Dowis Refutes Dawkins

[ERayR]

Seeking said it already... but where is this a problem?. It's like you are saying: "The problem with this science is that it starts out with a hypothesis."

No it is interpreting the evidence because the hypothisis says it should be that way then using the evidence to prove the hypothesis.

[Brian 2.0]

Yes I am aware that science works on hypothesis. The problem comes when the hypothesis is declared true without falsifiable prediction (one that takes so long it can't be falsified. To my knowledge and the claims of some on this thread 150 years is way, way to short a time to prove macro-evolution. The jump from micro to macro evolution requires a great deal of faith, imagination and circular logic. It is an extrapolation that is not provable and goes way beyond the evidence.

To say that macroevolution is not testable or has no evidences of it's own is innacurate and turns a blind eye to countless studies and evidence geared toward the study of "macroevolution". It's a creationist trope that has been brought up time and time again, and has been answered time and time again. Microevolution and Macroevolution are practically the same thing from a biology perspective. Creationists draw the distinction because it's near impossible to discount "microevolution" but they still want to discount "macroevolution."

Simply google "evidence for macroevolution" and you'll find plenty of studies and evidence to look at. As I've said before... I'm done with specifics on providing you evidence as each gets tossed aside.

Here's a article touting 29+ evidence for macroevolution. http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

Here's who he says should read it:

This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.

Knock yourself out with it if you want.

If you believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution... please explain to me what biological barrier there is between micro to macro.

Edited July 20, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Here's a good video if you don't want to dive into the text article:

[cdowis]

Whoa. I am utterly confused by this post. We are examining the step-by-step process of going from open to a closed system. That's what you were asking about.

Not sure how to walk you through this if my post on quantum jumping did not resonate with you.

If you understand this than do you simply not believe it?

This whole thread was started by you because you think the "sudden jump" to a circulatory system and respiratory system is not possible in a step by step method. That's seems to be your whole point. That's your test that falsifies evolution. If you understand that evolutionist have already addressed it, then what is your issue with how they have addressed it?

I do not engage in metadiscussion. For me, why I do things is not up for discussion excdept to say that if a discussion appears to be running around in circles, or a dead end, I am free to modify it as necessary to keep it moving forward.

Why beat a dead horse?

What homework are you wanting me to do? You specifically asked about going from an open to closed circulatory system and how that is such a big jump that it's impossible to do by steps. Then I provided those intermediate steps. Do you want me to look more into Neo Darwinism? How we've incorporated genetic into Darwin's model? What homework?

Sudden, significant changes in the organism, rather than step by step -- jackpot rather than dribbling. You can take my advice or ignore it.

Edited July 20, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

del

Edited July 20, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Yes I am aware that science works on hypothesis. The problem comes when the hypothesis is declared true without falsifiable prediction (one that takes so long it can't be falsified. To my knowledge and the claims of some on this thread 150 years is way, way to short a time to prove macro-evolution. The jump from micro to macro evolution requires a great deal of faith, imagination and circular logic. It is an extrapolation that is not provable and goes way beyond the evidence.

A hypothesis is simply a question for which the evidence is not yet known. A theory is a hypothesis that continued experimentation has shown that it meets all known evidence.

You are incorrect. The theory of evolution is so robust that to date there has never been a successful challenge to it. CAN a challenge succeed at some time in the future? Yes, but it is not likely.

http://archives.aaas....php?doc_id=450

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/

http://evolution.ber.../article/evo_01

Edited July 20, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[danielwoods]

To say that macroevolution is not testable or has no evidences of it's own is innacurate and turns a blind eye to countless studies and evidence geared toward the study of "macroevolution". It's a creationist trope that has been brought up time and time again, and has been answered time and time again. Microevolution and Macroevolution are practically the same thing from a biology perspective. Creationists draw the distinction because it's near impossible to discount "microevolution" but they still want to discount "macroevolution."

Simply google "evidence for macroevolution" and you'll find plenty of studies and evidence to look at. As I've said before... I'm done with specifics on providing you evidence as each gets tossed aside.

Here's a article touting 29+ evidence for macroevolution. http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/

Here's who he says should read it:

Knock yourself out with it if you want.

If you believe in microevolution, but not macroevolution... please explain to me what biological barrier there is between micro to macro.

After reading through some of the "evidences" I have decided to ask you which one you thought the most persuasive? Because none of them are persuasive to me so far.

[Bikeemikey]

After reading through some of the "evidences" I have decided to ask you which one you thought the most persuasive? Because none of them are persuasive to me so far.

Are the not persuasive because of a more persuasive framework that conflicts with evolution (your religious framework) or because from a framework neutral stand point you don't agree with the evidences provided?

These are two fundamentally different reasons for for not being persuaded.

[Brian 2.0]

After reading through some of the "evidences" I have decided to ask you which one you thought the most persuasive? Because none of them are persuasive to me so far.

If you don't find it persuasive than you don't find it persuasive.

I don't mean to be short with you as you have not been involved in the previous, sometimes maddening, conversation in this thread but I'm not going to explain any longer way certain evidence -- most of which is peer reviewed, published, and accepted by scientific community at large -- shouldn't be dismissed.

You have the right to throw out whatever scientific evidence you want in your thinking. But realize the company you keep, and the company you do not keep, when you do such a thing.

Edited July 21, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[danielwoods]

Are the not persuasive because of a more persuasive framework that conflicts with evolution (your religious framework) or because from a framework neutral stand point you don't agree with the evidences provided?

These are two fundamentally different reasons for for not being persuaded.

Well, it might be easier to talk about a specific thing. But in general, they are moot. In essence, an evidence for macro-evolution is also evidence for special creation.

Let's take one example, though I'd still like to hear what the best one is, such as the idea that "© Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship."

Just as much as it can indicate a genealogical relationship, it can also indicate that the relationship was created that way from the beginning.

[danielwoods]

If you don't find it persuasive than you don't find it persuasive.

I don't mean to be short with you as you have not been involved in the previous, sometimes maddening, conversation in this thread but I'm not going to explain any longer way certain evidence -- most of which is peer reviewed, published, and accepted by scientific community at large -- shouldn't be dismissed.

You have the right to throw out whatever scientific evidence you want in your thinking. But realize the company you keep, and the company you do not keep, when you do such a thing.

That's ok then.

[Brian 2.0]

Well, it might be easier to talk about a specific thing. But in general, they are moot. In essence, an evidence for macro-evolution is also evidence for special creation.

Let's take one example, though I'd still like to hear what the best one is, such as the idea that "© Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship."

Just as much as it can indicate a genealogical relationship, it can also indicate that the relationship was created that way from the beginning.

Before we get into that. What is your definition of macro evolution?

ETA: And I guess what is your definition of special creation?

Edited July 21, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[danielwoods]

Before we get into that. What is your definition of macro evolution?

ETA: And I guess what is your definition of special creation?

Well, they probably won't be as as you'd like specific as I'm not a scientist.

But, macro-evolution would be a change in type, say the difference between a horse and dog or cow. Changing species isn't too difficult, as was partly discussed already.

As for special creation. I'd define it as what was created in the beginning. Something along the lines of, DNA based organisms, built and or designed in such a way as to adapt to their surroundings.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

After reading through some of the "evidences" I have decided to ask you which one you thought the most persuasive? Because none of them are persuasive to me so far.

Well, it might be easier to talk about a specific thing. But in general, they are moot. In essence, an evidence for macro-evolution is also evidence for special creation.

Let's take one example, though I'd still like to hear what the best one is, such as the idea that "© Thus, similar ubiquitous genes indicate genealogical relationship."

Just as much as it can indicate a genealogical relationship, it can also indicate that the relationship was created that way from the beginning.

Maybe you are looking for the wrong thing. None of the articles or experiments were designed to persuade you / convince you "special creation" is not real. Science can't do this because special creation does not make any falsifiable predictions. Creationists in general, look at what is and then explain why God would have done it this way. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but this is not science.

Evolution on the other hand requires things to be a certain way. Based on the theory of evolution scientists were able to make predictions about these things long before methods were discovered allowing us to prove them or disprove them. From the article you were looking at:

Confirmation:

As mentioned above, the cytochrome c proteins in chimps and humans are exactly identical. The clincher is that the two DNA sequences that code for cytochrome c in humans and chimps differ by only four nucleotides (a 1.2% difference), even though there are 10⁴⁹ different sequences that could code for this protein.

The combined effects of DNA coding redundancy and protein sequence redundancy make DNA sequence comparisons doubly redundant; DNA sequences of ubiquitous proteins are completely uncorrelated with phenotypic differences between species, but they are strongly causally correlated with heredity. This is why DNA sequence phylogenies are considered so robust.

Potential Falsification:

The most probable result is that the DNA sequences coding for these proteins should be radically different. This would be a resounding falsification of macroevolution, and it would be very strong evidence that chimpanzees and humans are not closely genealogically related. Of course, the potential falsifications for prediction 4.1 also apply to DNA sequences.

Again, there are countless ways to code for these proteins. Evolutionary theory requires it to be a certain way, makes the prediction, studies the genes and they are exactly as evolutional theory requires. In science this is very strong evidence for your theory (and if we were talking about something as mundane as nuclear fusion in the sun, you would accept this science). Again this doesn't persuade you because you can come up with some reason God did it this way, but the difference is this: Creationism did not make a falsifiable prediction here. There were no Creationists predicting the protein code would be like this. Indeed if the proteins were not coded like this would you accept that as evidence that God didn't create us? If the experiment came out any other way, the theory of evolution would have been dealt a major major setback. If the experiment came out any other way, would you have changed your mind about God creating us?

Edited July 21, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[danielwoods]

Maybe you are looking for the wrong thing. None of the articles or experiments were designed to persuade you / convince you "special creation" is not real. Science can't do this because special creation does not make any falsifiable predictions. Creationists in general, look at what is and then explain why God would have done it this way. There is nothing wrong with this per se, but this is not science.

Evolution on the other hand requires things to be a certain way. Based on the theory of evolution scientists were able to make predictions about these things long before methods were discovered allowing us to prove them or disprove them. From the article you were looking at:

Again, there are countless ways to code for these proteins. Evolutionary theory requires it to be a certain way, makes the prediction, studies the genes and they are exactly as evolutional theory requires. In science this is very strong evidence for your theory (and if we were talking about something as mundane as nuclear fusion in the sun, you would accept this science). Again this doesn't persuade you because you can come up with some reason God did it this way, but the difference is this: Creationism did not make a falsifiable prediction here. There were no Creationists predicting the protein code would be like this. Indeed if the proteins were not coded like this would you accept that as evidence that God didn't create us? If the experiment came out any other way, the theory of evolution would have been dealt a major major setback. If the experiment came out any other way, would you have changed your mind about God creating us?

The same prediction can be made by creationists.

What I see going on is an argument about how different computers use similar computer codes to do similar things. For example, pointing out how similar Chimps and Humans are isn't surprising. The same would be true if we pointed out how all computers use the similar keyboards. And just as we wouldn't conclude from that evidence that all similar keyboards therefore must indicate that they are genetically related, so also the relationship between Humans and Chimps isn't necessarily evidence that they are genetically related either (it could be if there was a way to establish that Evolutionary History actually happened).

To put it another way. We could predict that Humans and Chimps should be similar based on both theories. So what? It only works if there actually was an Evolutionary history to "create" such similarities in the first place. How do we know that there was such an evolutionary history in the first place?

The question of where did the digital coding system come from in the first place is the larger question. IF evolution can't be demonstrated to come up with such a system, then making conclusions based on similarities doesn't mean much.

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB100

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I will try one more time, but to continue will need you to specifically address my questions.

The same prediction can be made by creationists.

Technically it could have been, but it wasn't. My question stands above - are you saying that if the coding was different you would no longer be a creationist!? Isn't your view as a creationist informed by your spiritual experiences rather than physical evidences? Please answer this question. This is the question that matters. If creationism can't make falsifiable predictions then it is useless to science and will be ignored by science.

What I see going on is an argument about how different computers use similar computer codes to do similar things. For example, pointing out how similar Chimps and Humans are isn't surprising. The same would be true if we pointed out how all computers use the similar keyboards. And just as we wouldn't conclude from that evidence that all similar keyboards therefore must indicate that they are genetically related, so also the relationship between Humans and Chimps isn't necessarily evidence that they are genetically related either (it could be if there was a way to establish that Evolutionary History actually happened).

So are you saying that Creationism predicts common codes for common functions? We are talking about an individual protein. Are you saying Creationism would predict that anytime we see this protein it will be coded the same? What is interesting about Cytochrome c (from the website you are perusing) is that it is found in all aerobic organisms. Are you saying that all these organisms will have identical coding? If we don't find identical coding Creationism is false? Careful how you answer. Evolution would predict that any two organisms that have Cytochrome c would have similar coding, but that their would be small random differences. These random differences would increase the further back on the evolutionary tree you go. Are you aware that this is exactly what we see? If the coding was identical, this would not be evidence for evolution. If the coding was random, no evidence for evolution. The evidence is exactly as required by evolution. If God had done it any other way, you could have had a hayday and pronounced evolution dead... See here

To put it another way. We could predict that Humans and Chimps should be similar based on both theories. So what? It only works if there actually was an Evolutionary history to "create" such similarities in the first place. How do we know that there was such an evolutionary history in the first place?

Yes you could predict this based on Creationism, but note, no Creationist poses this as a falsifiable test. There are an infinite number of ways God could have created us. There is only one way for the results to come back and support evolution. Per Bayes theorem, this is strong evidence for evolution. Note, I have never claimed it falsified creationism.

The question of where did the digital coding system come from in the first place is the larger question.

Yes the question of where did the digital coding system come from is a big question, but largely irrelevant to the theory of evolution which deals with things that are already living.

IF evolution can't be demonstrated to come up with such a system, then making conclusions based on similarities doesn't mean much.

I'm not sure what you mean. Per wiki evolution is not concerned so much with this. Per wiki "Evolution is the change in the inheritedcharacteristics of biologicalpopulations over successive generations" I'm not saying science is not studying the question, it is, but it is irrelevant to the question of Macro evolution. Your statement is like telling early chemists that unless they understand sub atomic particles and quantom mechanics, they have no business making steam engines, medicines, petroleum refineries etc. One (quantum mechanics) pertains to the other (chemistry), but is practically unnecessary to make predictions and real life decisions.

Edited July 21, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[danielwoods]

I will try one more time, but to continue will need you to specifically address my questions.

Technically it could have been, but it wasn't. My question stands above - are you saying that if the coding was different you would no longer be a creationist!?

No. The coding is indicative of intelligence, and if it was largely different for similar functions, it would be interesting to study why, but wouldn't change the fact that it was created by an intelligent source.

Isn't your view as a creationist informed by your spiritual experiences rather than physical evidences? Please answer this question. This is the question that matters. If creationism can't make falsifiable predictions then it is useless to science and will be ignored by science.

"Informed" is an interesting term. I would say that my spiritual experiences give a foundation to my philosophical views, which I use to interpret the evidence. All evidence must be interpreted. And is done so through our own philosophical point of view. If one believes that we have all evolved from common ancestors, then looking at similarities in proteins is compelling evidence for that person (as an example). I agree with you, that if Creationism or ID can't make falsifiable predictions it is useless to science.

So are you saying that Creationism predicts common codes for common functions? We are talking about an individual protein. Are you saying Creationism would predict that anytime we see this protein it will be coded the same? What is interesting about Cytochrome c (from the website you are perusing) is that it is found in all aerobic organisms. Are you saying that all these organisms will have identical coding? If we don't find identical coding Creationism is false? Careful how you answer.

I honestly don't know what creationists predict to find in these situations, and I'm not quite sure it matters. What I do understand though is that similarities between similar designs isn't something to be surprised at. For example, we build bridges, and they all have similar structure, because they do similar things.

If we don't find similar coding, is creationism false? I wouldn't think so, as I answered above.

Evolution would predict that any two organisms that have Cytochrome c would have similar coding, but that their would be small random differences. These random differences would increase the further back on the evolutionary tree you go. Are you aware that this is exactly what we see? If the coding was identical, this would not be evidence for evolution. If the coding was random, no evidence for evolution. The evidence is exactly as required by evolution. If God had done it any other way, you could have had a hayday and pronounced evolution dead... See here

I'm not convinced that it would have pronounced evolution dead, because of the other plausible answers that the imaginative evolutionist would come up with.

The conclusion that, these noted differences only indicate evolution would be correct if there is an actual evolutionary tree.

Let's put it another way. The "tree of life" or the evolutionary tree, was created by a man using morphology quite a while before even proteins were understood, right? Morphology uses similarity of structure, to classify organisms. This system then creates the evolutionary tree, which we then look at and say, wow, the morphological structure is similar to small "random" coding differences! I don't think it's revolutionary or anything surprising to observe that the coding (which directs the growth and design of the creature) would have similar differences to the morphology.

Yes you could predict this based on Creationism, but note, no Creationist poses this as a falsifiable test. There are an infinite number of ways God could have created us. There is only one way for the results to come back and support evolution. Per Bayes theorem, this is strong evidence for evolution. Note, I have never claimed it falsified creationism.

Yes the question of where did the digital coding system come from is a big question, but largely irrelevant to the theory of evolution which deals with things that are already living.

I'm not sure what you mean. Per wiki evolution is not concerned so much with this. Per wiki "Evolution is the change in the inheritedcharacteristics of biologicalpopulations over successive generations" I'm not saying science is not studying the question, it is, but it is irrelevant to the question of Macro evolution. Your statement is like telling early chemists that unless they understand sub atomic particles and quantom mechanics, they have no business making steam engines, medicines, petroleum refineries etc. One (quantum mechanics) pertains to the other (chemistry), but is practically unnecessary to make predictions and real life decisions.

I agree, macro-evolution is irrelevant to making predictions and real life decisions as well.

However, if the digital code that life depends on is not derived from a natural source, don't you think that assuming a common ancestor might also be flawed?

[urroner]

Okay, I'm jumping into the middle of a discussion without having gone through the thread, but when it comes to evolution and how it relates to the gospel as taught today in the Church is kind of a burr under my saddle.

People within the Church who are against evolution, in my opinion, constantly set up straw men as evidence of the impossibility of evolution as taught by almost all "biology type" scientists today. It's is typically done on a micro level and it's done over time, long period of times.

A couple of these strawmen are

1. Monkies banging away on typewriters eventually writing the complete works of Shakespeare
   
2. Putting all the parts of a clock into a bag, shake it a little, and, voila, there is a working clock on the inside inside one of these bags.
   

Then the continuation of either strawman is whoever in their right mind would accept the possibility of either of those happening, and given that the complexity of the human body is vastly more complex than the works of Shakespeare or a working clock, who in their right minds could ever accept that something like the human body ever being created by putting a bunch of atoms into a bag, shaking it up a bit and creating not only the human body, but putting life into it also.

That is a strawman argument if I've ever seen one and I've seen plenty in my life.

Micro evolution is about small changes being made within something and upon replication, that micro change, if it's beneficial, tends to be passed on to the offspring as opposed to a change which tends to be more pernicious to life and having offspring.

I also find it interesting that evolution also tends to kick itself into hyperdrive after a devastating natural disaster. Only the hardier and those most able to adapt to changes survive, thus eliminating for the gene pool the rest.

I used to be fairly anti-evolution until I started college and then I realized that I had some problems accepting the literalness of the scriptures, so I decided that evolution was okay for everything else but humans, but humans were created as humans from the get-go of the beginning of humans.

I have since decided that when it comes to down to brass thumbtacks, our bodies, in the view of Mother Nature, is more important than those of a virus. It's just what we evolved from, it's just a body. Now I'm not saying anything about the specialness or the lack of specialness of our spiritual relationship with God.

Years ago, I was watching a show about how wings developed on insects. The show demonstrated that wings on insects developed from part of an insect's body which had nothing to do with wings and flying, I can't remember the specifics, but the insects had a body part that was used for something else, but these insects were like water skippers. This body part eventually developed into a limb which helped these insects propel themselves across the water faster than those without that advantage, so those with smaller appendages were gobbled up quicker than those with longer appendages.

Over time, the traits which caused the smaller appendages tended to disappear, leaving only those with longer appendages.

Then came the trait of being able to move those appendages faster and faster became more and more dominant because the faster the insect moved, the better for getting away from predators. Those with slower appendages created fewer and fewer offsprings.

Eventually, that appendage was able to move so fast and had the right shape that the insect was able to lift itself off the water for a very short time and those who didn't have this trait just got gobbled up by predators under the water more ofter. The gene pool was changing.

Eventually, the advantage to these very short bursts of "flying" evolved into longer and longer bursts of flying until the flying insect was able to spread over a larger area which gave it a much greater advantage of surviving environmental changes than those which were limited to a very small area.

Yeah, it took time, but it wasn't a matter of throwing a bunch of body parts into a bag, shaking it up for a few minutes, and out comes a live flying insect. The narrator said that it took some time, like five or six days....nah, it took a long time, but there was plenty of time back then to make changes and it wasn't just randomness, it was probably a random change in a gene which gave the earlier insect an advantage for survival over its fellow insects and then over time, the use of the appendages change from X, to propelling the insect quicker over the water, to giving it short burst of flight over the water, finally to giving the insect the ability to fly.

I think, IIRC, the appendage was some antennae-like filament.

They even showed all sorts of insects that exist today that exhibited those different traits. Some still used those appendages in the same way, others used them for pushing themselves over the water, for short bursts of flight to escape predators, and others which could fly. It all made great sense to me.

Is there any fossil evidence of the different stages of this evolution? No, but the fossil evidence does show that about 390 million years ago, there were insects very similar to the silverfish of today and then there is a huge gap of about 60 millions years in the fossil record, and then at that time, there were all sorts of insects all over the place, some with wings and some without.

For me, that's good enough to say that evolution is not only plausible, but also very possible. I accept it as a "fact."

As far as the case against the special creation of Adam and Eve, I really don't worry about it. If there was or wasn't a special creation, it doesn't affect my salvation one way or the other.

As far the Creation being in the scriptures, I learnt some time ago, that those who recorded history in ancient times, looked at history very differently from how we look at history. Today, getting the facts of history is very important, but back then, it wasn't the facts that were so important, it was the truths or principles taught by history that were more important. It didn't matter if there were number of Spartans at the battle of Thermopylae was 300, 250, or even 400, what was important to the ancients was the truths or the principles for which those 300 or so Spartans fought which needed to be taught and remembered.

Also, the following comments are recorded in history as to really have happened in that battle as opposed to only in the movie.

Messenger of Xerxes: "Our arrows will block out the sun."

Dienekes (a Spartan general): "So much the better...then we shall fight our battle in the shade."

Favorite line from the movie.

[Alvino]

An evolutionary change must happen within the individual before it becomes generalized. In fact it must happen to at least two individuals, of the opposite sex, at the same time to get it fixed in the species.

That's not correct. Here's an example:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

[Alvino]

And I think you missed my point. A heart has a function that either works or does not work. Due to it very nature it cannot "evolve by stages" especially when it is tied to toehr real time systems. It does not need four chambers, but it does need to work immediately. Eyesight can develop as partial function, increasing acuity, but the circulatory system has no such flexibility in its development.

Evolution has met a falsifiable test, and it has failed that test. The heart is a jackpot event, no dribbling is allowed.

Now, please educate me, and show me the flaw in my reasoning.

We are talking about evolution which happens through thousands of years, right? Not about a fetus's heart having to work or the fetus dies. Those are two different things and two things irreducible complexity supporters often mix together. Maybe you'll find this video illuminating:

Edited July 21, 2013 by Alvino

[ERayR]

That's not correct. Here's an example:

http://www.scienceda...80130170343.htm

It must happen at the individual level before it becomes generalized. Blue eyes a new species does not make.

[urroner]

It must happen at the individual level before it becomes generalized. Blue eyes a new species does not make.

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

A simple change doesn't necessarily create a new species. The change in the gene for eye color didn't cause the inability to interbreed and create fertile offspring. It just changed the eye color and maybe a few other things which were affected by that gene.

Now, suppose, there are two groups of the same species which get separated from each other for a long period of time and there occurs several changes in the genes in each group, different from the other group, and there in not interaction, directly or indirectly with those two groups during that time. It's possible that when these two groups have evolved separately to the point that producing fertile offspring isn't possible.

I agree that a simple change doth not a new species make, but given enough changes, it does.

[ERayR]

We are talking about evolution which happens through thousands of years, right? Not about a fetus's heart having to work or the fetus dies. Those are two different things and two things irreducible complexity supporters often mix together. Maybe you'll find this video illuminating:

[media=]

Princess kisses frog and frog turns into a prince = fairy tale. frog + several million years, frog turns into prince = science. Time is the revered magic ingredient that answers all questions and objections.

Again I am not a young earth creationist nor am I lacking in education. At one time I believed evolution was God's tool of creation. After many years I see evolution being extrapolated beyond the bounds of the validity of the evidence. I see a religious like cult that allows no dissension from a belief of evolution as the final answer. I clearly see problems with that view and can't understand why others do not. I am willing to let you all believe your own fairy tales but you will have to let me believe my own.

Edited July 22, 2013 by ERayR

[Alvino]

It must happen at the individual level before it becomes generalized.

I was addressing you saying it has to happen to two individuals at the same time. That's wrong.

Blue eyes a new species does not make.

....all right, we were talking about 'evolutionary changes' or mutations. No mutation in an individual makes a new species.