<<Since logically it is very difficult to prove a
negative (it can't be done), it seems that it would be more fruitful for the
anti-evolutionist to prove the positive i.e. that there is a limit to
variation. No one can prove that there is NO limit because that violates the
laws of logic. But you as a believer in limits, should be able to prove the
extent of variation.>>
This has already been done. All of the data and evidence demonstrates limits,
to such an overwhelming degree that, using Gould's test of fact, "it would be
perverse to withhold assent."
"The science of the past forty years shows that
there is no reason to think that complex systems can be produced in a
nondirected fashion. This is based on elucidation of the systems themselves
plus a failure of the scientific community to publish detailed models of such
assembling for ANY complex system. Theories of undirected evolution have hit
the stone wall of biological/biochemical complexity...No paper has ever been
published in the scientific literature in which a complex biological structure
has been explained in testable detail." (Michael Behe, Lehigh University).
"Randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or
boring and uneventful simplicity." (Paul Davies, University of Adelaide,
Australia).
This is why the burden is on the neo-Darwinists. They are the ones proposing a
novel hypothesis that is unsupported thus far in the literature. To attempt to
shift this burden is an exercise in desperation.
Jim