Originally posted by BigBlueHead
If you aren't given any conditions then you can use whichever ones seem most reasonable; if the other person you're arguing with won't play ball, then they're the one being irresponsible.
Or the other one is known not to post during evening hours and holidays, and news goes, yesterday was Veterans day. Are you as hasty making decision about science and their validity like you are hasty about assuming things about people. Didn't they teach you in biology 101 that ASSUME means Making an ASS out YOU and not ME.
Chill my friend, many many billions lived and died without knowing whether evolution theory is true or not, and thus your quest for confirming evolution can not be demonstrated to be a dire or important one. Your priorities are so mixed up, your patience is thin, and your knowledge is simple and diluted. This is the recipe for disaster.
The answer is baby steps my dear.....Take baby tiny little steps....
Originally posted by BigBlueHead
That's why I started out from simple concepts in my discussion with Flores; it turns out that s/he doesn't believe in selective breeding, even though there are observed examples where selective pressure produced a drastic change in a population within the range of fifty years,
Selective breeding does not happen in nature. They are conducted under overly managed conditions in laboratories. There is no proof that selective breeding ever took place in nature, and thus it's outcome can not be used to assert that evolution does indeed take place in nature.
Originally posted by BigBlueHead
and without intentional intervention by humans: the peppered moth example, which you've probably already heard a million times.
Why do we hear about that a million times, use other species that represent man for instance. You can't draw general conclusions based on such a specific example. That's called insane extrapolation.
Originally posted by BigBlueHead
Flores believes that the unpredictable nature of selection makes its results too random to be comprehended by means of rules. As a result s/he believes that it cannot function as a premise for evolutionary theory.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks...
Originally posted by BigBlueHead
Until we can work out this difference, we needn't bother discussing evolutionary theory with one another because we still disagree on one of its basic components. If we never come to an agreement on selective breeding we will never come to an agreement on evolution.
Agree.....I don't ask you to stop researching though, just stop attesting that this is the most INFALIABLE ACCURATE theory.
Originally posted by BigBlueHead
Now, because I see the peppered moth example as demonstrating that a population can respond adaptively in a comprehensible manner, I am inclined to dismiss Flores' assertions
Incline all you want, you are making a big mistake extrapolating moon behavior based on moth population...It's a free world though, so feel free to base your assertion on a very very specific example.
Originally posted by BigBlueHead
I have a good reason to believe that Flores' views on selective breeding are wrong. That's how it works.
You are mistaken my dear, just like you are mistaken about the Moth being a representative of the entire living species. As I said, lack of answers on your part is not a good reason that the one answer that you have adopted is correct. It's a sign of trying to achieve convineance.