This is one of the problems I have with the term "evolution" -- it means too many things.
Thanks to whom?
Developing theories for various mechanism by which the process of evolution occur, and basing theories on those mechanisms, such as punctuated equilibrium, is also part of the science of evolution.
Or might it be better to say "imagining new ways to explain things in order to prevent any falsification of the premise that you can explain anything"?
There seems to be a barrier, no matter how much variety you get within a kind, no matter how much interventive breeding, we do not seem to be able to break that barrier. You cannot breed an animal out of its own kind. Nobody disputes the incredible potential for such variety contained within all creatures genetics, but when it gets out of the realm of observation and into the realm of imaginationary scenarios is where I find it becomes deceptive.
Ask yourself this: do you think it is possible to breed offspring that are not descended from their parents?
Wrong question. The barrier has been found to exist. This is an observation. One can only breed things so small or so large. One can only increase the sugar content of sugar beets so far. There are at least several dozen such observations.
I honestly do not know of any evolutionists that think so, and what this means to me is that this concept of descendents being able to "break that barrier" is a bad concept,
What evolutionists believe, that's your evidence? Once again you present conclusions as evidence.
and the real question is whether there is any barrier between existing species and what they may otherwise become in the future.
So what was that "Ask yourself this: do you think it is possible to breed offspring that are not descended from their parents?" about? Why not ask the real question straight away? Oh, might interfere with introducing conclusions of evolutionists as evidence, that's right.
I would also say that so far, the genetic evidence is that there is no section of DNA that is immune to mutation, and that this is the only way I can conceive of such a barrier existing. This may be my own limitation of imagination, however, and I am willing to be shown wrong on it.
Fine. See how much luck they're having breeding toy poodles down to "teacup" poodles. See any number of attempts to break the barriers that have been discovered. And discovering them means observing them.
See, here we have an example of indoctrination once again. Assuming evolution took place is what you are doing. Then asking whether the changes were dramatic, as though it took place and it's a fact. Not allowing for anybody to consider anything else. You would need to prove this took place. Then provide pictures to the contrary showing it has. Proof of the fossils and fossil record? Start producing it on here. I've already been through the dinosaur to bird theory and you guys still cannot get past the fact you haven't been able to prove skin/scales turn into feathers, let alone a dinosaur itself could become a bird. Wow, it seems that one can repeat themselves and given pictures on here incessantly and then they bring it up again as though it never happened.
Not at all, what I am doing is suggesting that we can look at the fossil record and see the degree of variation, adaptation and hereditary changes that occurs over time in the fossil/geological/physics time frame, and compare that to the evidence we have of evolution today.
Gladly. Things don't evolve into other kinds of things today. Done.
Now it is perfectly possible that you may want to suggest an alternative theory that we can test at the same time.
Count me in! I have two:
The Theory of Skunk Funk explains the presence of Homology, Variation, Geologic Layers, Pattern of Geologic Layers, Third Class Transitionals, Fourth Class Transitionals, Fossils, Rudimentary Organs, Polymorphism, Natural Selection, and Pattern of Fossils.
The Theory of Skunk Funk hypothesizes that all these things are the result of a random, unobserved spraying event, perpetrated by a random, unobserved skunk. I confess that to some there may appear grave difficulties for the Theory of Skunk Funk.
We shall be testing the hypothesis against the existence of Homology, Variation, Geologic Layers, Pattern of Geologic Layers, Third Class Transitionals, Fourth Class Transitionals, Fossils, Rudimentary Organs, Polymorphism, Natural Selection, and Pattern of Fossils.
Since the theory isn't falsified by any of these tests, who can fail to see its merit? Since the theory is new, I suggest that it be rigourously retested again and again until we're confident it is indeed factual. Please, nobody hold back when verifying that Variation occurs, or that Homology can be demonstrated. Prove beyond all shadow of doubt whether or not there exist Geologic Layers, etc.
Finally, we must not omit the most crucial test of all: in nature, whenever a skunk sprays, the theory predicts the result will be funky!
And...
The 2008 Variety Hypothesis
Observation: variety occurs in living and non-living matter, and information.
Hypothesis: It can be explained by employing the imagination.
Conclusion: Variety and imagination are sufficient to account for all forms of variety.
Testing and falsification: this can be tested against any and all forms of variety, and will be falsified if nobody can imagine a way to account for a given instance of variety.
If this theory of (micro)evolution and this theory of common descent (in kinds) are both true then they can be tested by the objective reality of evidence.
If they're false, can they still be tested? What if only one of them were false?
Thus if we could show that dinosaurs could not possibly evolve into birds, then we would have to conclude that this did not happen.
Why? One could still imagine it anyhow, and just imagine another "mechanism" and that's all your "theory" requires. And who cares anyhow? One could still imagine birds evolved from peanuts. Until someone forces you to confess they can't, that's fine under your "theory".
I note that later in your post, you use "observed rates", but you carefully omit to include them as part of your initial definitions. With this defect in place, what's to prevent a claim that a bird hatched from a peanut shell?
The problem is that there is a clear pattern of possible evolution in the fossil record, and it grows more complete every year.
Whether it's there or not, what's the problem? It was easily imagined before any evidence existed.
More importantly, we cannot eliminate the possibility that they are related and one has descended (with modification) from the other.
Indeed one cannot. That's the great strength of evolutionism: the true believer can imagine a way around any evidence or get by just fine with no evidence at all.
You compare a mature oak tree with it's beginning as an acorn, to a dinosaur becoming a bird......do you know RAZD that the only changes to an acorn is growth? Are you aware of the differences between a dinosaur and a bird? We're not talking about an egg becoming a bird (growing) we are talking here about another animal becoming a totally different kind of animal. Please, please stop insulting our intelligence. It's as ridiculous as comparing grass seed becoming grass and thinking gosh this proves evolution. See what I mean by the evolutionist trying to match growth from its early stages and then claiming that as proof that one kind of animal can become another?
The only difference is growth.
JACKPOT!
We have TWO of something
at last! Growth is temporal, but prior to growth getting under way...
Both start from single cells, with DNA that is formed of exactly the same amino acids, with cellular structure that is identical, the only difference is the arrangement of those amino acids,
Hold on. That's a second difference. Do we still have two things or not? No, wait! These two differences are not the same. Maybe we don't have two differences after all!
and we know that mutations rearrange the structures of DNA in every organism in every generation today, and you claim that this is greater than the difference between an acorn and a full grown oak tree? Do you know - precisely and in detail - what the difference is between a bird zygote and a dinosaur zygote?
I don't know that one. Please inform me.
Think about the genetic impossibility of dinosaur to bird, as though this can be compared with "growth". Wow, I'd imagine that the oak tree, given enough time, could probably become an arm chair too, given no outside creative intelligence. That's actually more feasible than dinosaur to bird! At least it's made of the same stuff! If you want a more accurate comparison, try something more outrageous. Though given enough time and the right environment, throw in some imagination and you could come up with anything. Oh and an oak tree and acorn don't require a missing link Just plant the acorn and water the soil and wait for it to grow. There's plenty of existing examples too and hey you can re-produce this experiment yourself! No real mystery RAZD.
And yet the argument from incredulity has had an absolutely abysmal record of restricting what can and cannot occur in nature.
That wasn't an argument from incredulity.
Nor has a straw man ever proven a logical argument to be true (the armchair is not a living organism).
Neither was it a straw man. It was not given as a representation of anyone's position other than Bex'.
Can you demonstrate that there is a "genetic impossibility"? or is this just wishful thinking.
Couldn't wishful thinking overcome genetic impossibilities? Rocks don't have genes.
