TO RATIONALIZE A FANTASY WOULD CLAIM THAT AS FACT.

By the way you still have not answered my question,why ? If you want to get into this natural process I have given you a chance with the question I asked you. Like I said poop or get off the pot.

 

[newpolitics]

If you are using the term "evolution" to mean one species morphing into another, there is no proof that it happens in the FIRST place. How can one "disprove" something that has never been observed to have happened, ever, at any time? In other words, you can't disprove a thing that wasn't proven to begin with.

speciation has been viewed in the lab with quickly reproducing species such as flies or bugs. you separate two populations. over time they evolve sufficiently to where they can not recombine, and are hence two species by definition. you extrapolate this out over millions of years and you get two populations that are distinctly different. Extrapolate that even further and across different geological terrain and climate, and you get the change we see across the animal kingdom. We have plenty of evidence of this happening in the fossil record. All fossils are transitional forms. evolution makes a lot of sense if you are not hanging onto pre-suppositions about the christian god and christian creationism being true.

 

[UltimateReality]

If you are using the term "evolution" to mean one species morphing into another, there is no proof that it happens in the FIRST place. How can one "disprove" something that has never been observed to have happened, ever, at any time? In other words, you can't disprove a thing that wasn't proven to begin with.

speciation has been viewed in the lab with quickly reproducing species such as flies or bugs. you separate two populations. over time they evolve sufficiently to where they can not recombine, and are hence two species by definition. you extrapolate this out over millions of years and you get two populations that are distinctly different. Extrapolate that even further and across different geological terrain and climate, and you get the change we see across the animal kingdom. We have plenty of evidence of this happening in the fossil record. All fossils are transitional forms. evolution makes a lot of sense if you are not hanging onto pre-suppositions about the christian god and christian creationism being true.

Everything you just stated sounds like a fairy tale. Please cite specific studies and not rampant speculation based on pre-suppositions about Darwinism being true.

 

[newpolitics]

If you are using the term "evolution" to mean one species morphing into another, there is no proof that it happens in the FIRST place. How can one "disprove" something that has never been observed to have happened, ever, at any time? In other words, you can't disprove a thing that wasn't proven to begin with.

speciation has been viewed in the lab with quickly reproducing species such as flies or bugs. you separate two populations. over time they evolve sufficiently to where they can not recombine, and are hence two species by definition. you extrapolate this out over millions of years and you get two populations that are distinctly different. Extrapolate that even further and across different geological terrain and climate, and you get the change we see across the animal kingdom. We have plenty of evidence of this happening in the fossil record. All fossils are transitional forms. evolution makes a lot of sense if you are not hanging onto pre-suppositions about the christian god and christian creationism being true.

Everything you just stated sounds like a fairy tale. Please cite specific studies and not rampant speculation based on pre-suppositions about Darwinism being true.

In what way does this sound like a fairy tale? This sounds like a viable explanation for the change that occurs over time in species. You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that a designer exists, so you simply refute any evidence brought to you. Anyhow, all you have to do is wikipedia speciation and you get an example:

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Artificial speciation

New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[18] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[19]
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[22]"


So, demonstrated in a lab is speciation. Of course you will refute this because it will not be your standard of evidence, because of your pre-supposition about there being an intelligent designer, and proving speciation to occur would weaken the argument that there needs to be a designer, if not, destroy it. Speciation is only one piece of evidence, by the way.

Do you have any evidence that your designer exists? No. None. You rely on the "god of the gaps" while refuting any evidence about evolution. So, you can see reality how you want to, that is your choice, but there is only one right answer. So far, your case has ZERO evidence, while the evidence for evolution is plentiful, and applicable to the real world. It is used in biology everyday. Creationism can only be used except to vindicate faith, which does not attest to its veracity whatsoever.

 

[Gadawg73]

Proven fact per Dover v. Kitzmiller ruling that intelligent design is re-packaged creationism.

Should both be taught in school? Absolutely.
In religion and philosophy classes but never science class as it IS NOT science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

speciation has been viewed in the lab with quickly reproducing species such as flies or bugs. you separate two populations. over time they evolve sufficiently to where they can not recombine, and are hence two species by definition. you extrapolate this out over millions of years and you get two populations that are distinctly different. Extrapolate that even further and across different geological terrain and climate, and you get the change we see across the animal kingdom. We have plenty of evidence of this happening in the fossil record. All fossils are transitional forms. evolution makes a lot of sense if you are not hanging onto pre-suppositions about the christian god and christian creationism being true.

Everything you just stated sounds like a fairy tale. Please cite specific studies and not rampant speculation based on pre-suppositions about Darwinism being true.

In what way does this sound like a fairy tale? This sounds like a viable explanation for the change that occurs over time in species. You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that a designer exists, so you simply refute any evidence brought to you. Anyhow, all you have to do is wikipedia speciation and you get an example:

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Artificial speciation

New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[18] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[19]
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[22]"


So, demonstrated in a lab is speciation. Of course you will refute this because it will not be your standard of evidence, because of your pre-supposition about there being an intelligent designer, and proving speciation to occur would weaken the argument that there needs to be a designer, if not, destroy it. Speciation is only one piece of evidence, by the way.

Do you have any evidence that your designer exists? No. None. You rely on the "god of the gaps" while refuting any evidence about evolution. So, you can see reality how you want to, that is your choice, but there is only one right answer. So far, your case has ZERO evidence, while the evidence for evolution is plentiful, and applicable to the real world. It is used in biology everyday. Creationism can only be used except to vindicate faith, which does not attest to its veracity whatsoever.

Microevolurion yes macro no. Of course you can have what you call speciation within a family because the gene pool is so vast with information. Why do you think there are so many different breeds of horses,dogs,and cats ? This is not macroevolution this is microevolution. Why do you think everyone has their own set of finger prints ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Proven fact per Dover v. Kitzmiller ruling that intelligent design is re-packaged creationism.

Should both be taught in school? Absolutely.
In religion and philosophy classes but never science class as it IS NOT science.

You mean men of science that believe in design through creation can't crossbreed animals and call it what it really is ?

 

[newpolitics]

Everything you just stated sounds like a fairy tale. Please cite specific studies and not rampant speculation based on pre-suppositions about Darwinism being true.

In what way does this sound like a fairy tale? This sounds like a viable explanation for the change that occurs over time in species. You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that a designer exists, so you simply refute any evidence brought to you. Anyhow, all you have to do is wikipedia speciation and you get an example:

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Artificial speciation

New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[18] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[19]
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[22]"


So, demonstrated in a lab is speciation. Of course you will refute this because it will not be your standard of evidence, because of your pre-supposition about there being an intelligent designer, and proving speciation to occur would weaken the argument that there needs to be a designer, if not, destroy it. Speciation is only one piece of evidence, by the way.

Do you have any evidence that your designer exists? No. None. You rely on the "god of the gaps" while refuting any evidence about evolution. So, you can see reality how you want to, that is your choice, but there is only one right answer. So far, your case has ZERO evidence, while the evidence for evolution is plentiful, and applicable to the real world. It is used in biology everyday. Creationism can only be used except to vindicate faith, which does not attest to its veracity whatsoever.

Microevolurion yes macro no. Of course you can have what you call speciation within a family because the gene pool is so vast with information. Why do you think there are so many different breeds of horses,dogs,and cats ? This is not macroevolution this is microevolution. Why do you think everyone has their own set of finger prints ?

microevolution vs macroevolution is a false dichotomy invented by creationists. "macroevolution" is simply an extension of "microevolution", if left to evolve over a larger period of time from a common ancestor and in different conditions.

what speciation demonstrates is what you would called "macroevolution". The examples you provided are poor. Dogs, horses, etc... are still part of the same species because they can still mate and produce viable offspring. Speciation refers to when two animals can no longer mate and produce offsprings, hence are now on seperate "tracks" of evolution whose differences will only increase as each respective population responds to their respective geography and climate. It is important to note that this response to distinct geography and climate, which drives selective pressure, is what drives the change, because it makes certain traits more desirable than others. For instance, if it is a very hot and sunny climate (the sahara or its equivalent), survivability may optimized by lessening body surface and hence body mass to lessen any moisture lost to the heat, and we see this in nature, as desert climates tend to produce smaller animals. So, animals that are smaller and less massive would survive better, and their genes would be passed on with greater frequency, than others who would die off because they are losing too much moisture.

your entire argument is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. you maintain a claim that there is a creator. the burden of proof, therefore, is on you to substantiate that claim. trying to put holes in the current theories that are based on evidence is fallacious because the current theory of evolution does not maintain that another, unseen player is at work. evolution and science is based on observable evidence. there is zero evidence for god, and nothing in observation points to a god. creationists rely on using an argument from ignorance, or basically, a god of the gaps. the bible does not count as evidence, because it does not prove god. it is a book. if it were, then which religion would be true? there are thousands, none of them having any evidence for the existence of the super-natural deity (or deities) they claim. religion and god is man-made.

here is some reading for you on micro vs macro evolution. this article did not inform my position.

http://atheism.about.com/od/evolutionexplained/a/micro_macro.htm

 

[Youwerecreated]

In what way does this sound like a fairy tale? This sounds like a viable explanation for the change that occurs over time in species. You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that a designer exists, so you simply refute any evidence brought to you. Anyhow, all you have to do is wikipedia speciation and you get an example:

Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Artificial speciation

New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[18] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.[19]
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William Rice and G.W. Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas.[20] The history of such attempts is described in Rice and Hostert (1993).[21]
Diane Dodd was also able to show how reproductive isolation can develop from mating preferences in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after only eight generations using different food types, starch and maltose.[22]"


So, demonstrated in a lab is speciation. Of course you will refute this because it will not be your standard of evidence, because of your pre-supposition about there being an intelligent designer, and proving speciation to occur would weaken the argument that there needs to be a designer, if not, destroy it. Speciation is only one piece of evidence, by the way.

Do you have any evidence that your designer exists? No. None. You rely on the "god of the gaps" while refuting any evidence about evolution. So, you can see reality how you want to, that is your choice, but there is only one right answer. So far, your case has ZERO evidence, while the evidence for evolution is plentiful, and applicable to the real world. It is used in biology everyday. Creationism can only be used except to vindicate faith, which does not attest to its veracity whatsoever.

Microevolurion yes macro no. Of course you can have what you call speciation within a family because the gene pool is so vast with information. Why do you think there are so many different breeds of horses,dogs,and cats ? This is not macroevolution this is microevolution. Why do you think everyone has their own set of finger prints ?

microevolution vs macroevolution is a false dichotomy invented by creationists. "macroevolution" is simply an extension of "microevolution", if left to evolve over a larger period of time from a common ancestor and in different conditions.

what speciation demonstrates is what you would called "macroevolution". The examples you provided are poor. Dogs, horses, etc... are still part of the same species because they can still mate and produce viable offspring. Speciation refers to when two animals can no longer mate and produce offsprings, hence are now on seperate "tracks" of evolution whose differences will only increase as each respective population responds to their respective geography and climate. It is important to note that this response to distinct geography and climate, which drives selective pressure, is what drives the change, because it makes certain traits more desirable than others. For instance, if it is a very hot and sunny climate (the sahara or its equivalent), survivability may optimized by lessening body surface and hence body mass to lessen any moisture lost to the heat, and we see this in nature, as desert climates tend to produce smaller animals. So, animals that are smaller and less massive would survive better, and their genes would be passed on with greater frequency, than others who would die off because they are losing too much moisture.

your entire argument is an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy. you maintain a claim that there is a creator. the burden of proof, therefore, is on you to substantiate that claim. trying to put holes in the current theories that are based on evidence is fallacious because the current theory of evolution does not maintain that another, unseen player is at work. evolution and science is based on observable evidence. there is zero evidence for god, and nothing in observation points to a god. creationists rely on using an argument from ignorance, or basically, a god of the gaps. the bible does not count as evidence, because it does not prove god. it is a book. if it were, then which religion would be true? there are thousands, none of them having any evidence for the existence of the super-natural deity (or deities) they claim. religion and god is man-made.

here is some reading for you on micro vs macro evolution. this article did not inform my position.

Microevolution vs Macroevolution: Is There A Difference Between Microevolution & Macroevolution?

Wrong again careful who you call ignorant especially when you are wrong. Both terms came from evolutionist. Your false premise as well as the ones teaching you is that one leads to the other. One has been observed and one has not. When you have a vast genepool you can have features change from crossbreeding and inbreeding. Because you can have offspring that don't look like the parents but it does have features from both parents does not show evolution. I give you the truth with a simple answer you resort to insults and rhetoric. The problem is you are spewing nonsense from what dummy taught another. Please do yourself a favor and learn the difference between micro and macro so you know when you are being filled with junk knowledge.

 

[UltimateReality]

You find it to be a fairytale because of your pre-supposition that ....., so you simply refute any evidence brought to you.

Can I get a mirror please???? How many times are you going to accuse me of the thing you are doing???

As far as the examples you gave, are you really that dense??? Every instance you cited was caused or manipulated by... here, wait for it... it's coming... an intelligent agent you Bozo!!! Let's see your evidence from nature that is occurring without interference from an intelligent agent.