Pigeons and Dogs: Micro or Macro evolution?

JP, No, it isn't. Evidence, scientific evidence that is, are predictions of a theory borne out. The ToE predicts transitionals that are "fully formed", & they exist. You don't have to have an a priori acceptance of evolution to accept that these fossils exist. In fact they have no business at all in existing if evolution isn't true. I'm sorry, JP, it's full of them. I don't have time now, but I'll type out a list when I've more time available. There is no such thing as a non-fully formed organism unless it has suffered from developmental anomolies. A dinosaur doesn't have to ungrow forlimbs & then regrow wings from scratch. This a tired old creationist strawman.In fact, if you could find a non-fully formed intermediate (whatever that means), then evolution would be in trouble, or at least the proposed mechanisms would. How many mesozoic fossils organisms do you see walking around?Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

John Paul, They are not accomodations, they are predictions. This is what Darwin meant by saying that if his theory were true, then intermediate organisms should be found (they weren't at that time). Such intermediate fossils have since been found, it is therefore a prediction borne out. Nonsense. Another creationist strawman. Modern uniformatarianism does NOT suggest that everything gets laid down particle by particle, it says the same things that affect the earth today did in the past. This means that volcanism, landslides & other catastrophes occurred. Hence there is no reason to believe that rapid burial couldn't occur. Moreover, rapid burial is not a necessary pre-condition of fossilisation. Preservation is. If toxic/anoxic environments can preserve an organism long enough for slow burial to occur, then fossilisation can occur.How the GC formed is utterly, utterly irrelevent to radiometric dating & other methods. Irrelevant, the point was raised to demonstrate your strawman that the ToE predicts half formed organisms. I never said it was, why do you think I did raise anything to support that claim? It isn't a claim I made in the first place. Again the point was to demonstrate that you argument was a strawman.Mark

John Paul, I think Rei understands perfectly that limits exist in life, what both Rei & I don't accept is that the limits that you assert to exist actually do. And you have provided no evidence that the limit you assert to exist does. I predict with some level of confidence that it is I that will get sick of you failing to provide evidence for the limit you assert to exist.Please provide the evidence that there is a limit to gradualistic change via RM&NS.Thus far your argument is based on a fallacy of composition & nothing more. Because I observe a limit to something, there must be an absolute limit, an insurpassable barrier that prevents all large scale morphological change.Mark------------------
"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall