Comments on: DaveScot needs to stop failing

By: Robin Zhang

Robin Zhang — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:34:25 +0000

Basically disputing macroevolution while accepting microevolution under the guise of supporting ID is saying that 1+1 = 2, but 1+1+1+1….. cannot equal 1 million.

By: A.S.

A.S. — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:28:03 +0000

From UD:
“Update: Due to whiny protesters who say Darwinian evolution isn’t fair, I shortened it to evolution. And just to be fair I shortened intelligent design to design. ”
Words fail to describe this degree of stupidity.

By: Mike Haubrich, FCD

Mike Haubrich, FCD — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:44:39 +0000

I have often asked “micro-evolution only” creationists to point to something, anything which creates a barrier between so-called “micro-evolution and macro-evolution.” When even philosophers of science have difficulty defining species in a way that covers all of the bases, how can they be so certain that “macro-evolution” is impossible?

Well, for them it’s rather simple, isn’t it? They call it baraminology. It’s bible-based whether people like Dembski and DaveScot will admit it.

By: Barry Greenstein

Barry Greenstein — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 15:15:35 +0000

A professor of mine gave the best definition of evolution I’ve ever heard. It applies to micro-evolution and macro-evolution:

“The differential reproduction and mortality of phenotypes and associated genotypes.”

So when I hear someone say they accept Micro-Evolution but not Macro-Evolution (as student supporters of ID often do) the answer is easy. Give them that definition. Sort of shows how one thing leads to another.

Problem is, I can’t expect them to know what “Genotype” or “Phenotype” mean. Even “Differential” is a stretch.