Gabriel Hanna:
Earlier, you wrote:
Two insects, one of which looks 5% like a piece of stick, the other looks 1% like a stick, the difference due to genes. If birds eat one more than the other, then in a few hundred generations you get insects looking 99.9% like a stick.
That’s evolution. On the human time scale you can seen it in bacteria and insects, for the longer scale there’s the fossil record.
Now you write:
This right here is a dishonest argument, and I will explain why. It is because species are not distinct over time.
Then how, pray tell, can we see evolution in baceteria and insects on a human time-scale?
Clearly my father and my grandfather don’t differ enough to be called “two distinct species”. Neither do any pair of adjacent skeletons. But if you removed all of the skeletons except the two at the end of the table, you would call them “distinc species”.
Which would be in error. We would probably do the same for fossils of a toy poodle and a great dane if dogs were extinct today. Yet, we know they are not two distinct species.
OF COURSE the fossil record can’t show “one species becoming another species”.
My post didn’t address fossils, it addressed your claim that baceria have been observed evolving on a human time-scale. Linton refutes that.
Fossils separated in time are distinct species BY DEFINITION.
To the extent that this is true, it is simply an artifact of assuming that evolution is true. There are countless examples of fossils said to be millions of years old that are identical to their mondern-day counterparts. The only reason they are ever classified as a separate species is because evolutionists believe that the creature must have evolved in all of those supposed millions of years.
Given the content of the rest of your post, you are quite misinformed concerning the modern creationist poistions on issues.
(Damadians profile is here: http://www.creationwiki.org/index.php/Raymond_Damadian)
