Quote:1.) you can cringe all you want. Evolution at its core definition is the idea that allele frequencies (presentation of certain traits) is dynamic. No one disputes that. The disconnect that you and i seem to be having is about what that means and about what has been proven through direct and indirect observation. For example. The average shoe size and average height in north america has changed over the last century. By definition this is an example of the population of north America evolving. At the same time, that doesn't mean that there has been a radical beneficial mutation in North America to facilitate this. Its selection and emphasis of a pre-existing set of traits within the gene pool.


When you talk about a population of organisms developing radically new traits through mutation, and then undergoing reproductive isolation (rough definition of speciation) then you are talking about a completely different process that would need to observe the natural introduction of new traits to a population of organisms. This has not been observed directly or indirectly in science. What we have learned is that for the most part genomes of species are inherently dynamic with almost limitless variations within the construct of any given species. This late begs the question that within a given species if the presentation of the gene structures is so inherently diverse what would be the need for a complex and improbable mutation to add new information? Both sexual reproduction and conjugation in single celled organisms help display said diversity over time and in most cases present a variety of options for nature to select on their own, like different cell wall shapes in bacteria that can make them more resistant to certain vaccines or different configurations of appendages in more complex land animals that make them more efficient predators.


As Eric Stated before, there is no assertion of rigidity of species on our part, but there is no evidence to support the general idea that species change radically into another species or have the need to. When you search the relevant data what you find is, more often than not, when new species or subspecies are named they are named because of observed difference in traits of fossils without a complete and thorough investigation to see if that trait is still present or recessive within a given gene pool or that the organism would have been reproductively isolated from its contemporaries. and even if they were, that brings me to my second point.


2.) you want to believe, and that's commendable. But the production of tritium atoms doesn't mean that you can achieve nuclear fusion at room temperature anymore than amino acids plus water equals the spontaneous generation of a living cell. People still under estimate the inherent level of complexity in a single celled organism. It was thought until somewhat recently that single celled bacteria were truly simple and that's why it was thought the could spontaneously generate from things like chicken broth or that the grubs spontaneously generated from the meat that was left out too long. What we've discovered now is that even the simplest living cells is blown up to scale would be like walking into a space ship with certain mechanisms and controls that we are still trying to understand (the analogy my biology professor used.) To say that the production of amino acids in a test tube proves that abiogenesis is possible throws on its face that in all of mans recorded history we have never observed it happen, cannot theorize how it would happen, and can only grasp at the very building blocks to think it remotely possible. The example would be taking a bunch of iron and copper ore and throwing it over a thousand foot cliff expecting a fully assembled car at the bottom. It's a rough analogy only because the single celled organism would be far more complex than the car.

I didn't say it proves it. I said it shows that it's possible you claim its not enough. You don't want to believe because it challenges your greater beliefs. That's understandable. You want 100% proof fact for one while still providing zero evidence for the other. That, to me is neither understandable, nor reasonable. That's the problem i have with creationism. It doesnt require anything real or tangible to prove or disprove. Hence its not a science.


The best part about science is it doesn't matter what you or I think or believe. It just is and its slowly being unraveled regardless of those clinging to centuries old beliefs.

---