A barrier to macroevolution & objections to it

Good luck with that request. I have asked many times and have received a similar response.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Faith, at risk of attracting the anger of the admins I have to say that you are making a mockery of people who choose to post here.You have been asked repeatedly to produce some kind of hypothesis with evidence to support it. You repeatedly reply that your "argument" is self-evident.This IS the science forum, so I will ask for possibly the ninth time. Do you have any evidence?

Faith, And I will ask for the tenth. This IS a science forum so please provide evidence.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

A reasonable primary objective that everyone should have in debate is to present a strong case for their point view supported by both evidence and argumentation, one that is stronger than that from the other side.An unreasonable primary objective is to actually convince someone of the opposing point of view, or to get them to concede that their case is not as strong. In other words, if you're waiting for someone from the other side to say, "Okay, you win, I lose," don't hold your breath because it rarely happens.So make your case as strongly as you can, and as necessary summarize, contrast and/or enumerate the opposing evidences that have been offered to clarify the current state of the debate. No more can be done.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Of course, but this being a science forum means that both parties must attempt to bring some evidence to the table. As far as I can see the anti-mutation proponents bring nothing to their side of the table other a declaration of the "self-evident truth" of their position and a rejection of any evidence that contradicts it.This would be fine in a faith forum, but in a science forum it takes the biscuit, so to speak.In my opinion the honest response is not to accept that one is wrong, but to accept that one's position, due to lack of hypothesis/evidence, is primarily faith-based.

I've provided evidence, in fact I've provided more evidence than anybody else here, actual factual scientific evidence. The claim that I haven't is some kind of delusion.Besides that, I've provided predominantly reasoned argumentation, which is a perfectly acceptable debate offering.Having said that, I am through debating with you and many others here. Mick has offered an actual example to discuss and when he gets back I expect to discuss it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I disagree - but fair enough, have it your way...I suspect, however, that it's only a matter of time before Mick loses patience with you....

I'm not interested in Mick or any of you, but the example is interesting. And since when is impatience a standard for truth? If it were I'd win this debate hands down.

Faith, My apologies, could you point to wchich post did this?Thanks,Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Indeed, blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth!
To bad both the people in this forum and the scientific community at large are blind by Faith’s reason. But apart from that I’m most keen to see those evidences reposted (feel free to cut and past!).I have seen assumptions, one being that mutations can’t play a role in creating new alleles. But I have not seen a single study that lends it support to that theory. Neither have I seen a realistic suggestion as to how to test the assumption! But I have seen referrals to studies in bacteria that prove the contrary being discarded on the unclear assumption that much of the same stuff can’t evolve as little of the same stuff can. This being a novel idea would need to be clarified in extenso! There have also been referrals to studies in humans where new alleles have been observed forming by means of mutation. They have sadly been left without comment.I’ve also seen the assumption that bottlenecks are a dead end. A species that suffers from inbreeding is chosen, not because it is representative for organisms in bottleneck situations but because it has gene related problems and voila: “irrefutable evidence” is produced! To simply refer to one organism that suffer from, by other things, inbreeding and attribute ones ad hoc explanation is nothing near having even a testable hypothesis, let alone a proof This is particularly so since there are plenty of factual examples that bottlenecks don’t represent dead ends.I have little hope of settling this debate with arguments from observation or merely logical reasoning, since faith first and last is faith (the meaning of a statement is it’s verification). But I would like to as faith this final question:Can you think of an experiment, not a theoretic but a conductible, that can falsify, i.e. prove wrong, the account of Genesis? If the answer is yes I would like to hear it, if the answer is no . well then things are as they ought. Edited by jerker77atwork, : No reason given.

I notice that you have several registrations. That is a forum guideline no-no. If there is a password problem we can fix it. Right now it looks like you have at least three registrations. Please let us know which one you want to keep as primary and we will merge all of them into one.

---

I'd like to keep jerker77, the last two are are a temporary solution since I'am at work and forgott my password, feel free to delete them! But I'd appreciate if the post could be left

I will merge them all togther so it will keep all the posts. Jerker77 will be an alias. The password for this one will be the primary.If that is okay let me know.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

Bonum est!
(it's ok)

Done. I set jerker77 as the primary alias and all your posts have been merged.