Let's go back here for a second.
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
Are you disputing natural selection ???
. . . Speciation was not a part of the remarks to which i responded. . .
Duly noted. But I was not responding directly to you. Sorry if I did not make that clear.
True, but speciation is the form of evolution to which I take exception. See my post here
I apologise if I did not discern your defense of adaptation.
The more specific my statements become, the more vague your defense becomes. And you certainly do love a straw man. You have been referring to speciation, not me.
Yes, but as I said above, I have not been responding only to you. BTW, I thought you liked straw men.
Speciation is not a cut and dried matter--no responsible biologist who knows her business says that it is. Speciation can occur from sexual isolation--one group being cut off from another--as well as genetic drift which eventually results in an inability to interbreed. From an online article in the journal Science
Brown bears—some of which are called grizzlies—and polar bears are closely related and are even able to interbreed.
That article is concerned with the diet of polar bears--but it serves to show that speciation can occur through the sexual isolation of part of a species, and that the two parts of a species can remain sexually viable, while occupying different niches, and having radically different food sources.
Farmer, take note.
But you're just attempting to move the goal posts again.
Perhaps you should have surveyed the field conditions in advance to check the location of posts.
And it is hilarious that you suggest an equivalence between holy rollers and scientists.
Not all of either group. But many members of both are indeed laughable.
Holy rollers start from a premise--that there is a god--for which they provide zero evidence. You have not addressed at all the fatal weakness of the "god did it" crew, and their penchant for employing the "god of the gaps" technique.
I was not attempting to mount an epistemological proof for the existence of God, merely to suggest that many
evolutionists seem to have what seems to be a superstitious aversion to the possibility of God.
At no time have i "proclaimed" that anything i've said must be considered axiomatic.
I don't believe I mentioned you in particular. But, if the shoe fits . . .
Your rhetoric is a mess, and your claim to rely upon and adhere to the naturalistic scientific method more and more implausible.
Your objections duly noted.