Why is evolution being taught as fact when it's not?

[Brimshack]

"There is no difference between an elephant and a mouse? really.... well thanks for clearing that one up."

A straw man and you know it.

"I would think the most obvious difference is expressed through appearence. There MUST be a difference if species look different. I don't care if my DNA is 99.99% like that of a banana. There's still a difference, and a very prominent one considering a banana is nothing like_what I am_(don't take this opportunity to say anything sarcastic)."

I would begin by noting that you left the entire subject out of the quote to which you were responding. That's not cricket. Secondly, phenotype is not a reliable indicator of genotype.

"No. I didn't bring ambiogenesis into my argument. I was only talking about evolution."

Here is where you brought it up, and the fact that you consider this sentence to be about evolution in general rather than abiogenesis lends credence to the view that you are confounding the two topics.

"I don't see how you can use this to say a dog could have come from a rock."

Final paragraph: No need to cast aspersions on the debate itself, it can be legitimate. There are many things at stake here, among them the proper direction of future scientific research. And I'm sorry to press the point, but I do not accept the disclaimer that both scientists in general and creationists have questionable motives. Creation scientists have by and large shown themselves to be a largely deceitful bunch, and some of them outright con-artists (e.g. Hovind, sorry, but the man is an outright fraud). I will not accept your characterization of the debate, but if you intend to leav off the subject, then fair well, and take care yourself.

 

[Rising_Suns]

but I do not accept the disclaimer that both scientists in general and creationists have questionable motives

I didn't say "scientists in general". All it can take is one.

I would begin by noting that you left the entire subject out of the quote to which you were responding. That's not cricket.

Thanks for pointing that out, but no i didn't.

Here is where you brought it up

No I didn't bring it up. Pete did.

Anyway, yes I do intend to leave this debate. I have more important things to do. I bid thee farewell.

Enjoy fellas.

 

[Brimshack]

This was Harcoff's post:

"And yes, sometimes barriers get conveniently thrown out the window. Sometimes they also get conveniently errected (such as these silly "micro" and "macro" terms, when in fact, there is absolutely no difference between them whatsoever; at least not any difference that has been explained to me)."

This is what you quoted:

"when in fact, there is absolutely no difference between them whatsoever; at least not any difference that has been explained to me"

Note that the subject of the sentence is entirely lacking in the fragment which you quoted.

My criticism stands.

As to who brought it up, I cited specific posts, and yours was the first to mention the relevant issues, to this you simply deny that you brought the subject up first without showing me either that I have misread you or that someone else had previously raised the issue.

And as to 'scientists in general' this was your quote: "But in reality, the people behind science sometimes have motives other than discovering truth, as many creationists are also guilty of." Note the plural reference. Perhaps this doesn't really mean general, but insofar as you are comparing positions, it is fair to interpret this as reflecting on the general credibility of the positions themselves. It is not a comment about individuals; it is an attempt to undermine the credibility of evolution by suggesting that its proponents are dishonest. You attempt to soften the blow by including some creationists in that comment, but that's a cop-out. This is pure scortched earth tactics; if you can't carry the argument, then burn the whole field down to the lowest common denominator. Give me a break

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Brimshack
This was Harcoff's post:

"And yes, sometimes barriers get conveniently thrown out the window. Sometimes they also get conveniently errected (such as these silly "micro" and "macro" terms, when in fact, there is absolutely no difference between them whatsoever; at least not any difference that has been explained to me)."

This is what you quoted:

"when in fact, there is absolutely no difference between them whatsoever; at least not any difference that has been explained to me"

Note that the subject of the sentence is entirely lacking in the fragment which you quoted.

To clarify this whole point, I was referring to the mechanism of evolution (reproduction and variation) and why this mechanism can produce variety to a certain point (say species within a certain family; or sub-species within a species), but not beyond that. Essentially, this was the whole point of my previous "microevolution versus macroevolution" thread.

Or, to use my analogy in said thread, why is it possible to count to 99 going up 1 at a time, but not count to 100 using the same mechanism?

 

[Rising_Suns]

Ah Brim, *sigh*...Ok, I'll save my breath. I'll let you have the last word.

*resigns from debate*