Yet another stupid evolution 'debate'

[kahljorn]

"You have to explain why you disagree. Insulting your opponent, while fun, is not a point of discussion in and of itself"

This thread is a great example of this philosophy at work, huh? Go read through the evolution thread, or any of those other threads where you insulted me for no reason. Seriously please read through the evolution thread(the one about politics in school). Kevin, if you want a good example read through that thread.
I admit that first time we argued I kind of fucked with your philosophy a bit, preechr, but that was only because I thought you made stupid points. Is it so bad to disagree with you and expect you to make a better point beyond tough love? "Let's leave things the same and wait till people grow balls!". What was that thread called anyway? I'd like to read through it again.

"The pattern I have shown is that of making a point, having it ignored, then making it again, and again, and again"

Just because you're making a point doesn't make it valid nor intelligent, nor does it make it worthy of being accepted as the truth. Also, just because we understand your point doesn't mean we agree with it. Fuck man I make points that I think are points all the damned time and people ignore them. You've ignored my points tons of times(evolution thread). Do you see me whining about it or taking your approach?
Also, If anybody doesn't ignore your points it's ME. I argue EVERY POINT YOU BRING UP. That's my NATURE IN AN ARGUMENT. So don't fucking pull this, "My points are ignored" bullshit, because I always respond to everything I possibly can in anybody's posts.

"They never went anywhere. I've gotten further talking to my dog. "

That's because you vagina out whenever somebody disagrees with you or doesn't see something the way you see it, so you repeat yourself OVER AND OVER trying to force them to accept your point "again, and again, and again". Try moving on to your next point instead. You're going to have to learn in life that nobody is going to agree with everything you say, and you're just going to have to get over it and continue.
Fuck man it's not that hard to discredit what someone is saying to you if it's stupid, you probably put more value on what I say than I feel it's worth.

I know I said I wouldn't insult you but I demanded that in trade of quality posts and no more complaining, which I notice you just did.

P.S. Myths of rich and poor.

[Preechr]

I really hate breaking my own rules...

Anyways... I don't ask you to agree with every point I make. I surely would never treat you with the same false courtesy, and if you did me that way, I'd start ignoring you even quicker than talking to you made me do.

Go back and read through our previous arguments. The one thing you never do is acknowledge my points. You pick at the fringes, ignoring the main thrust of the argument. Kevin does the same thing. This is not a court of law, where you can cast enough doubt on the prosecutors case to acquit OJ. You actually have to address directly the points of your opponent.

Yours is a fine example: The evolution thread. I asked why there is not in existence a website that can clearly and concisely show me in pictures and text... maybe a flash movie or two if you wanna get fancy... the proof behind evolution. Show me the evidence, or admit to a reliance on faith and that evolution from a common species is just another religious belief. You quote yourself for me where you ever addressed that directly.

You beat around the bush quite well. That's exactly what makes talking to you so infuriating. If we are to discuss Philosophy, Sociology, Religion, Politics, News AND et cetera in this forum, you will have to adopt a more efficient form of expressing your dissent. Please don't take that as an insult, because all of this is also directed at none other than the very moderator for this esteemed corner of the internet.

In short, I make a point and you counter that point directly with a... care to guess? COUNTERPOINT. I should be able to rebut your argument effectively enough, and then WE MOVE ON. That's the part that's so difficult for you guys. I set out to explain economics, and never got past the first little bit because you guys could not move along onto more than the basics.

I do not win arguments, and neither do you. Logic wins arguments. I have told you before that arguing is a process of agreement. Agreeing to disagree is for pussies. Well, not entirely I suppose... I acknowledge that Max and I will probably never see eye to eye on humanity, and I choose not to hound him on his flawed perception of reality because I accept the fact that he is unconvinceable and that to do so would make me Vince, as haranguing him incessantly would draw defense from other members regardless of their affinity for him and eventually make me an outcast, probably causing future distrust of all preachers among the group of you, just as you all now think different of both Catholics and Samurai.

You, however, have no substantive basis in your arguments. You react to new information from your gut without any sort of need to research things further. Your intutition serves you well, generally, but I can't help imagine how much more interesting you might be with a few actual facts on your side. Pretty much the same with Kevin, but with him, he just thinks that everything he's learned so far is alll there is to learn.

From now on, I will try to help you learn better methods of argument for your own benefit. To do so, I will begin to ignore anything you post that is not a direct question focused on a point previously made. I may take the time to point out the pointlessness of some of your responses, just to help you learn what not to do, but I think something a bit more Socratic might help us both get through all the unaddressed material a bit quicker.

There's a lot of ground to cover, so I suggest you start a thread to talk about which whatever it is you feel you are so right about so I can get to the business of proving you wrong.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by Preechr

You actually have to address directly the points of your opponent.

No you don't. It'd be great debate if people did, but this is an internet forum, not a debate club.

Originally Posted by Preechr

I asked why there is not in existence a website that can clearly and concisely show me in pictures and text... maybe a flash movie or two if you wanna get fancy... the proof behind evolution.

It's not that simple. Unlike other sciences such as physics, origin theories are not provable thru direct experimentation. The events have already occured and all we are left with are the handful of pieces to a puzzle that weren't lost long before mammals even existed. It's a theory backed by mountains of evidence, any of which requires a working knowledge of the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, or paleontology, for starters. I could point you to thousands of studies, research projects, and whatnot that support evolution form common origin, if I had the time or inclination to dig through Thompson indexes for a few hours for the benefit of someone who doesn't even seem genuinely interested in the research if it can't be summed up in a 3 minute flash presentation.

I believe I've given this link before, and I cannot recall your response if you had one, but this is about as close to what you're asking for that I know of. Maybe you ignored it because it lacked pictures?

[Preechr]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

I believe I've given this link before, and I cannot recall your response if you had one, but this is about as close to what you're asking for that I know of. Maybe you ignored it because it lacked pictures?

Yes, you have... and I've not commented on it. I was talking to Kahl when I said that, and I didn't mean to imply that nobody had addressed my question directly. That being said, I would still argue with you that the concise representation you've provided still is eaving me lacking satisfaction, at least in a complete sense.

On it's own, I might be willing to stretch that far... BUT.

It's been my experience so far that things that cannot be explained concisely (by someone other than me) are generally to complicated to be real.

[kahljorn]

" the proof behind evolution."

"There is no proof in this, that's where this argument comes from. He thinks the schools teach that it's the ab solute truth..."

" Like I said, I didn't say that proved anything. If it proved anything, it wouldn't be called a theory. "

"I realize it doesn't "Prove" anything because if it did it wouldn't be a theory anymore."

See, now here's the hilarious thing. EVOLUTION IS A THEORY. You couldn't understand that. I didn't ignore that point you made, I addressed it like 5 times and you glossed over it to pick on the fringes, as you say .
My entire point was about addressing the fact that it's not a FACT but a theory and we can't necessarily present the information as per your request because it's a THEORY and we're trying to RESEARCH it to discover if it is or isn't true. THATS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS. If we didn't investigate theories the whole of scientific knowledge would be NOTHING. Does that point make sense? Because I think it makes perfect sense.

Address that, since I addressed yours. You can say I bushed around the issue with that statement, but I answered it completely honestly without any sort of agenda or blind belief behind it, JUST THE FACTS. If I said I cou ld prove it I'd be lying.
Add in the fact that it was about what they teach in science class rooms and a very large portion of science is the pursual of theories in trying to prove or disprove them, and you have why I was on topic debating a point and you were being a pointless asshole with an agenda against evolution, or me, or whatever it was you were doing.
I admit I used the word proof in one of my statements, mostly because you guys were throwing around the word proof like nothing. I should've used the word evidence. Evidence is a great word for science. We have evidence of evolution. Thus we investigate, like some kind of scientific detectives who are searching for the truth in the only true way to search for truth.

I practically said the same exact thing ziggy just said in my post like three or four times. Your issue is obviously with either comprehension or some kind of personal problem. I'm not sure which, but I'll try to be more clear. Am I not always necessarily clear guys?

If you want I can explain to you the reasoning behind the above. I don't mind explaining why the scientific system was built this way, but I can tell that it was so we can obtain a more complete truth.


"Show me the evidence, or admit to a reliance on faith and that evolution from a common species is just another religious belief."

I thought I should respond to this for good measure. A) How many people are questioning their religion's validity by attempting to find evidence and whatever else scientists do B) Do they actively seek out material evidence of god's existence C) How many religous people call their religion a theory, how many would claim it was "True" D) How exactly would you prove god's existence, is it even possible?
Those are just some general questions that I feel are applicable, especially to the evolution threads actual topic.

[Preechr]

That's why I picked that example.

You did not answer my question.

You defined evolution as a theory MANY, MANY times.

I, too, used the words proof and evidence interchangeably.

I could rephrase the question now:

"Why can't the evidence that led the finest minds in science to the theory that all life evolved from one common form be clearly and concisely portrayed so a skeptic could follow along and satisfy his doubts?"

Originally Posted by you

If we didn't investigate theories the whole of scientific knowledge would be NOTHING.

[ziggytrix]

ANSWER THE QUESTION!


Magic elves, motherfucker. Magic elves did it all while you weren't looking. That concise enough for you? Flash presentation to follow.

[Preechr]

Don't get me wrong, zig. I have not been arguing evolution per se as much as objecting to a few aspects of the belief, just as I can quibble with Christians on whether or not Jesus was literally the son of God or disagree with environmentalists on their particualr dogmatic beliefs.

If this is to go on, it would probably be best if our mod would move these last few posts back into the pertitnent thread...

Personally, I have no problems at all with the concept of a species (or genus or whatever... I get confused) modifying over time through random mutation or selection based in specialization. That's obviously factual and real. That is not at all the same thing as all forms of life evolving from one common ancestor.

Common Descent is about as believeable to me as is Adam and Eve. That being said, since I am talking about my personal beliefs, I should add that I really don't care enough about the subject directly to do much more research into it than watching a movie. I believe God created the universe and everything in it for a purpose, and I believe Common Descent has been enshrined in Science as a counterweight to "religious" belief... effectively laying the groundwork for the opinion opposite of mine: that nothing has meaning or purpose.

I generally only object to evolution arguments where the differences between micro and macro evolution are not respected or where anyone that might be skeptical is labeled a Jesus-freak Luddite.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by TalkOrigins

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

I agree with everything this man said here.

also, kevin, feel free to split this with a subject like yet another stupid evolution 'debate'

[Emu]

What thread was this in before?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Exxon.

[kahljorn]

Why should I address your point? Your point had nothing to do with the thread, which means it's NOT A POINT. My point is that it's fine to teach it in a science classroom because it's scientific theory. Your point is that we can't prove it to you. I don't care if I can prove it to you, I care that it's a scientific theory and as such deserved place in a scientific classroom. You can't "Win" a debate, or prove someone wrong, if you're not even talking about the right subject.

Submit to me some evidence that god created the world. Maybe a recipt or something like that, or a building permit. Personally I don't believe a damn thing, so while evolution seems like a good theory to me I wouldn't be surprised if some magnificent god built all of it, and quite frankly I wouldn't care because it changes nothing in my life.

""Why can't the evidence that led the finest minds in science to the theory that all life evolved from one common form be clearly and concisely portrayed so a skeptic could follow along and satisfy his doubts?" "

Evolution for dummies!

[Preechr]

Yes. Evolution is a theory. Good Job.

So, we're done here then, right?

[Big Papa Goat]

Intelligent Design is not a theory
now we're done

[kahljorn]

Yea, I guess I should've explained that in one line instead of putting it at the end of every post, chronologically.

[derrida]

Originally Posted by Preechr

Common Descent is about as believeable to me as is Adam and Eve. That being said, since I am talking about my personal beliefs, I should add that I really don't care enough about the subject directly to do much more research into it than watching a movie. I believe God created the universe and everything in it for a purpose, and I believe Common Descent has been enshrined in Science as a counterweight to "religious" belief... effectively laying the groundwork for the opinion opposite of mine: that nothing has meaning or purpose.

Why does the notion of common descent strike you as so intuitively wrong?

Why are members of an unsavory class of professional athiests and culture warriors representative, to you, of the scientific community as a whole?

How does common ancestry negate divine purpose?

[Preechr]

It's not as intuitively wrong as it is highly less preferable to me.

I don't think of the scientific community like that. I can, however, look back at the history of science and see that scientific thinkers are generally so focused on their branch of the discipline that they tend to be easily led into trusting other specialists within their general profession a bit too often for me to simply trust "the scientific community" without a bit of skepticism.

I also recognize that the funding of scientific studies mostly always eminates from a governmental source, which always results in a confrontation between the search for truth and the struggle for power. All of the most important scientific discoveries have had to in their time fight for acceptance against contrary predominant beliefs. I suppose those predominant beliefs were generally supported so well by something other than their basis in truth. I propose that the facade of truth had been purchased in exchange for the funding provided by those in search of political power.

And it's not that Common Descent necessarily negates divine intention, but it's to late in the evening to work on this more.

I'll check back in tomorrow.

[kahljorn]

"I also recognize that the funding of scientific studies mostly always eminates from a governmental source, which always results in a confrontation between the search for truth and the struggle for power. "

I find that statement ironic considering our talks about the government and economy.

And to respond to your post: I suggest to take everything skeptically. Skepticism is a good habit, especially scientifically. The less objective and more inclined towards predisposition you are the more likely you are to have tainted results. However, if you are skeptic of science why not of religion? Shouldn't you be skeptical about all belief systems, or is it just that you have a predisposition of some sort?
Personally I'm pretty skeptical, I make observations but don't really believe them. I can still get the general idea of the theory in question, though, even without believing. Then I discuss things in way of observation from as many relevant points as possible. I guess what I'm getting to here is that from an objective viewpoint, the major difference between evolution and divine intention is that one has evidence supporting it- physical, measurable evidence.
Personally I don't see how that evidence even contradicts with 'divine intention' at all. You said you think the scientific community is against the beliefs of religion, like it's an atheistic attack, but I believe it's the other way around. As far as I know people were never burned as heretics for saying the earth wasn't square. I think it seems more plausible that some part of religion developed it's beliefs explicitley to contradict science; these beliefs that contradict it aren't even held by every believer.
Even science has had it's mishaps. I agree with you entirely on that, but do you let that restrain you from further scientific research, a response based solely on fear that can have no progressive motion to it?

Please, let's discuss intelligent design. I know next to nothing about it because nobody ever discusses it. Please tell me any information, the basics; when the world started, how it started, why it started, where, etc. This way we can actually discuss them from a relative, skeptical angle.
One thing I have heard is that the world started in 4,000 bc. This is strange to me because many cultures were, historically, around at that time. An example would be Egypt which if you read, in the bible, are actually real people, religously.

[pjalne]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Unlike other sciences such as physics, origin theories are not provable thru direct experimentation. The events have already occured and all we are left with are the handful of pieces to a puzzle that weren't lost long before mammals even existed.

True, but the evolutionary theory is still falsifiable and testable. Scientists have long claimed that there must have been a fish with amphibian qualities at a certain point in history. This creature must have had a primitive wrist and certain other qualities that cohere with the already established evolutionary charts. And last month they found it, and it was exactly the right age. On the other hand, if we found a feathered hippo, that would mean a big heap of our accumulated knowledge had to be thrown out.

Kali, ID's claim is that things in nature are so complex that they could not possibly have evolved unguided. The main advocate of this "irreducible complexity" is Michael Behe, who was a witness at the Dover trial. Here, he among other things claimed that science could never explain how the blood clotting cascade could have evolved. When he then was presented with a stack of books and papers documenting this exact process, he admitted to not having read a single one of them, but added that whatever they said they had to be wrong. Any other claim ID makes is a negative one, pointing out holes in the evolutionary chart. The irredicible complexity argument is one from ignorance and thus invalid, the fallacy of the negative claims is that pointing out unexplored areas in evolutionary theory does not mean credit should automatically fall on ID theory. Well, as Goat pointed out, it's not a theory in the scientific sense of the word. It's more of a notion.

The designer posited by ID is not, according to the guys themselves, necessarily the Christian god. Many IDers accept the old earth, but pretty much every single one of them is Christian, and for some reason Noah's flood is used to explain just about every geological occurence that discredits the bible. Like the Grand Canyon.

Basically, creationism felt threatened by scientific progress, was unequipped to take on the battle, and had to evolve. It does not actually have scientific traits, but its camoflage keeps it alive.

[pjalne]

Originally Posted by Preechr

You defined evolution as a theory MANY, MANY times.

The question is, have you by now understood what "theory" means in a scientific context?

[kahljorn]

Thanks pjalne that's pretty much what I figured.

I've actually read that Micheal behe thing because Preechr posted it and the first thing that came to mind was, "This guy doesn't understand the basic concepts of evolution".

"the fallacy of the negative claims is that pointing out unexplored areas in evolutionary theory does not mean credit should automatically fall on ID theory. "

I hate that. It's so hard to have a conversation with someone who thinks that, just because we haven't discovered every piece of knowledge in the world, the theory must be wrong. People like that are living in ignorance of the human situation, and the human condition. I mean, don't they understand that we are actually pretty ignorant compared to how much knowledge is actually out there? Why do they think we should be omniscient and instantly be able to present them with all the information they want without any form of investigation? Honestly, it just blows my mind that people are that unreasonable and ignorant.

I hate people who don't understand their situation, especially not the world situation. How can you be ignorant of simple things like that? It's the most obvious thing in the world. Luckily science ignores it and instead continues to accumulate evidence.

It really does seem to me like creationists are more afraid of their beliefs being proven wrong than finding the truth, which to me disqualifies their opinion in a scientific sense. If you think in terms of a jury, somebody who has a prejudice like that would be removed from the jury.
I wonder if evolution was actually developed explicitley to contradict the ideas of religion, though. I doubt it for some reason, I remember part of what tipped off the existance of it was actually an observation of two different situations and finding some "Common factor".


So how is evolution a sociological thing, preechr? I remember you saying that and finding it to be kind of interesting, especially with how richard dawkins felt about evolution and memeotics.

[kahljorn]

"effectively laying the groundwork for the opinion opposite of mine: that nothing has meaning or purpose. "

Wow man reading through what you say your philosophy in life is so dead. The only thing that gives life meaning is having a God? Have you ever read Neitzche?
How does evolution give you that opinion? personally, evolution gives me the idea that life has a ton of purpose, and evolution actually works well with every single spiritual belief I've ever studied. Every single piece of spiritually, even the bible, tells the importance of evolving. Evolving spiritually, mentally, intelligently and even physically. To me that is a huge purpose, and it gives life alot of meaning. The attempt to build something beautiful, rather than relying on outside "Powers" to fix things for you. You know, personal responsibility for the way the world works instead of blaming it all or relying on god. You talk about people doing that with the government all the time, and yet when it comes to this your philosophy is so drastically different?
Why is it that you don't apply your philosophies to everything? I thought that was the point of philosophy?

"Why can't the evidence that led the finest minds in science to the theory that all life evolved from one common form be clearly and concisely portrayed so a skeptic could follow along and satisfy his doubts?"

I think I should address this again. There's more than one scientist working on evolution, some of them may even have different opinions on how it works, or just some other specific functioning of it. If you study ANY science there's ALWAYS going to be more than one book available on the subject, and they will all differ slightly.
Not only that but evolution is a vast subject. It's like asking why isn't there one book for every piece of medical information? Do you know how large a book like that would be? It'd be gigantic. Same with philosophy and damn near every other field of study.
Also, many sciences only care to document their studies and observations, because that's what's important. They might throw in opinions and hypothesis, but in the end the only scientifically valid portion of it is the observances and studies.

Those are all reasons why you don't see a centralized, "Bible of evolution". Even the books of the bible were originally seperated, and I think it took them a couple hundred years at least before they were all compiled into one volume.

However, I'm sure somebody out there has compiled a book with alot of the pertinent information on evolution. Does anybody know of such a book? I think ziggy reccomended a site to you with alot of information on it. In all honesty though I don't think you'll be satisfied with anything we give you, and I doubt you'll even read anything we give you, so what does it matter.
Arguing beliefs is pointless. I don't believe in creationism nor evolution, especially when it comes down to debate. In this argument, we discuss evidence, and you discuss how that evidence isn't enough. You're the one who said in debates finding flaws in the other persons argument isn't how you win. I'm all for aruing ideas, concepts, functions, consequences and whatever other REAL things we can argue(creationism can be debated in those terms). To an extant I'll even argue unreal things, but only if they serve an actual function in the world.

[Preechr]

Damn. Ok.

First off, yes, pjalne, I understand what a theory is. I will pray to Jesus this very night in thanks for him sending me kahljorn so I might see the light of scientific method.

I will also pray for kahl's soul since he stopped trying to goad me into discussion with insults and started acting reasonable, but I will make sure to include conditions in there that he burn in Hell if he's just changed tactics for some evil reason.

God I hope somebody thinks I'm being serious with that...

Kahl, in plain and simple English: I fully accept that people and things evolve. It's difficult for me to accept that everything evolved from one common ancestor. Do you see the difference between these two things?

My opinions in this debate actually extend from my personal philosophy rather than from any investment I might have in the concepts of creationism or common descent. I referenced Behe for you to show that there are actual people in existence that have at least a somewhat logical, if ultimately unfounded method for objection to common descent... contrary to your presumption that the only folks that don't drink Darwin's Kool-Aid blindly are inbred hicks from the same trailer park in Mississippi.

Rather than going on and on, providing you with limitless distractions, I think I'll avoid the muddy waters in which we've spent most our time together and cut this short here.

[kahljorn]

"It's difficult for me to accept that everything evolved from one common ancestor."

Why?
In some ways I can imagine life arising in more than one place. Is your objection to it because things are too complex? Because in reality if you look at things at a molecular or biological level everything is pretty much composed of the same parts, and not too complex. It's when you look at the big picture that it gets complicated. All life processes within every being pretty much functions off of the same fundamental biological proceses using, pretty much, the same materials for sustanance and maintanence.

Seriously I just don't understand your objection, and you haven't provided any.

"My opinions in this debate actually extend from my personal philosophy"

What are your personal philosophies? Can we discuss those instead?

"contrary to your presumption that the only folks that don't drink Darwin's Kool-Aid blindly are inbred hicks from the same trailer park in Mississippi."

I never said that. I think anybody can see the holes in the evolutionary theory, and that's partly why it's still a theory. They are attempting to fill those holes in. I see those holes, they are pretty obvious. I'm not in a trailor park in mississipi.

You still pussied out of our conversation, despite me being nice and cordial to you and even explaining the fundamentals of science and some basic concepts of the universe. You still haven't even shared your real objections to it. You don't have any logical reasons. It just, "Doesn't seem right". If that's all, then why did you even start an argument with me about it when I wasn't even talking about if evolution is true or false? if you're going to start an argument at least have some logical reason based in information.

You ragged on ME for using intuition without knowledge, so what the fuck is this? Do you purposely apply your own arguments to yourself? Why is it that everything you've said has contradicted yourself in some way or another?

You said you'd set out to prove me wrong if I was nice, and now you're backing out. That's about all I need to know about you, really, just don't confont me in the future unless you have a good reason and are planning on sticking to your guns.

[Big Papa Goat]

EDIT: kahljorn posted above me while I was writing this, and pretty much raised the same points, you may as well not read this one and just respond to his

lol Darwin's kool aid.

Please don't stop preechr
I'm rather interested in hearing about what your precise problem is with evolution from a common ancestor. And don't tell me that it jsut plain requires faith, or that it's all really just weird, or that there's no evidence behind it, for I won't accept such nonsense from you ;(

What philosophical problem do you have with evolution from a common ancestor that is distinct from philosophical problems one can have against evolution as such. I just don't get why you can't make that leap of faith from evolution within to evolution between species. Species are just populations that can reproduce and make fertile offspring. So basically, if evolution happens on one population that causes the males in that population to grow bigger dicks, then that can quite literally cause speciation between other populations with females that haven't also evolved along those lines. Mechanical barrier to reproduction, it's a thing. So do you think that evolution can happen, and organisms and populations can mutate and show different phenotypic characteristics, just as long as those characteristics aren't such that would change reproduction? What exactly is it about an organism that is immune to mutation through evolution, and why? That question should be rather difficult for you I think, if you accept the notion that some things about organisms can mutate, but set other things out of bounds. I mean, what to you, makes a species a species, start there. (or a genus or whatever, I know that kind of thoroughly insignificant concept can be pretty confusing)

So ya, basically I really don't see the difference between the two types of evolution. Please try to type slowly and clearly, because bio-magicians put me under the spell of darwinian sorcery when I was young, so my ability to perceive reality clearly is rather clouded by the magic circle against reason they've entrapped me in.