Re: Evolution in action

No, sir.

You point to research which demonstrates the same things which Darwin saw and then hypothesized evolution from. You have not shown evolution.

If I put my goldfish in a bigger tank, do they become a different species when they grow larger?

If I teach my cat to do cartwheels when it hears a bell, has it become a different species?

These aren't merely philosophical arguments. They're taking your basic assertions and applying them to different fields to help highlight how fallacious they are, because if evolution consists merely of changing characteristics or behaviors through environmental influence, as your recent post asserts, then all these other things, which are changing characteristics or behaviors, should also be evolution. And yet they're not -- obviously, blatantly, inarguably not. Unless they're Pokémon.

This is really just (dis)proof through contradiction. I've assumed that your premises are true and shown how they lead to a clearly erroneous result (by applying them to something else).

Bat to frog, fly to mouse, whatever. Show that. It's a very high standard, but extraordinary claims (that life came from nothing) demand extraordinary proof.

After all, it was shown decades ago (maybe centuries at this point) that life doesn't just spontaneously spring up from nothing the way superstition supposed; there's always some sort of contamination (spores, eggs, seeds, whatever) involved. So for you to come and claim that life sprung up from non-life (when we have no evidence of that at all -- circular reasoning that our presence here is proof of that doesn't cut it), you'd better have some particularly extraordinary proof for it. Tweet