Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Feb 11, 2010, 09:35:
So evolution is false because it doesn't make the claims you think it should make?

Science is about evidence, and you continually demand that we should only be able to consider one type of evidence.

It's like saying that we can't determine what created a crater because nobody actually saw it being created. Utterly ridiculous.

No, we shouldn't be able to observe evidence in the way you say we should because that's not how it works, and no theory claims it works that way.

Nothing of a different "kind" just springs up from an existing "kind".

Everything is always directly related to what it was born from.

Only through the various conditions described in the pages I've linked to are populations able to change sufficiently over a very large number of generations that they don't much resemble those organisms that they descended from.

They'll still share certain basic characteristics, but they'll also have many other different ones.

That's kind of why it takes A Really Long Time to see the kind of difference between a species and its ancestors

that you claim is not possible.

the fossil record shows exactly this

You try to wave away the evidence by not understanding the methods used or how those methods were verified.

You try to say it's all just guesswork. You can't back either of these claims up though.

You have no theory that fits the evidence better. You have no leg to stand on.

No, but a reader who is completely ignorant about the science and incapable of understanding how scientific methodologies are verified even after reading it in plain English could certainly believe that.

Eviscerations, huh? Really, no.

you still don't understand what you're reading is made painfully obvious by your vague claims that the methodologies described "have to do with observable" yadda yadda...

You don't even understand what's being described there and what the relationship to observable descent is in the experiments they are talking about.

The fact that you can't bring yourself to watch even a couple of videos because they so offend your delicate sensibilities and threaten your worldview is telling.

So I resort to links to text, which you then proceed to select words and phrases from randomly and declare that the text says something completely different from what it says.

Hopefully there are actually honest readers out there, but you certainly aren't among them.

I've explained several ways to falsify it

I think you knocked yourself out there . . . You should probably stay down. Throw in the towel.

"Phylogenetic trees are a convenient way of visually representing the evolutionary history of life. These diagrams illustrate the inferred relationships between organisms and the order of speciation events that led from earlier common ancestors to their diversified descendants."