Macroevolution: Its all around us...

You're gonna want to put in these earplugs. When the creationists start moving the goalposts all over the place, the noise gets pretty loud.

Well, of course it is. Since all animals are decended from one common ancestor, there's only one kind of animal: Animals. Actually it goes back further than that - since all organisms are decended from one common ancestor there's only one kind of organisms: Organisms. That's right; there's just the Organism kind which all organisms are a member of.

Whose head?

No, no they don't. No more than you obtain cyanide from the food you eat.Oxygen kills anaerobic bacteria. It's fatal to their biochemistry, so obviously, they don't need it to live.

Two parts: Natural selection and random mutation.

Reply to Message 64 in another thread. But that's not accurate. What we're talking about isn't "variations within a species", what we're talking about is new species. "Species" is a term with a specific biological meaning that allows us to objectively determine when two organisms are the same species and when they are not.We've determined that certain individuals, both decended from the same organism, are members of two different species. Describing that as "varations within a species" is not accurate; just as describing "black" as "white" is not accurate.So I ask you again - where are all the new species coming from? What we have is creationists refusing to admit that what they say is impossible is happening right in front of us; what we have are more creationist lies.

But since they would be objectively and demonstratably in error to say so, what's the relevance of that?

Your point, as I've shown you three times now, is erroneous. Creationists don't look at the same evidence; when evidence contradicts their conclusions they ignore or attempt to discredit it.They're not looking at the same evidence. They're letting their conclusion determine which evidence they'll look at at which they won't.

It doesn't, though. Plant breeding doesn't make any sense under any system but one encorporating selection and mutation. Oh, no, of course they haven't. But the model they have to employ to make sense of the patterns of breeding encorporates selection and mutation; in other words, they have to accept evolution (albiet, they do not admit that they are doing so) in order to explain that phenomenon.EZ's statement was quite accurate. The only model that makes sense of plant breeding is the one that encorporates the mechanisms of selection and genetic variability; the mechanisms of evolution. Just to correct a repeated mistake of yours - evolution is compatible with alien seeding (panspermia) so it's a mistake to imply that these two positions are competing or exclusive of each other. And obviously ToE and "theistic evolution" are the exact same thing as the ToE is not inconsistent with the presence of a creator. (In fact it's totally irrelevant to the question.)And, in fact, any model that encorporates selection and mutation is the exact same thing as evolution. It's an evolutionary model. So EX was quite correct to tell you that plant breeding, and other examples of population change, are explainable only by recourse to evolution. If they did make sense in any other framework, we would not have needed evolution to explain them. Your assertion is self-evidently incorrect.

If it incorporates natural selection and random mutation, then by definition, it must be. Of course you won't hear the creationists say that, but if they accept natural seelction and random mutation, then they must accept all that those mechanisms logically imply, or else they're intellectually dishonest.Of course, they all choose dishonesty rather than contradict their Bible. No, not true. Only the successful ones encorporate those things. A number of competing models did not encorporate those things, and they failed to explain observations as a result. No, it's not. But that's not evolution, so that's irrelevant. If you accept the mechanisms, then you accept the possibility that this is true; if you accept genetics then you must accept the likelyhood that this is true.Or else I guess you could be intellectually dishonest, like the creationists. Which are you? To the contrary; it's an accurate model of the history of life on Earth. You've never been able to present evidence against it, because your opposition to it stems from intellectual dishonesty, just like the creationists.

Nobody's claiming it is, which you would know, if you were reading my posts. As I said: if you accept NS and RM, then you accept the possibility that common descent is true; if you accept the evidence of genetics then you accept the likelyhood that it is true.Or else you're being intellectually dishonest, like the creationists.

But they don't. They simply reject the logical, necessary conclusions of their own models.Why is this the third time I've had to tell you that? That's stupid. How can the Theory Of Evolution not be the theory of Evolution?How long before you get serious about this, Randman? These ridiculous word games get you nowhere. It's obvious that you're not at all interested in a real debate on these issues.

Since I've specifically repudiated that claim more than three times now, including in my first post to you on this thread, the question is, when are you going to learn to read?

Why would they converge? Are you proposing a force that converges DNA simply to fool us into concluding common descent?Is that a model you expect us to take seriously?

The claim that you repeatedly assert that I am making; the claim that random mutation and natural selection necessitate common descent. But that's not the claim I made, not in that quote, nor anywhere else.