Secret Sauce on Your Shirt

By Michael David Rawlings
Related Article

(See links to Labsci-Rawlings debate:  Labsci and I Discuss Evolution, The Debate Continues. . . .)

 

If it's about Labsci's point about the Creationist misuse of the terms "micro-evolution" vs. "macro-evolution" ... your response seems to be little more than obsfuscation.

It is trivial to demonstrate that "microevolution", not "microspeciation" (with or without the hyphen), is the term used extensively in Creationist sites, in rebuttals to these Creationist sites, and in the scientific literature. "microspeciation" is almost nowhere to be found. —secretsauce (author's user name) 

The word is spelled o-b-f-u-s-c-a-t-i-o-n, no s after the b, and my comment about terms merely went to the Creationist's perspective, and nothing more. You're arguing with phantoms.  I was merely alerting Labsci about the distinction between our perspectives and the subsequent difference in terms. From the theoretical perspective of Darwinism, I'm well aware of the fact that instances of microevolution are but the intermediate and accumulative steps within the larger dynamic of a continuously branching process of microevolutionary speciation. See. I even use your terms.
 

The Debate with Labsci Continues. . . .

By Michael David Rawlings



The problem here is, that you continue to make assertions as to the bias and dishonesty of those who understand evolution. Most scientists understand evolution, and realise that it is the best explanation of the differences and similarities between all living things on Earth. It meshes neatly with other sciences, such as genetics, medicine, dentistry, paleontology, archeology, geology, chemistry, physics and any others you could name.  —Labsci

Actually, anything can be brought into line with the theory.  There’s really nothing “meshy” about it. Anyone of those fields could do without it, especially physics. Evolutionary theory makes few predictions, and in truth the sort of predictions it makes are historical in nature. They are made in hindsight, wherein something or another is observed and then (viola!) the evolutionist proclaims that's exactly what the theory would expect or predict. (The expectations of Creationism can do the same thing, and you might see that if you were to rid yourself of certain assumptions about the nature of the biblical record and the baggage that has been piled on top of it without due consideration.)  Anything can be brought into line with a tautological mechanism of “what survives, survives”. Both environmental change and mutation are random; the product of two random variables is a random variable. The arguments that have been made by some including the likes of Dawkins to the contrary are nonsense. And that’s problematical for any attempt to account for the conservation of any ensemble of genetic characteristics that might affect transmutation.

Labsci and I Discuss Evolution

By Michael David Rawlings
Related Article

I appreciate the reasonableness of your tone. The typically sneering attitude that most evolutionists exhibit in the vicinity of those with whom they disagree is tiresome. I prefer the former, and I’m always happy to respond in kind. Moreover, I appreciate the subtle sarcasm of the following:

Sorry, but I agree with her. Except the 99.9%. It's probably just 99%. But I think you get the picture.  —Labsci

Followed by. . . .

Most creationist sites do, in fact, give false information about science, in particular evolution. Claims that micro evolution occurs but macro evolution does not just display[s] an ignorance, rather than dishonesty, about the fact that there is no difference between them apart from the time over which they occur. Many micro evolutionary steps equals macro evolution. Sometimes little physical change is evident, sometimes a lot of change. —Labsci

First, with regard to the Creationist’s perspective, the correct term is “micro-speciation”, not “micro-evolution”. And while millions of fruit flies have undergone micro-speciation in the laboratory, not a single one of them ever underwent macroevolution. They remained fruit flies. There's a vast difference between the changes that occur within species and the transmutation of species. The rest is just talk, the party line of evolutionary theory.

And that’s the crux of the matter, isn’t it? We have before us the idea that all species evolved from a common ancestor. That’s all you’re really saying; i.e., you’re merely restating the theory’s fundamental assertion, one that is driven by yet another idea, the underlying metaphysical presupposition of a materialistic naturalism. It's absurd to call the rejection of these ideas an “error”; they go to the very essence of the dispute.