"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:o4eopu4hq8r46jjc3amtdin77deu2vr69i at 4ax.com...>> Actually, evolution has been observed. But creationists consider the
>> microevolution that is generally observed to not be convincing,
>> because they cannot extrapolate from a few decades to a few million
>> years to see the order of magnitude of changes that can result given
>> enough time.
>>This makes four FALSE assumptions:
>>1) That Earth has been around "millions of years". This CANNOT be proven,
>scientifically or otherwise.
Science doesn't prove. It tests. Tests verify the age of the earth
being measured in billions of years, not mere millions.
>2) That humans have been around long enough to see this "microevolution",
>something that has NOT been observed.
Yes it has. Just look at the pointers in the talk.origins FAQ
>3) That life has been around "millions of years", something that CANNOT be
>proven,
It can and has been tested and verified. Science doesn't "prove"
things.
>CANNOT be observed,
Evidence of the antiquity of life is observed.
>and is based on sheer and total *speculation*.
False.
>4) "Given enough time" has NOT been observed, is a copout for their failure
>to OBSERVE any of this,
False.
>and is based on sheer and total *speculation*.
False.
>> We have observed the natural formation of new species, but the
>> nincompoop pooh-poohs this just as he does the existence of 60,000-odd
>> species of orchids (which usually cannot naturally interbreed because
>> of geography, differing modes of natural fertilization (i.e. they
>> attract different species of insect to carry pollen to the female
>> cells), or genetic incompatibility, but which can be artificially
>> induced to breed.
>>You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth, yet again.
No.
> Do you feel strongly both ways, again?
No.
>You're claiming that these process take millions of years
The process of macroevolution takes millions of years of steps of
microevolution which can take a single generation.
>at the same time
>you're arguing that "We have observed the natural formation of new species".
We have.
>WHICH is it? We CANNOT observe speciation because it takes "millions of
>years",
We cannot observe macroevolution because it takes millions of years.
>We have not OBSERVED speciation,
Yes we have.
>we have not a SINGLE fossile of even one of
>the trillions of intermediate life forms
No "intermediate life forms" are needed for minimal speciation. The
new species themselves are the intermediate life forms in even larger
changes.
lojbab