1. It could be a waste of time, but I just think its honest to tell evolutionists that under some unlikey conditions their theory could possibly work. By being overly stubborn about it, us creationists can insult a set of logic that has good principles behind it. Variation plus selection can lead to evolution.
2. Yes we both have agreed that under the current fluctuating conditions macro-evolution can't occur.
3. I could be wrong but that article seemed to be saying that there was no fixation across the 5 differently population groups, without denying fixation within an evolved group. They were comparing this to asexual simpler organisms which did fixate across the evolved population groups. I feel you are "fixating" on the word "fixation" here instead of seeing its usage in that particular experiment..
4. sorry I don't understand your point here. Proof of limitation has been only with a few examples over short periods. Nothing in the fly experiment showed limitation, neither did the finch's beak get slightly bigger and then the finch deteriated. The finch's beak got longer as needed to suit its environment, and it all worked while it needed to.
5. Its hypothetically possible, which means by the nature of the wording that I feel there is no evidence. Isn't that what I said?
6. If there was evidence I would be saying empirically possible, but I have said hypothetically possible.If you could prove limitation under every possible circumstance, and 100% genetic fixation back to current allelle frequencies in every possible scenario, you would disprove my position, and therefore I would have to say "hypothetically impossible". I haven't seen that absolute proof of limitation or genetic fixation to the original allelle frequencies in this thread.
7. Without your 100% proof against evolution it does remain hypothetically possible.
8. We both agreed on the fluctuation. It may be silly to you, but when an evolutionist knows that variation and selection can lead to evolution in a continually changing environment and a creationist says "impossible" that is just being dishonest, because it is possible under certain hypothetical situations.
9. So why not just say kindly, yes its possible hypothetically yet the fluctuations of earth back to norms makes it not likely observable unless earth goes through some sort of continuous deteriation which could lead to mass extinction even before variation results in macro-evolution strong enough to save a species.
Shakes head..... You've failed to understand anything I have said in these past pages. I am sorry I am getting frustrated, however if you read over the pages the majority of this is me repeating myself.
1. Its not as simple as variation + selection = evolution, we have been discussing the actual nuts and bolts of it all so for you to revert back to a generalised statement in order to appear more convincing is misleading.
2. Great, I'll be reverting back to this as it is a fundamental point and shows that everything else is refutted.
3. Fixation of traits is a central part to evolution, (but one that is assumed to occur regardless), if there is no fixation then there is no evolution as offspring born will have a mixture of new and old traits and thus will never get anyway. The study showed that there was no permanent fixation of a useful trait, hence (as I said twice now), improvements to environmental conditions require continuous selection. However as you agreed in point two enviromental conditions fluctuate hence there is no continuous selection to account for a steady stream of new traits. It is a wave pattern of adaption and regression to "normal", that is what we observed with the finch beaks. (notice how I'm using actual observed examples).
If things change and get back to the same, how on Earth can you claim a steady progression to something new when it keeps on regressing back to what it was before? This is the central notion I have tried to point out with the finches and one you continue to miss.
4. The fly study showed the limitation to evolution that is, a lack of fixation of traits, please read point 3.
5. And I've been trying to tell you that based on observations of reality what you claim is literally impossible. Until you have evidence that refutes the evidence that debunks your claims, (read all 4 pages of this thread for it, yes I use evidence). Then there is no hypothetical, since hypothetical situations are about those that are deemed possible, not those that are deemed impossible by empirical evidence, and which you just do not want it to be impossible.
Just claiming hypothetical, is no excuse for having no evidence. Especially when the current evidence points to the "hypothetical" situation to being impossible.
6. I don't intend to prove 100% gene fixation since it is something evolutionists need to show, (for every single change) for evolution to work at all. Most people just assume that the gene is good therefore its fixed voila. I am saying its much more complicated than that, and it is an issue that must be addressed.
7. No it doesn't for the simple fact that the selection pressures used fluctuate therefore meaning that evolution cannot occur in the time frame or in the manner that evolutionists claim.
it would need to either
i) occur really fast since the environment would change again thus causing a regression of the trait back to its original % (as seen in the finch beak example)
ii) occur despite enviromental pressures, which mean there is no proposed mechanism for evolution.
This is why point 2 is really important since it debunks the claim that evolution works on enviromental selection pressures, as fluctuation in the pressures means fluctuation in the traits we see.
Please understand this!
8. Read point 7. Also I am not being dishonest. Proposing hypothetical situations against the grain of empirical evidence is dishonest.
9. Because in life things aren't candy coated. I am telling you, according to the empirical evidence, evolution as claimed by evolutionists is impossible. It would be "hypotetically" possible if the world didn't act the way it does and follow the natural laws that it does, which would ring alarm bells for the naturalist since natural laws and their unbreakableness is their top philosophy. IF the world were to do as you said, have a continued progression of enviromental change there could be some differences occuring until the enviroment becomes too extreme for the majority of life to live, (bar archea), which would render such hypothetical musings pointless.
In other words I have debunked evolution
Please give me my millions of $$$
EDIT: IN fact here is a limitation of all multicelluar life on Earth. Multicellular life cannot live on Earth if the temperature was above 100 degrees Celsius
This is based on the fact that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, and that blood, (and the rest of our bodies) is made up of water. (as I said right at the start in post #2 the limitation of a trait or factor is based on the properties of the thing itself).
I challenge you to propose any imaginary mechanism that can "evolve" in (lets say) dogs to combat such temperatures. Then taking your continual environmental changes, work out one for 150 degrees Celsius, and then 200 degrees Celsius, as the environment continually gets more and more extreme.