Statesboro, GA, USA
Not so. The majority that ruled on a flat Earth did so not on the basis of evidence but upon the basis of dogma. It isn't, necessarily, ludicrous for uneducated masses to follow the dictates of the powerful.
And that is my main contention with Neo-Darwinism, that it is much more "dogma" than science. I'll be demonstrating that soon enough in a separate post.
The reason falsification is the measure of science is because scientists always seek to falsify, or prove wrong, a concept rather than attempting to prove it right. If they can prove it wrong, then it is wrong. If they can't prove it wrong then it is a conditionally operative explanation of the observed events/phenomenon based on repetition and duplication of results.
Macroevolution, by nature is beyond the pale of proof / disproof ... unless you know someone with a couple of billion years to spare. And the "evidence" for it is tenuous. Again, more dogma than science.
The micro macro issue has been asked and answered already in this thread.
Answered? You mean the distinction has been merely denied. That's convenient. I guess that means, since bacteria become drug resistant, we can assume a light-sensitive spot became a seeing eye over billions of years. Big assumption. Just because random mutation, and natural selection, works on small scale changes, it can't be extrapolated that such explains all the variation and complexity we see.
It's actually a bit underhanded to call small-scale changes in populations "evolution", then, once people believe in that process, to say that it covers quite different phenomenon (in scope and variety).
If evolution merely means that genetic mutations cause some organisms to fail, and become disadvantaged in the race for life ... then I too believe in "evolution". But obscurantism, is to blur the distinctions, and to always talk as generally as possible, so as not to alert people to the very distinct and complex nature of the issues at hand.
There is no controversy in the scientific/biological field over whether or not speciation occurs.
Only because common ancestry is taken for granted. Therefore the mere existence of different species, is said to prove that such a thing happened. That's the way I've heard evolutionists describe it for the longest, and just recently Brad said something like that too. But the mere existence of species, with homologous parts, does not prove that species evolved from one into another.
It certainly is... more importantly in preventing and predicting them. Such as the potential evolution of the bird flu into a human to human pathogen. Or in the case of the Ebola outbreak in Zaire where Paul Ewald was able to predict that it would fizzle out on its own. Try to separate evolution from biology.
Again, if you mean by "evolution", genetic change within organisms .... I am a full fledged evolutionist. You're making a straw man. I've never tried to separate that kind of process, from biology. Nor have ID scientists, that I'm aware of.
And my point is that they developed concurrently. There ain't nothing in between because one did not develop from the other.
And my point is that science holds no plausible record of development at all, regardless of whether "concurrent" or otherwise. If sexual reproduction developed seperately from asexual reproduction, then describe (in detail) the steps of it's development.
Oh, and if you believe in common ancestry, don't you have to believe that sexual reproduction developed from asexual reproduction?