Inside the Mind of a Creationist:
Thomas and KC's "Debate"
John Stear

"Reasoning with a creationist is like trying to teach a pig to sing; it's a waste of time and annoys the pig." --(With apologies to U. Utah Phillips on "Loafer's Glory").

One of the problems of hosting a message board is that for the debate to be open there should be no restrictions on who can post and my No Answers in Genesis! Message Board is no exception.

Recently my board has had the dubious pleasure of recieving posts from one Karl Crawford.  Karl posts under a plethora of pseudonyms, including "kc", "ksjj", "Pele", "everready", "truth", "Dimples", "Lurker", "2000" and probably many others.  He currently posts on my board under the pseudonym "kc" which is about as honest as he gets.

Recently a regular visitor to my board posted a series of questions relating to evolution for "kc" to reply to.  Question #4 is one of these and the transcript below is an example of "kc's" level of knowledge and the lengths he will go to to avoid proper and serious debate.

In an earlier post Thomas made it clear to "kc" that he was presenting evidence supporting the theory of evolution and that he, "kc" was to reply to this evidence with something more than his usual response such as, a two line, dismissive response, the word "NEXT", the questioners text reposted and simply crossed out, a cut and paste from a creationist web site or a link to a creationist web site (i.e. only the scientific literature would do as reference material). Thomas outlined these rules several times.

Thomas' Question #4:

The geographic distributions of higher taxa are explicable in terms of geologic events (such as continental drift), isolation, and migration from regions of origin. Ecological analogues in isolated regions (such as Australian marsupials) are not closely related and are evidence of convergent evolution.

Most animals on earth today are distributed in a decidedly nonrandom fashion. For example, plants inhabiting desert regions of the Old and New World are inhabited by groups of plants that are unrelated. The flora and fauna of Australia is unique, and although there are ecological homologs (such as the Tasmanian wolf which is not at all related to wolves), the distribution of these organisms is strictly limited to this continent.

Darwin (1859) noted these biogeographic patterns, and they were instrumental in the development of the Origin of Species. For example, Darwin made several inferences about the interesting and often unique organisms found on isolated island archipelagos. He suggested that animals on isolated islands should generally have a propensity for long distance dispersal (since they are most likely to make it to isolated islands); that the number of indigenous species is lower than on continents; and that these species must share common ancestry with organisms on nearby mainlands. These predictions have been supported repeatedly (see Brown & Gibson (1983) and Meyers & Giller (1988)).

On islands where the geologic history is known, predictions can be made about the relationships among organisms on these islands (the Hawaiian Islands, for example, are known to have been created from sea floor spreading, with the northwestern island of Kauai being the oldest and the southeastern island of Hawaii being the youngest, and still active). The theory of evolution would predict that the oldest island was the first to be colonized, and subsequent colonization events should occur as new islands are formed. The evolutionary relationships of the organisms on these islands should correspond to the inferred geologic history. Several studies have supported this hypothesis: see Shaw (1995), Polhemus (1997) and Roderick (1998).

Evolution also explains the convergence in form and morphology of unrelated organisms that have been separated, but been subjected to similar selective pressures. For example, a number of Australian marsupials have evolved to resemble several (unrelated) mammals on other continents that exist in similar habitats. There are marsupial equivalents of wolves, anteaters, mice, flying squirrels, and cats (see Luira et al. 1981). The notion of parallel evolution suggests that similar or identical features evolve in distantly related lineages based on similar modifications of the same developmental pathways. This process is believed to have given rise to New World vultures, and their Old World counterparts (which evolved from storks). For a detailed explanation of vicariance biogeography, see Cracraft (1995).

In short, the biogeographic distributions of organisms is compatible with, and is predicted by evolution. It is difficult to explain these distributions in terms of special creation. Why, for example, did all marsupials (or only marsupials) migrate to Australia, and nowhere else? How did two thousand species of cacti wind up in the New World while avoiding arid regions of Asia and Europe? Flightless birds all managed to find their way to separate continents - the ostrich to Madagascar, the dodo for Mauritius, the emu to South America, the kagu to New Caledonia and the kiwi to New Zealand. How did ceboids (New World primates) find their way from Mt. Ararat to South America - precisely where fossils of their progenitors are found? The list goes on - but the bottom line is that why invoke a million major post-deluvian miracles, when the distributions of organisms on earth today are easily explained, and predicted, by the theory of evolution?

Thomas can be contacted at tartass@hotmail.com and is happy to answer any questions on the subject of evolution.

[Karl's (kc) posts are in red text throughout]

[Thomas' posts are in blue text throughout]

kc wrote: 

Below is an easy and logical refutation to Thomas #4 question.
I’m sure you evo won’t agree...as you are not allowed to...but still when you begin to think out of the box you’ll see other means besides evolution.

4. The geographic distributions of higher taxa are explicable in terms of geologic events (such as continental drift), isolation, and migration from regions of origin. Ecological analogues in isolated regions (such as Australian marsupials) are not closely related and are evidence of convergent evolution.

Why would not the first part be an explanation for the geographic distribution of higher taxa after the flood?
Still. For the most part you have described what appears to be micro-evolution and not the formation of a new body appendage or system. You have not presented any evidence for macro-evolution which is what I was really looking for.
As for the second part, this does not suggest evolution. All it shows is something similar in function but not in structure exist. Is evolution the only answer? A fork and chop sticks instantly comes to mind. Both are different in structure yet serve the same function.
In a sense what you are saying is that because walking animals have legs they all evolved from a common ancestor. Of course this is a good argument for a common creator.

Most animals on earth today are distributed in a decidedly nonrandom fashion. For example, plants inhabiting desert regions of the Old and New World are inhabited by groups of plants that are unrelated. The flora and fauna of Australia is unique, and although there are ecological homologs (such as the Tasmanian wolf which is not at all related to wolves), the distribution of these organisms is strictly limited to this continent.

Not to be smart but.. yeah so?
Your going to have to present a few more details. Once again this illustration could fit into the YEC models.

Darwin (1859) noted these biogeographic patterns, and they were instrumental in the development of the Origin of Species. For example, Darwin made several inferences about the interesting and often unique organisms found on isolated island archipelagos. He suggested that animals on isolated islands should generally have a propensity for long distance dispersal (since they are most likely to make it to isolated islands); that the number of indigenous species is lower than on continents; and that these species must share common ancestry with organisms on nearby mainlands. These predictions have been supported repeatedly (see Brown & Gibson (1983) and Meyers & Giller (1988)).

As in the above explanation you have once again demonstrated micro-evolution.
I was under the impression you were going to show evidence for macro-evolution.

On islands where the geologic history is known, predictions can be made about the relationships among organisms on these islands (the Hawaiian Islands, for example, are known to have been created from sea floor spreading, with the northwestern island of Kauai being the oldest and the southeastern island of Hawaii being the youngest, and still active). The theory of evolution would predict that the oldest island was the first to be colonized, and subsequent colonization events should occur as new islands are formed. The evolutionary relationships of the organisms on these islands should correspond to the inferred geologic history. Several studies have supported this hypothesis: see Shaw (1995), Polhemus (1997) and Roderick (1998).

How am I suppose to respond to this vague description? I think you should have provided a few examples as to what the hypothesis contained. At least this way some one could comment on it.

Evolution also explains the convergence in form and morphology of unrelated organisms that have been separated, but been subjected to similar selective pressures. For example, a number of Australian marsupials have evolved to resemble several (unrelated) mammals on other continents that exist in similar habitats. There are marsupial equivalents of wolves, anteaters, mice, flying squirrels, and cats (see Luira et al. 1981). The notion of parallel evolution suggests that similar or identical features evolve in distantly related lineages based on similar modifications of the same developmental pathways. This process is believed to have given rise to New World vultures, and their Old World counterparts (which evolved from storks). For a detailed explanation of vicariance biogeography, see Cracraft (1995).

This evidence is weak at best. An easy YEC answer would be they were created with similar features by the same creator to achieve a similar purpose. In this case it would be parallel creation. Just as the creationist predicted we would find.

In short, the biogeographic distributions of organisms is compatible with, and is predicted by evolution. It is difficult to explain these distributions in terms of special creation. Why, for example, did all marsupials (or only marsupials) migrate to Australia, and nowhere else?

The question is did they migrate? Another plausible answer is that they were placed there...for what ever reason...after the flood.

How did two thousand species of cacti wind up in the New World while avoiding arid regions of Asia and Europe?

After the flood as the deserts formed the cacti speciated. The original “kind(s)” of cacti found in the New World were not present in the arid regions of Asia and Europe. Evolution or YECreation models do not say or expect there has to be an even distribution of a type plants over the entire globe.

Flightless birds all managed to find their way to separate continents - the ostrich to Madagascar, the dodo for Mauritius, the emu to South America, the kagu to New Caledonia and the kiwi to New Zealand. How did ceboids (New World primates) find their way from Mt. Ararat to South America - precisely where fossils of their progenitors are found? The list goes on - but the bottom line is that why invoke a million major post-deluvian miracles, when the distributions of organisms on earth today are easily explained, and predicted, by the theory of evolution?

The question is when did the continents divide? Keep in mind that by a division I don’t necessarily mean plate tectonics. In the centuries after the flood the wingless birds could have migrated using land bridges or perhaps there were shorted distances between continents. Later the ocean levels rose and divided the continents. Animals have also been know to catch rides on floating logs or other items of transportation and traveled from continent to continent.
Once again some of the birds could have been transported at later dates by humans as explained above.
Other scenarios include the loss of flight for some of the birds after their arrival at their new homes.

As you see the sky is the limit and evolution isn’t the only answer.

kc

Thomas wrote:

Thank you for your honest efforts to respond to one of the evidences I presented. Let us hope that we can continue. I will respond to your specific statements in turn, but let me first make a few general comments.

First, I don't believe that you adequately demonstrated how this was not an evidence for the ToE (which, I thought, was the goal here). You speculated that these observations could be similarly explained by the creation model (although I disagree, and will explain why). In the end, you summarized by saying that "the sky was the limit and evolution wasn't the only answer". In short, you didn't explain why this wasn't evidence for the ToE.

Second, what I presented were observations that were predicted, and explained by the ToE. These conclusions were supported by references to the scientific literature. In contrast, what you presented was speculation and conjecture. You suggested that these evidences may be explained by the creation model, and made no reference to the scientific literature to support your claims. Since the creation model has never been officially formalized (to my knowledge), you haven't really been able to indicate WHY or how the creation model supports your claims. For example, you are merely speculating that animals distributed themselves the way they did. The creation model doesn't explain these distributions any more than it explains alternative distributions. Take marsupials. If a few closely related marsupials were found distributed on every continent, this would be difficult to explain using the ToE. In contrast, the unique characteristics of marsupials, and the fact that they are only found ONLY on the continent of Australia fits perfectly with the notion that the continent has been geographically isolated for exceedingly long periods of time, giving the isolated species time to differentiate, free from hybridization and introgression with distantly related continental relatives. The fact that marsupials are found ONLY on Australia is exceptionally difficult to explain as the product of only marsupial ancestors migrating to Australia after a flood, and never colonizing any areas in between. This is only one example (of the many that I provided) of unique distributions predicted and explained by evolution, but that could be explained as easily as any other distributional patterns by the wishful thinking of a creationist. Do you see the difference? Perhaps if you were to outline the creation model, and explain SPECIFICALLY why it explains current distributional patterns, and more importantly, how it could fail to explain alternative distributional patters you might have something.

Allow me to address your comments specifically:

Below is an easy and logical refutation to Thomas #4 question

We will see that it may be easy (as any work of fiction may be), but not logical.

I’m sure you evo won’t agree...as you are not allowed to...but still when you begin to think out of the box you’ll see other means besides evolution.

It has nothing to do with "thinking in a box". If it did, you would be equally as guilty of this charge.

"Why would not the first part be an explanation for the geographic distribution of higher taxa after the flood?"

See my second general comment above. Simply, you could explain anything with the creation model, and in so doing, explain nothing. What distributional patterns would falsify, or be unexplainable by your model?

"For the most part you have described what appears to be micro-evolution and not the formation of a new body appendage or system."

This is not at ALL what I am describing. Convergent and parallel evolution are not at all associated with microevolutionary patterns between closely related taxa. It is distantly related taxa evolving similar phenotypes under similar selective pressures. Often this occurs under entirely different developmental pathways.

"You have not presented any evidence for macro-evolution which is what I was really looking for."

This is not what you asked for. You asked me to select an evidence for the ToE. Among the evidences I provided were observations on macroevolution. If you would like to select one of those evidences and discuss them, fine. But this isn't what you aksed me to do. Moreover, this is evidence for macroevolution - the production of new species, new genera and new families on isolated island archiplegoes is definitely evidence for macroevolution. There are several families and even orders of marsupials on Australia. So unless you are positing that only representatives of these orders made their way to Australia after a flood, and NOWHERE else on earth, you have evidence for macroevolution (at least on Australia - I haven't dealt with isolated island chains).

"As for the second part, this does not suggest evolution. All it shows is something similar in function but not in structure exist. Is evolution the only answer? A fork and chop sticks instantly comes to mind. Both are different in structure yet serve the same function."

Yes, it is evidence for evolution. The ToE predicts that under similar selective pressures, similar structures should arise, often through entirely different developmental pathways.

"In a sense what you are saying is that because walking animals have legs they all evolved from a common ancestor."

No, this is not what I am saying. I am saying that different, unrelated organisms can appear similar because they evolved in similar conditions - but that the appearance is superficial (which is why we know they are unrelated). The cacti of the desert southwest of the US look strikingly similar to the cacti of arid regions of Italy - yet they are completely unrelated (which is why the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns are called this - they were shot in Italy although the stories took place in the desert southwest of the US). Yet not a SINGLE species of Italian cactus is related to a SINGLE species of US cactus. Chance? No. Convergent evolution.

"Not to be smart but..yeah so? "

No chance of that.

"Your going to have to present a few more details. Once again this illustration could fit into the YEC models."

I trust you see now what I'm driving at. I actually thought that I was really clear on this point. The YEC model doesn't make any of these logical predictions any more than they make any other. But perhaps you could elaborate, stating the YEC model(s) and with references to the scientific literature?

"As in the above explanation you have once again demonstrated micro-evolution."

No. Changes in allele frequencies in a population over time is microevolution. Changes from one species to another, or speciation into new genera or higher levels of taxonomy are examples of macroevolution.

"I was under the impression you were going to show evidence for macro-evolution."

I was under the impression that you weren't going to misstate your intentions. I asked you to select an evidence. I more or less randomly chose #4. While I have still provided evidence for macroevolution in this discussion, I was still unaware that you specifically wanted to discuss evidence that microevolutionary change results in macroevolution. Do you want to switch to another topic?

"How am I suppose to respond to this vague description?"

Where have I been vague? Perhaps I should elaborate. On island chains where the geological history of the island formation is well known, the patterns of speciation and colonization of the islands of various species match perfectly with the geological history. Take any indigenous species of the Hawaiian islands. We know that the Hawaiian islands formed sequentially over millions of years with Kauaii being the oldest. The phylogenies of organisms on these islands invariably match the chronology of island formation - the "oldest" species being found on the "oldest" islands. A random distribution would be unexplainable by the ToE, but just as easily explained by YEC model(s) as any other distributional pattern. Is this clear?

"This evidence is weak at best."

The evidence for convergent evolution is exceedingly strong, and is observed in numerous taxa in numerous taxonomic groups. I provided examples of a few.

"An easy YEC answer would be they were created with similar features by the same creator to achieve a similar purpose."

Naturally. And if they showed different features, this, too, is explained as the same creator designing them for different purposes. You can have it any way you want with your model.

"In this case it would be paralled [sic] creation."

'Paralled creation'? Did you just invent this term? Sweet.

"Just as the creationist predicted we would find."

Which creationist? When?

"After the flood as the deserts formed the cacti speciated. The original “kind(s)” of cacti found in the New World were not present in the arid regions of Asia and Europe."

Not a SINGLE one? Not a SINGLE old world cactus made its way to the new world, or vice versa? Not a SINGLE marsupial found its way to any other continent? What are the odds of this? How is this explained by the creationist model?

"The question is when did the continents divide? Keep in mind that by a division I don’t necessarily mean plate tectonics. In the centuries after the flood the wingless birds could have migrated using land bridges or perhaps there were shorted distances between continents."

Do you even know where Mauritius is? What is the evidence that there was a land bridge to New Caledonia? Perhaps, again citing the scientific literature, you could explain to me exactly when the continents divided? Was there a land bridge between Africa and South America in your model? I really need some good, solid background information on the earth's geology according to the YEC model(s) here, kc.

"Animals have also been know to catch rides on floating logs or other items of transportation and traveled from continent to continent."

Sounds to me like this would predict a random distribution - a few marsupials winding up in Australia, still others catching a ride to North America and few others to Eastern Europe. Your explanation sounds like it should have been an entirely stochastic process, with species winding up willy-nilly all over God's green earth.

"Once again some of the birds could have been transported at later dates by humans as explained above."

Really? And what evidence do we have of this? What evidence do we have of humans descending from Noah colonizing the earth, and taking a few select beasts from the ark with them?

"Other scenarios include the loss of flight for some of the birds after their arrival at their new homes."

True. This is what the ToE suggests. However, the ToE, and contemporary genetics, are able to explain this feasibly. You are suggesting that flightless birds, with all of their unique adaptations, evolved (as it were) over a few thousand short years, defying any known mechanism of rapid morphological changes known to man. And that they magically stopped doing this shortly before man devised ways of observing, measuring, and accounting for the changes using modern genetics? I'm a little suspicious. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit?

"As you see the sky is the limit and evolution isn’t the only answer."

The sky is the limit with YEC models. Evolution is still the only answer - at least from the evidences you've provided here.

I am sincerely and honestly grateful that you've shown that you want to discuss these issues. I strongly urge you to continue. Perhaps you could elaborate where I've indicated clarity is needed, reply to some of my concerns, and if you're willing, start on another evidence. We're really making headway, kc.

Thanks.

Thomas

kc wrote: 

First, I don't believe that you adequately demonstrated how this was not an evidence for the ToE (which, I thought, was the goal here). You speculated that these observations could be similarly explained by the creation model (although I disagree, and will explain why). In the end, you summarized by saying that "the sky was the limit and evolution wasn't the only answer". In short, you didn't explain why this wasn't evidence for the ToE.

I explained it wasn't evidence for MACRO-evolution. If it was your post did a very poor job explaining it.

          kc 

[Another contributor wrote]

Thomas goes to great length to reach out to you and give you a point to point explanation and what is the best you can do Karl? Give him one of your infamous one-liners. What are you going to do for a encore Karl? Start striking out his posts telling him that he's been ignored? When are you actually going to get involved in a debate?

kc wrote: 

Thomas post was void of ANY macro-evolution substance. The problem is you know it, YET, you feel you must defend his post.

kc

Thomas wrote:

"Thomas post was void of ANY macro-evolution substance. The problem is you know it, YET, you feel you must defend his post."

In addition to this statement being untrue, it is also a misrepresentation of your (and my) intentions. It is untrue since I have explained (3 times now) how island biogeography is evidence for macroevolution, which, in turn, is evidence for the ToE. Again, I would encourage you to read past the first paragraph.

Second, as I have explained (twice now) you are deliberately misrepresenting our agreement. I made it exceedingly clear that I had provided evidence for the ToE, observed instances of macroevolution being one such evidence. When I presented the list of evidences to you, I implored you to pick any of them, and discuss them. You refused, and the only way we could proceed was for me to select one at random. And now you have the unmitigated gall to accuse ME of selecting an evidence that YOU did not want to discuss - even though YOU were free to choose any one you wanted to? Karl, this is low. I made it perfectly clear that you could not make this claim if you cornered me into selecting an evidence at random. If you want to discuss macroevolution, let's do it. But you started discussing another evidence for the ToE, and you have failed totally to demonstrate how it fails to support the ToE.

Mocker Wall is correct - I did go to great length to respond to your post thinking that you were finally interested in, what you call, "proper debate". You could reciprocate the courtesy.

Still, I wait for a response. But I would implore you not to misrepresent me, or my intentions on this board. Thank you.

Thomas

kc wrote: 

observed instances of macroevolution being one such evidence.

WHERE THOMAS.. WHERE????????

Your explanation is very very vague. Your assertions are fabricated and unfounded. Sorry Thomas.

Now present macro-evolution or end the thread.

kc

Thomas wrote:

"I explained it wasn't evidence for MACRO-evolution."

Actually, no you didn't explain this. I explained how it WAS, in fact, evidence for macroevolution. Did you read my reply, or did you stop after the first paragraph?

Further, I wasn't aware (since you did not request despite repeated pleas from me to clarify) that we were talking about macroevoluton, per se. I provided you evidences for the ToE - observed instances of macroevolution and changes in the fossil record being some of them. You did not elect to discuss these evidences. Are you saying that you wish to discuss them now? I wish you would be more clear.

I have clarified extremely clearly how the distributions of animals on earth demonstrates macroevolution, and how this supports the ToE in general. See my discussion of island biogeography for more specific examples.

"If it was your post did a very poor job explaining it."

Not if you bothered to read past the first sentence.

KC, I thought we were interested in productive exchanges here. I clearly replied to your post. In detail. And now you are brushing me off with a 2-line response? This is EXACTLY what I asked you not to do when you agreed to discuss the evidence(s) I provided. Moreover, you are shifting the goalposts and changing the rules so you can avoid responding to me. When we started this discussion, I explained that I had provided evidences for the theory of evolution (macroevolution being one of them - perhaps you ought to look up the ToE in a textbook to see exactly what it states). Moreover, you were emphatic that you did not wish to discuss all of the evidences and that I should pick one. You will recall that I was reluctant to do so for a number of reasons - the fact that you could invoke the post hoc response "that wasn't an evidence that *I* wanted to discus" being one of them. And yet this is EXACTLY the tactic you have taken here.

You also explained that no evolutionist was interested in "proper debate". So I ask you - have you been at all sincere, in this thread, of engaging in proper debate? If your reply is yes, then I expect it to be followed by a lengthy, detailed, well-substantiated, thoroughly referenced response to my post. THAT would indicate that YOU are interested in "proper debate".

Thanks.

Thomas

kc wrote: 

Actually, no you didn't explain this. I explained how it WAS, in fact, evidence for macroevolution. Did you read my reply, or did you stop after the first paragraph?

If you consider your post as evidence for macro-evolution, you better re-write it.

BTW: consider your post refuted, would you like to try another question Thomas?

kc

Thomas wrote:

"If you consider your post as evidence for macro-evolution, you better re-write it."

Why?

I am being as patient, considerate and thoughtful as I can be here, kc. Please wait a second while a draw a deep breath......there......I'm back in my Zen.

OK - here's the problem. You totally and utterly fail to understand the ToE. Quite simply, I have presented EVIDENCE for the ToE. Macroevolution and the ToE are NOT synonymous. I did not intend to provide evidence for macroevolution. However, as I have stated 4 times now, for the evidence that I presented to be true - macroevolution must logically have occurred. You have not rejected my evidence - you are instead claiming that I have not presented evidence for macroevolution. You seem to be confused about what the ToE does, and does not state. You have no hope of understanding the evidence if you don't even know what the theory states.

But let's ignore that for a minute. Please address the specific points I raised to your response to evidence #4. I posted a fair response, you have failed to address it. So I will ask you again - are you interested in "proper debate"? You have charged evolutionists with being uninterested in this - but you, yourself have indicated your reluctance to do so. Does this mean that you are an evolutionist?????

"BTW: consider your post refuted, would you like to try another question Thomas?"

BTW: I will do nothing of the sort until you refute it.

Since you failed to refute this evidence (and since it wasn't an evidence you wanted to address anyhow) - sure - let's address another evidence. This time YOU choose the evidence so that there is no confusion.

Thanks.

Thomas

kc wrote: 

OK - here's the problem. You totally and utterly fail to understand the ToE. Quite simply, I have presented EVIDENCE for the ToE. Macroevolution and the ToE are NOT synonymous. I did not intend to provide evidence for macroevolution.

I know, it was me who pointed that out to you. I have no problem with microevolution

However, as I have stated 4 times now, for the evidence that I presented to be true -
macroevolution must logically have occurred.

Do I hear an assumption?...Speculation perhaps....something about shudda wudda cudda and calling the kettle black?

You have not rejected my evidence - you are instead claiming that I have not presented evidence for macroevolution. You seem to be confused about what the ToE does, and does not state. You have no hope of understanding the evidence if you don't even know what the theory states.

what? you are the one who presented the speculative assumptions, not me.

But let's ignore that for a minute. Please address the specific points I raised to your response to evidence #4.  I posted a fair response, you have failed to address it. So I will ask you again - are you interested in "proper debate"?

You have been answered. The problem is you didn't like the answers. You said you had evidence for evolution...all you presented was micro, then made an assumption.
back up the assumption with facts doubting Thomas.

You have charged evolutionists with being uninterested in this - but you, yourself have indicated your reluctance to do so. Does this mean that you are an evolutionist?????

I am a micro-evolutionist. perhaps a better tern is micro-variationist,

kc

Thomas wrote:

Now kc - you know better. I did not make 'assumptions'. You have not read my posts - at all. Read CAREFULLY:

I presented evidence (lots - gobs of it - cited liberally with scientific literature - and copious literature citations can follow if needed) - that island biogeography was an evidence for the Theory of Evolution. Moreover, I provided gobs of evidence supporting the notion that (1) if island archipelagos are formed sequentially over millions or billions of years, and (2) if these islands are gradually colonized, with new islands being colonized more recently, then (3) speciation by reproductive isolation, lack of hybridization and introgression will occur, and (4) microevolutionary change over these extensive time periods should result in large scale (viz. macroevolutionary) change, and (5) if the phylogeny of these groups is reconstructed using several, independent data sets, that their evolutionary history ought to reflect these patterns of speciation and isolation.

So, kc, the notion that macroevolution is NOT an assumption - it is something that must logically follow if the antecedents of the argument are true. Island archipelagos form sequentially over millions of years. Evidence to the literature provided if needed. Suffice it to say that this is not contested amongst geologists. Species do colonize these islands in a sequential fashion. Literature citations provided if necessary. Suffice it to say that this is not contested by ecologists. When the phylogenies of these groups are reconstructed using several, independent data sets, their phylogenies reflect the predicted patterns of evolutionary change, and island colonization. Evidences for this WERE provided, and more can be furnished if needed.

So - here we are. You have misinterpreted the evidence, even after pages of remedial coaching. Is it clear to you yet? I did not assume anything. Everything I have stated is testable, verifiable and well supported by the literature. You have failed to offer no rebuttal, you have not demonstrated how YOUR alternative model may be tested or falsified, and you have not provided contrary evidence in the slightest.

"I know, it was me who pointed that out to you. I have no problem with microevolution"

I see. So you only pick out the bits of the ToE that suit you. Sorry. That isn't the way science works. Moreover, you did not point it out to me. You failed to understand (even though it was there in plain English) that I was presenting evidence for the THEORY OF EVOLUTION - macroevolutionary changes being one of the evidences.

"Do I hear an assumption?"

Nope. Do you see how you're wrong here? I explained it quite clearly above.

"what? you are the one who presented the speculative assumptions, not me."

Again - you are wrong. Your original reply to my evidence #4 was TOTAL AND PURE SPECULATION - not substantiated with even a shred of evidence, reference to the scientific literature, or even indicating how your claims were remotely possible. You have based your entire rebuttal on speculation, while I have founded my evidence on observation, deduction and rigorous scientific inquiry.

"You have been answered."

No I have not. I am still waiting.

"The problem is you didn't like the answers."

No - I don't like the fact that I haven't RECEIVED any answers.

"You said you had evidence for evolution...all you presented was micro, then made an assumption."

No. You are wrong. I did not (and I explained why this is true above).

"back up the assumption with facts doubting Thomas."

Done and done. Awaiting the same from you.

Thanks.

Thomas

kc wrote: 

My patients is wearing thin with your speculative assumptions.

kc