The problem is that Dawn Bertot and JRTjr and ICANT are happily leading you and others down those oh so attractive rabbit holes.Nothing would qualify as convincing evidence for them, obviously. They are just wilfully blind to the good evidence that HAS been provided. There's nothing wrong with ICANT's evidence.
The topic is NOT whether Macro-Evolution happened, it is an assertion that they can disprove Macro-evolution.
It is their assertion that it did not happen, and until they provide a model that better explains what is seen than the current model, they have failed.
Stop letting them change the subject and lead you guys astray.
It is up to them to provide convincing evidence that Macro-Evolution did not happen.
And the latest in this string of nonsense posts on that thread:
i know i would poste the latin name of that new mouse and the house mouse but he would still say they are still miceOf course he would because that IS the evidence against Macroevolution and he has fulfilled the requirement of the title of the thread with a resounding Yes he CAN disprove Macroevolution and he did. Because you can't just redefine reality and call it science, folks, if mice are still mice no matter what new Latinized characteristics a particular strain of them may have you have not achieved Macroevolution. AND again, they will have reduced genetic diversity TOO, which is THE real-world actual-fact killer of evolution.
I guess this is a place to tack on a reaction to a later post by ICANT: This is a post where he and I disagree:
I also understand that there will be sub-species that will arise due to malfunctions in errors in DNA information resulting in mutations.Sub-species arise from the simple shuffling of the genetic possibilities that God built into the DNA, a very abundant array of possible variations, far MORE abundant in past generations and extravagantly abundant in the pre-Flood world, losing diversity over time thanks to the Fall and the Flood.
The reason offspring are different from parents is not mutations, it's the shuffling of the alleles for the various characteristics in the parents' DNA and this is how new varieties get formed too, as limited populations become isolated from the greater population and their smaller gene pool is the source of their own characteristics.
I'm sure science is right that we do all have mutations, even our own unique mutations, but I can't think that is a good thing since there are thousands of genetic diseases in the human genome, no doubt caused by mutations, and I'm also convinced that "junk DNA" is -- mostly -- the result of mutations, basically a killing off of formerly functioning genes.
Evolutionsts ASSUME that all the DNA was the result of mutations but that's just an article of faith; there is no evidence that that is so. Mutations are errors in the DNA and must be a consequence of the Fall. Of course evolutionists aren't going to do the necessary tests to really pin it down and I don't know how many creationists are looking in this direction either.
Mutations are not necessary, and I personally doubt that they ever contribute anything positive to the development of varieties or sub-species.