Proven wrong… by whom, precisely? There are a bunch of crank papers out there, but no proof.

It is Darwin’s version of the mechanism, which in no way accounts for speciation, the origin of life, the first multi-cellular organism, gender differentiation, consciousness or the formation of organs or complex biological or microbiological systems. Moreover, Darwinism is flawed logic and terrible math.

Care to provide specific examples, or are you arguing from personal incredulity, as it sounds like you are?

PC Bash, if you don’t even understand the difference between macro and micro evolution how can you hope to carry on an intelligent conversation?

I’m waiting for a creationist definition here. I know the actual definition, but I also understand how creationists like to play with definitions. What is your definition of macroevolution, Frank?

They are just on the opposite side of the field from where you are kicking the ball.

Yes… your creationist goalposts are. But, I’m not arguing for creationism, Frank.

Look, it isn’t evolution that has been proven wrong. It is Darwin’s version of the mechanism, which in no way accounts for speciation, the origin of life, the first multi-cellular organism, gender differentiation, consciousness or the formation of organs or complex biological or microbiological systems. Moreover, Darwinism is flawed logic and terrible math.

The goalposts are clear. They are just on the opposite side of the field from where you are kicking the ball.

Indeed, it is not. You want to adjust the goal posts, and you are trying to lead me into a creationist talking-point contradiction. Unfortunately, I have already seen these tired old arguments again and again. Cutting and pasting them aren’t going to work here.

You originally claimed that there is no evidence for speciation. Period. You are moving the goalposts. It is you who isn’t sticking to the point.

You are incorrect, because you are artificially making a distinction between micro- and macro- evolution. What, precisely, is your definition of macro-evolution?

Are you then agreeing that evolution as you define it does not have an answer for how one species (which in itself has many definitions) evolved into another?

Not at all. I’ll await your definition of macro-evolution before I dash your position to pieces.

Try to be less testy in this response please.

Well, then read what I give you, instead of moving to your next cut-and-paste talking point.

I have already answered this question. Read the #*!@$ link! Not only does it define the scientific term species, but it provides reproducible steps to cause one species to split into another species. This creationist argument about “no evidence for speciation” is so old, it’s moldy.

Let me give you a fuller quote.…

Just because evolution does not answer these questions does not make it an invalid theory. To make such a presumption is completely asinine. Does General Relativity explain the interaction of matter and anti-matter at the event horizon of a black hole, thus leading to Hawking Radiation and black hole “melting”? No. Does that mean that General Relativity is invalid? No. Does Chemistry fully explain the interaction of subatomic particles such as quarks? No. Does that mean that Chemistry is “imagination”? No.

Evolution is a very simple statement, and has been proven true beyond any reasonable doubt. Your quote mine of this book does not discredit evolution, nor does it show any holes in evolution. Are there questions that evolution does not answer? Of course!. Please provide me with one scientific theory that does not answer all questions of a particular field. Just because you don’t understand the actual definition of evolution does not make the theory invalid, nor does it mean that there are “holes” in the theory.

There is absolutely no evidence that makes the concept of an “intelligent designer” even remotely plausible. None. You have completely evaded my questions, I see.

Please also provide the particular speciation you are referring to in light of the following 2001 quote: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another…Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [e.g., bacterial] to eukaryotic [e.g., plant and animal] cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. ”

And please don’t bring up the “quote mining” canard. Neither of these quotes is out of context. Thanks.