The Case for Speciation
All-seeing-I
evidence thereof:
Darwin's Finches. The most famous Case for Speciation.
What do you have at the end of the day?
MORE DAMN FINCHES
HOW STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?
________________________________
Another example: Hawaiian Drosophila
How do they arrive at divergence?
And I quote:
"This implies that most new colonization events have lead to
speciation events! "
What part of the word "IMPLIES" is so hard to understand?
_______________________________
Another example: African cichlid fishes
They admit
" remarkable evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral
variation in these fish"
What part of VARIATION is so hard to understand?
______________________________
Finally.
African cichlid fishes
Quote:
"the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated implying that
speciation has gone to completion (an example of geographic
speciation)"
What part of IMPLYING is so hard to understand?
Also. DOGS can become reproductivly isolated but guess what? THEY ARE
STILL A DOG DECENDED FROM SOME TYPE OF ORIGINAL CANID. They did not
slowly diverging into something that is no longer a dog
____________________________
http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
(please note: This is not from a creationist web site)
------------------------------------------------------
Why can't any of you face the truth? The above are the most famous
cases for speciation. Well GUESS WHAT.
You have NOTHING that clearly shows species diverge so far away from
the original species that they become nothing like that original
species anymore.
You have conjecture. You have speculation. You have inferences. You
have presuppositions. You have vague and misleading terms. Even the
definitions for words are rewritten to make the case --are all rolled
into one to deceive and lie. PLUS. None of this conforms to the
scientific method so many of you rant needs to be met for something to
be scientifically valid.
You got nothing. So stop whining.
And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious. I have read over all
of this crap and the best argument any of you can make is:
"You do not understand".
Which is bologna. I don't think any of YOU understand or you would not
be buying into this bullshit called divergence.
Now, I may not be a scientist; But i do know bullshit when i smell it.
And I am quite sick of a dishonest media repeating lies until they
become as if they were truth.
You should stop feeding this bull to kids in schools immediately until
there is conclusive proof that shows (even us dummies) that divergence
actually takes place.
That means no conjecture, no speculation, no inferences, no
presuppositions, and no vague and misleading terms. That means an
observable, testable model. And while you are at it,stop redefining
words and make the thing clear enough so ALL of us dummies out here
can clearly see you are telling the truth. Produce something that
matches what we see taking place on thie planet.
Thanks. :)
Mark Evans
"You do not understand" is not an argument. It is a simple
observation of a simple person by people who are not as simple. Stop
trying to refute it via argument. It can not be refuted this way.
Mark Evans
John Stockwell
the choice
of claiming that these different species, that are quite similar, but
occupy different
environments and niches are the result of independent origin, or are
the result of
descent from a common ancestor. Throughout the world, in every
isolated
environment, there are similar radiation of species. In each case, the
species that
are present are only those that can have migrated there in some
plausible way from
related stock. Now in the case of Darwin's finches, we are talking
about variation at the
species level from each other, and at the genus level from the
mainland stock.
In the case of other islands, such as Hawaii, or remote locations such
as St. Helena,
whole families, classes, and orders of organisms are found that have
resulted from the
reproductive isolation in those locations. In this case, while we do
not have the
step by step pedigree of organisms that creationists demand, it is
obvious that
common descent of these stocks is implied. The fact that there is no
line whatsoever
that can be drawn saying "beyond which common descent is not possible"
leads us to
the inescapable conclusion that Darwin was right-----all of life
shares common ancestry
back to a single original organism or small group of organisms. Of
course, creationists
are not interested in seeing science get it right, only in the
intellectual vandalism that
they commit in service of their own agenda.
Creationists are bullshitters in the sense of Frankfurt, 2005.
Reference:
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005), On bullshit, Princeton University Press,
Princeton NJ.
-John
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1380a59b-e2c8-48f3...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> OK People. Here is the scoop on Divergence Speciation and the lack of
> evidence thereof:
>
>
> Darwin's Finches. The most famous Case for Speciation.
>
> What do you have at the end of the day?
>
> MORE DAMN FINCHES
>
> HOW STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?
> ________________________________
.
John Harshman
> OK People. Here is the scoop on Divergence Speciation and the lack of
> evidence thereof:
What does "divergence speciation" mean? How is it distinct from plain
old speciation?
> Darwin's Finches. The most famous Case for Speciation.
>
> What do you have at the end of the day?
>
> MORE DAMN FINCHES
>
> HOW STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?
Not all that stupid. The point isn't that they're still finches, but
that they're different species of finches. Speciation results in new
species. That's why it's called speciation.
>
> Another example: Hawaiian Drosophila
>
> How do they arrive at divergence?
>
> And I quote:
> "This implies that most new colonization events have lead to
> speciation events! "
>
> What part of the word "IMPLIES" is so hard to understand?
The part where any of this supports whatever point you are trying to
make. What are you quoting from, by the way?
>
>
> Another example: African cichlid fishes
>
> They admit
> " remarkable evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral
> variation in these fish"
>
> What part of VARIATION is so hard to understand?
Again, the part where the word supports whatever point you are trying to
make.
>
> Finally.
> African cichlid fishes
>
> Quote:
> "the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated implying that
> speciation has gone to completion (an example of geographic
> speciation)"
>
> What part of IMPLYING is so hard to understand?
See previous comment.
> Also. DOGS can become reproductivly isolated but guess what? THEY ARE
> STILL A DOG DECENDED FROM SOME TYPE OF ORIGINAL CANID. They did not
> slowly diverging into something that is no longer a dog
Nor, for example, did humans slowly diverge into something that was no
longer an ape. Dogs are still dogs, and humans are still apes. All are
still mammals. Nevertheless, there has been speciation in all these
lineages.
>
> http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
>
> (please note: This is not from a creationist web site)
Also note that you have misinterpreted single words to mean something I
can't be sure of, but which is clearly nonsensical and unrelated to the
statements made on that site.
> Why can't any of you face the truth? The above are the most famous
> cases for speciation. Well GUESS WHAT.
>
> You have NOTHING that clearly shows species diverge so far away from
> the original species that they become nothing like that original
> species anymore.
Of course not. No species ever becomes nothing like the original
species. It always retains some resemblance. So humans have considerable
resemblance to chimps, slightly less to gorillas, slightly less again to
orangutans, and so on.
> You have conjecture. You have speculation. You have inferences. You
> have presuppositions. You have vague and misleading terms. Even the
> definitions for words are rewritten to make the case --are all rolled
> into one to deceive and lie. PLUS. None of this conforms to the
> scientific method so many of you rant needs to be met for something to
> be scientifically valid.
Who exactly are you accusing of deceit and lying? I'd like to know.
> You got nothing. So stop whining.
>
> And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious. I have read over all
> of this crap and the best argument any of you can make is:
>
> "You do not understand".
>
> Which is bologna. I don't think any of YOU understand or you would not
> be buying into this bullshit called divergence.
>
> Now, I may not be a scientist; But i do know bullshit when i smell it.
> And I am quite sick of a dishonest media repeating lies until they
> become as if they were truth.
>
> You should stop feeding this bull to kids in schools immediately until
> there is conclusive proof that shows (even us dummies) that divergence
> actually takes place.
There is conclusive proof (not a word we use in science, but close
enough) that divergence actually takes place. I have shown some to you
several times, but you have refused to look at it. The genetic evidence,
in particular, is unmistakable. The genomes of all living species look
just as they would if they had evolved on a diverging tree. Just take
the recently mentioned bit about human chromosome 2, the one that is two
fused ape chromosomes. That makes sense if humans originally had the
same chromosome number as other apes, inherited from their common
ancestor. What's the creationist explanation?
> That means no conjecture, no speculation, no inferences, no
> presuppositions, and no vague and misleading terms.
The word "inference" doesn't belong with the rest. Inferences are good
things, and necessary in science. They are, in fact, just what science
is made of. Conjecture and speculation are fine too, as long as you
don't confuse them with fact. And even a few presuppositions are
necessary. But forget the vague accusations. What, specifically, are you
talking about here?
> That means an
> observable, testable model.
We have such a model. I've been telling you about it for a while now.
> And while you are at it,stop redefining
> words and make the thing clear enough so ALL of us dummies out here
> can clearly see you are telling the truth. Produce something that
> matches what we see taking place on thie planet.
What words are you talking about? And if you want to understand what
anyone is talking about, you have to pay at least some attention, not
just ignore them. That's your problem.
RAM
>Snip volume of stupidites.
>
> Thanks. :)
Your are welcome.
Now to the point of your thread title:
Speciation can be documented and has been in biological research.
To document its failure you must examine some extant peer published
research data and show explicitly why it fails to show speciation.
Thus you must condign to understand what you are trolling on in order
to show its failures.
ASSinie assertions are not evidence.
That is what your posts was. Do you not understand?
Caranx latus
<snip>
> And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious.
Wow. Your knickers must be seriously twisted.
<snip>
Still refusing to find *any* translation for *any* Sumerian text that
supports your "in vitro fertilization" claim?
Dan Listermann
"John Stockwell" <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e30b5a72-97ef-4ade...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
"Intellectual vandalism." That perfectly describes creationists.
.
Iain
> OK People. Here is the scoop on Divergence Speciation and the lack of
> evidence thereof:
>
> Darwin's Finches. The most famous Case for Speciation.
Correction. It's a famous EXAMPLE of speciation.
Therefore the case for speciation was complete decades ago.
Whatever additional case you're attacking, is not clear.
> What do you have at the end of the day?
A new, seperate species.
> MORE DAMN FINCHES
Which is another way of saying it's similar, but not the same as, its
predecessor.
This, we call 'evolution' -- gradual change.
Anything else would not be evolution.
It would be 'revolution'.
> HOW STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?
I didn't use to think I could be very stupid, but now that you keep
pushing the envelope I have no excuse.
> Another example: Hawaiian Drosophila
>
> How do they arrive at divergence?
Isolation.
> And I quote:
> "This implies that most new colonization events have lead to
> speciation events! "
>
> What part of the word "IMPLIES" is so hard to understand?
None. That's why I have no problem with the quote.
> Another example: African cichlid fishes
>
> They admit
> " remarkable evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral
> variation in these fish"
>
> What part of VARIATION is so hard to understand?
Indeed, variation between species(which is what is being referred to
here) is the crucial thing in evolution. Species vary, and
evolutionary theory is the explanation for that. Any work on evolution
dealing with variation must surely be somewhat pertinent.
Is there point to any of this?
> Finally.
> African cichlid fishes
>
> Quote:
> "the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated implying that
> speciation has gone to completion (an example of geographic
> speciation)"
>
> What part of IMPLYING is so hard to understand?
Again, I have no difficulty with the word.
> Also. DOGS can become reproductivly isolated but guess what? THEY ARE
> STILL A DOG DECENDED FROM SOME TYPE OF ORIGINAL CANID.
Tautology. It is that very canid ancestry which defines 'dog'.
> They did not
> slowly diverging into something that is no longer a dog
Because 'dog' is defined by the mere fact of their canid ancestry.
> Why can't any of you face the truth? The above are the most famous
> cases for speciation. Well GUESS WHAT.
>
> You have NOTHING that clearly shows species diverge so far away from
> the original species that they become nothing like that original
> species anymore.
We've never seen one species become nothing like it's parent species?
A correct, and irrelevant statement.
Such an event would not be evolution.
> You have conjecture. You have speculation. You have inferences. You
> have presuppositions. You have vague and misleading terms.
You don't think you're misled when you claim that according to
evolutionary theory, a species should become 'nothing like' its
predecessor?
You haven't a clue, obviously. You haven't even understood the basic
concepts involved.
That's not because they're advanced concepts, either. I just find that
Creationists have their minds in knots before they begin.
--Iain
Dana Tweedy
> OK People. Here is the scoop on Divergence Speciation and the lack of
> evidence thereof:
There's plenty of evidence of speciation.
>
>
> Darwin's Finches. The most famous Case for Speciation.
But, of course there are many other cases.
>
> What do you have at the end of the day?
>
> MORE DAMN FINCHES
But different species of finches, which is the point.
>
> HOW STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?
Not stupid enough to think that speciation should result in offspring
entirely different from their parents.
> ________________________________
>
>
> Another example: Hawaiian Drosophila
>
> How do they arrive at divergence?
By genetic isolation of populations.
>
> And I quote:
> "This implies that most new colonization events have lead to
> speciation events! "
>
> What part of the word "IMPLIES" is so hard to understand?
I don't know. Why do you not understand it?
> _______________________________
>
>
> Another example: African cichlid fishes
>
> They admit
> " remarkable evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral
> variation in these fish"
>
> What part of VARIATION is so hard to understand?
Nothing. Why do you not understand it? These fish have undergone
variation enough to produce new species.
>
> ______________________________
>
> Finally.
> African cichlid fishes
You mentioned them already.
>
> Quote:
> "the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated implying that
> speciation has gone to completion (an example of geographic
> speciation)"
>
> What part of IMPLYING is so hard to understand?
Nothing. Why do you not understand it?
> Also. DOGS can become reproductivly isolated but guess what? THEY ARE
> STILL A DOG DECENDED FROM SOME TYPE OF ORIGINAL CANID. They did not
> slowly diverging into something that is no longer a dog
Why would this be relevant? Humans are descended from some type of ape,
and they aren't becoming something that isn't an ape. This has been
explained to you over and over.
>
> ____________________________
>
> http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
>
> (please note: This is not from a creationist web site)
> ------------------------------------------------------
Yep, and you ignore the content.
>
>
> Why can't any of you face the truth? The above are the most famous
> cases for speciation. Well GUESS WHAT.
They show speciation happening. Too bad for you.
>
> You have NOTHING that clearly shows species diverge so far away from
> the original species that they become nothing like that original
> species anymore.
And that's exactly what evolution predicts. All life is something like
it's predecessors. Why do you keep ignoring this?
>
> You have conjecture.
and evidence that supports that conjecture.
> You have speculation.
and the evidence that supports that speculation.
> You have inferences.
Which supports the observations.
> You
> have presuppositions.
Which are necessary for science to work. Otherwise any presuppositions are
open to change as the evidence shows.
> You have vague and misleading terms.
No, the terms used in science are agreed on in meaning. If you don't
bother to learn what the terms mean to scientists, that's your own problem.
>Even the
> definitions for words are rewritten to make the case
No, just used in a consistent way.
> --are all rolled
> into one to deceive and lie.
No such intention. You are grasping at straws.
> PLUS. None of this conforms to the
> scientific method so many of you rant needs to be met for something to
> be scientifically valid.
All of evolutionary science conforms to the scientific method. You again
are grasping at straws.
>
> You got nothing. So stop whining.
Evolution has a great deal of support. You have none.
>
> And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious. I have read over all
> of this crap and the best argument any of you can make is:
>
> "You do not understand".
It's quite clear you don't understand. What else do you expect to be told?
>
> Which is bologna. I don't think any of YOU understand or you would not
> be buying into this bullshit called divergence.
Yet the evidence for divergence is very strong. You keep ignoring it.
>
> Now, I may not be a scientist; But i do know bullshit when i smell it.
> And I am quite sick of a dishonest media repeating lies until they
> become as if they were truth.
On the contrary. You are the one swimming in the BS, and can't understand
why no one else wants to join you.
>
> You should stop feeding this bull to kids in schools immediately until
> there is conclusive proof that shows (even us dummies) that divergence
> actually takes place.
If you refuse to accept any evidence, how can one provide you with
"conclusive proof"?
>
> That means no conjecture, no speculation, no inferences, no
> presuppositions, and no vague and misleading terms.
This indicates you really don't understand how science works. Science
makes use of conjecture and speculation as starting points. Inferences are
used by everyone. The only "presuppositions" that science uses is that the
evidence means something, and that there isn't a trickster god trying to
fool us. As for "vauge and misleading" terms, the terms used by
scientists have very specific meanings. If you can't be bothered to learn
what they are, don't cry that you don't understand them.
>That means an
> observable, testable model.
That would be the theory of evolution.
> And while you are at it,stop redefining
> words and make the thing clear enough so ALL of us dummies out here
> can clearly see you are telling the truth.
Again, if you refuse to learn, there's nothing anyone can do for you.
Don't expect science to be "dumbed down" to your level.
> Produce something that
> matches what we see taking place on thie planet.
Already been done. You are ignorant of what does take place.
>
>
>
> Thanks. :)
Will you do your part? Will you bother to learn something?
DJT
Iain
<snip>
By the way, for the benefit of enlightened debate, it is in your own
interests to make a note of the following fact: You're confusing
speciation with the evolution of other aspects of the species'
physical strucure.
Speciation is merely the reproductive isolation of species in order
that further morphological divergence(in other aspects of the or) may
follow. It is futile to argue whether speciation happens to be
accompanied by other morphological changes. They happen independently
of speciation.
--Iain
All-Seeing-I
No. Each kind of life shares a common ancestor. Nothing has been
observed diverging to the point that is is no longer anything like
what it diverged from no matter how long you sit and watch paint peel.
If one starts with an original kind of land, water, and air creature
and then let them produce variations of their own kind until they fill
the earth you might have a valid theory.
> > Thanks. :)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
All-Seeing-I
TRANSLATION: I COULD NOT ADDRESS THE POST, SO I CUT IT OUT WITH MY BIG
BLUNT FIRST GRADE SISSORS
All-Seeing-I
> Not stupid enough to think that speciation should result in offspring
> entirely different from their parents.
Here is an example of evolution's deception.
You still have a Finch. No one is expecting it to be something else
but a finch. But you make it out as if I expected the finch to be
something other then a finch. Well. I didn't
But you have not shown a single step that take place regarding
speciation but you call it speciation anyway. All you have shown is
that reproductive isolation within the same kind of birds is possible.
Then you get shocked when people wonder, how evolution can arrive the
conclusion that the new finches somehow show that fish can eventually
become human given enough time.
None of you can list (or explain) the clear order and path that a
species takes to separate and then produce a new species that is
nothing like the original.
Until you can, you have nothing but a fairy tale based on conclusions,
inferences and other assorted deceptions.
Eric Root
We've told you dozens of times that the process moves much too slowly
for one person to sit there and see it happen before his eyes, and in
fact, we don't expect it to. SInce we don't expect it to do what you
say it doesn't do, your argument is invalid. Since we've already
explained to you that it's invalid and why, for you to trot it out
again is for you to be a liar. That you don't recognize this and fix
it makes you a particularly creepy kind of liar.
> If one starts with an original kind of land, water, and air creature
> and then let them produce variations of their own kind until they fill
> the earth you might have a valid theory.
>
That's exactly what happened. So you admit we are right.
> > back to a single original organism or small group of organisms. Of
> > course, creationists
> > are not interested in seeing science get it right, only in the
> > intellectual vandalism that
> > they commit in service of their own agenda.
>
> > Creationists are bullshitters in the sense of Frankfurt, 2005.
>
> > Reference:
>
> > Frankfurt, H. G. (2005), On bullshit, Princeton University Press,
> > Princeton NJ.
>
> > -John
>
(snip)
Eric Root
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious.
I'm terribly sorry to hear that. I did hold out hope that you were
just playing games with us, and aren't as invincibly ignorant as you
appear, but I'll take you at face value now.
> I have read over all
>of this crap and the best argument any of you can make is:
>
>"You do not understand".
That's not an argument, it's an observation, based on thousands of
posts from you in which you invariably display an astonishing level of
ignorance of the subject matter. I honestly can't recall a single post
of yours from which I got the impression that you had any idea what
you were talking about.
If you're really serious, the only rational conclusion that an
observer can arrive at is that you are either incapable of
understanding any of the subjects that you are attempting to discuss,
or unwilling to correct your misconceptions, even when they have been
pointed out to you in painstaking detail. The former is pathetic, the
latter is perverse. In either case, "you do not understand" sums it up
perfectly. Whether you are unable to or unwilling to is not my
concern.
Boikat
There was nothing there to refute except your usual misrepresentation
of the infomation due to your inability to remain hnest.
Boikat
All-seeing-I
You must be a terrible researcher. How can you possibly be a
scientist?
Will in New Haven
Something that was pretty much a dog was the ancestor of something
that was vaguely raccoon-like, which in turn became the ancestor of
modern raccoons and bears. Something else vaguely dog-like became the
ancestor of the true foxes and it or its near-relative became the
ancestor of the African Wild Dog and ITS near-relative became the
ancestor of the coyote,jackals, wolf, dogs etc.
Now your simple-minded idea of biology leads to pointing at all of
them and say "doggy-kind" but that is because you are an ignorant
person. Someday you will die and you will still be ignorant. It's such
a waste because you clearly have the potential to be low-functioning.
--
Will in New Haven
All-seeing-I
You can call it what you want.
No one can show, with evidence, that fish have mutating their to man,
who in turn flew to the moon.
Caranx latus
I've never claimed to be a scientist, and I've never played one on the
Internet. So... where's that translation?
Dan Listermann
"All-Seeing-I" <allse...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:0f1b08fb-29bd-47ca...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
I don't suppose you can see that ancestors of whales were land dwelling
creatures, can you . . . .You probably can't even see the pathway through
seals, sea lions, walruses' and beavers and otters, among others. It is
just all a coincidence to you.
.
g...@risky-biz.com
You don't like being told that you don't understand. There's a remedy
for that. First demonstrate that you understand the opposing argument,
then show what parts you find faulty and why. This is an excellent
strategy in any setting, but especially when there are dozens of
knowledgeable people on the other side.
The paragraph below is an example of how you doggedly repeat a
misconception, even though you have been repeatedly corrected.
> None of you can list (or explain) the clear order and path that a
> species takes to separate and then produce a new species that is
> nothing like the original.
And a good thing, too, as "nothing like the original" wouldn't fit
what is observed. There is no life on Earth that is "nothing like"
other life.
> Until you can, you have nothing but a fairy tale based on conclusions,
> inferences and other assorted deceptions.
I'm felling charitable today, so I won't nominate this as a Chez Watt,
even though it made me chuckle..
Conclusions and inferences are what science, ALL science, does. Take
any scientific claim that you accept as accurate and you will find
yourself holding an inference. F=ma? A relationship inferred from
observed data and held to be a general law, even in places where it
has not been directly tested, such as in my house. Pluto orbits the
Sun? Definitely an inference, and one that has never been and will
never be observed directly by a human being.
If "inferences" and "conclusions" are deceptions, then no science can
be done.
Iain
> On Dec 28, 2:22 pm, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 6:44 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > By the way, for the benefit of enlightened debate, it is in your own
> > interests to make a note of the following fact: You're confusing
> > speciation with the evolution of other aspects of the species'
> > physical strucure.
>
> > Speciation is merely the reproductive isolation of species in order
> > that further morphological divergence(in other aspects of the or) may
> > follow. It is futile to argue whether speciation happens to be
> > accompanied by other morphological changes. They happen independently
> > of speciation.
>
> > --Iain
>
> You can call it what you want.
You haven't even told us what 'it' is.
You haven't even told us what we're supposed to have failed to
demonstrate.
> No one can show, with evidence, that fish have mutating their to man,
> who in turn flew to the moon.
Nobody claims that this happened.
--Iain
VoiceOfReason
Speciation has been directly observed, both in the lab and in the
wild. Case closed.
Iain
> On Dec 28, 1:56 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > Not stupid enough to think that speciation should result in offspring
> > entirely different from their parents.
>
> Here is an example of evolution's deception.
>
> You still have a Finch.
Yes, because a 'finch' is defined by ancestry, not structure.
Ancestry is an immutible fact. Structure is not.
> No one is expecting it to be something else
> but a finch.
Then why do you attack an expectation nobody has?
> But you make it out as if I expected the finch to be
> something other then a finch. Well. I didn't
No, you make out that evolutionary theory is supposed to involve some
manner of evolution other than the kind exemplified by Darwin's
finches, and that the lack of any such observation must therefore by
some kind weakness in evolutionary theory.
It isn't.
> But you have not shown a single step that take place regarding
> speciation
Apart from new species.
> but you call it speciation anyway.
That's what speciation is.
>All you have shown is
> that reproductive isolation
That's what speciation is (if the reproductive isolation is
inherent).
If you didn't know that, you may now be realising the depth of your
error, and the reason why we keep repeating "you don't understand" and
treat you like you're an insuffrable wally.
> within the same kind of birds is possible.
What's a 'kind', if not a species?
> None of you can list (or explain) the clear order and path that a
> species takes to separate and then produce a new species that is
> nothing like the original.
Wrong, of course.
Yours is such widely parroted claim, that a stock answer was actually
prepared ages ago:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
--Iain
Iain
> No. Each kind of life shares a common ancestor.
No shit.
> Nothing has been
> observed diverging to the point that is is no longer anything like
> what it diverged from
Nor should we expect to.
Where does this idea of total non-resemblance come from? Why is it
relevant?
> no matter how long you sit and watch paint peel.
>
> If one starts with an original kind of land, water, and air creature
> and then let them produce variations of their own kind until they fill
> the earth you might have a valid theory.
No, you'd have a situation. What theory would we have?
--Iain
Iain
It is through a succession of Darwin-finch-style speciation events
(over billions of years) that humans are supposed to have arisen.
The observed event you gave us is an example of the very thing we're
saying we ought to observe.
Whose side are you on?
--Iain
Fish4Cats
> OK People. Here is the scoop on Divergence Speciation and the lack of
> evidence thereof:
>
>
> Darwin's Finches. The most famous Case for Speciation.
>
> What do you have at the end of the day?
>
> MORE DAMN FINCHES
A new species of finch, hence the term SPECIATION.
> HOW STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?
Nowhere near as stupid as the people who think they know what we are
talking about.
> ________________________________
>
>
> Another example: Hawaiian Drosophila
>
> How do they arrive at divergence?
>
> And I quote:
> "This implies that most new colonization events have lead to
> speciation events! "
>
> What part of the word "IMPLIES" is so hard to understand?
Dunno, you tell us because you are the one having a hard time
understanding it.
> _______________________________
>
>
> Another example: African cichlid fishes
>
> They admit
> " remarkable evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral
> variation in these fish"
>
> What part of VARIATION is so hard to understand?
Dunno, you tell us because you are the one having a hard time
understanding it.
> ______________________________
>
> Finally.
> African cichlid fishes
>
> Quote:
> "the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated implying that
> speciation has gone to completion (an example of geographic
> speciation)"
>
> What part of IMPLYING is so hard to understand?
Dunno, you tell us because you are the one having a hard time
understanding it.
> Also. DOGS can become reproductivly isolated but guess what? THEY ARE
> STILL A DOG DECENDED FROM SOME TYPE OF ORIGINAL CANID.
And evolution says that dogs should be descended from different types of
'original canid' where, exactly?
> They did not
> slowly diverging into something that is no longer a dog
Doesn't even make grammatical sense.
> ____________________________
>
> http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
>
> (please note: This is not from a creationist web site)
> ------------------------------------------------------
You are quoting from something which is a summary of a university
course. Hardly a pivotal piece of text about evolutionary science.
>
> Why can't any of you face the truth? The above are the most famous
> cases for speciation. Well GUESS WHAT.
Erm? Hmm, let me guess... You totally fail to understand what he's
talking about.
> You have NOTHING that clearly shows species diverge so far away from
> the original species that they become nothing like that original
> species anymore.
I don't think evolution says that anything becomes 'nothing like' its
ancestors.
> You have conjecture. You have speculation. You have inferences. You
> have presuppositions. You have vague and misleading terms. Even the
> definitions for words are rewritten to make the case --are all rolled
> into one to deceive and lie. PLUS. None of this conforms to the
> scientific method so many of you rant needs to be met for something to
> be scientifically valid.
We have evidence, masses of evidence, such as the evolution of the inner
ear, cetacean evolution, mammal evolution and so on.
> You got nothing. So stop whining.
We've have got something, you morons just stick your fingers in your
ears and bury your heads in the sand.
> And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious. I have read over all
> of this crap and the best argument any of you can make is:
>
> "You do not understand".
Well clearly you don't. Otherwise you wouldn't spout such nonsense.
> Which is bologna. I don't think any of YOU understand or you would not
> be buying into this bullshit called divergence.
How did Adam an Eve diverge?
> Now, I may not be a scientist;
No shit, Sherlock.
> But i do know bullshit when i smell it.
Especially as it comes out of your own mouth so often.
> And I am quite sick of a dishonest media repeating lies until they
> become as if they were truth.
Media? Are you attacking the media or science? Make your mind up.
> You should stop feeding this bull to kids in schools immediately until
> there is conclusive proof that shows (even us dummies) that divergence
> actually takes place.
It's not bull. There is conclusive evidence. You just don't want to listen.
> That means no conjecture, no speculation, no inferences, no
> presuppositions, and no vague and misleading terms.
Such as "spirit", maybe.
> That means an
> observable, testable model.
It's called 'evolution'.
> And while you are at it,stop redefining
> words and make the thing clear enough so ALL of us dummies out here
> can clearly see you are telling the truth. Produce something that
> matches what we see taking place on thie planet.
It's called 'evolution'.
> Thanks. :)
Pleasure.
..fish
Greg G.
> OK People. Here is the scoop on Divergence Speciation and the lack of
> evidence thereof:
>
> Darwin's Finches. The most famous Case for Speciation.
>
> What do you have at the end of the day?
>
> MORE DAMN FINCHES
More species of finches. More cases of speciation.
>
> HOW STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?
You're the one who just pwned yourself with the first example.
> ________________________________
>
> Another example: Hawaiian Drosophila
>
> How do they arrive at divergence?
>
> And I quote:
> "This implies that most new colonization events have lead to
> speciation events! "
>
> What part of the word "IMPLIES" is so hard to understand?
What? Did they just give several examples of new colonization events
resulting in speciation events?
You pwned yourself twice in two examples.
> _______________________________
>
> Another example: African cichlid fishes
>
> They admit
> " remarkable evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral
> variation in these fish"
>
> What part of VARIATION is so hard to understand?
If speciation didn't involve variation, we would know there had been
speciation.
Three own goals in three shots.
>
> ______________________________
>
> Finally.
> African cichlid fishes
>
> Quote:
> "the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated implying that
> speciation has gone to completion (an example of geographic
> speciation)"
>
> What part of IMPLYING is so hard to understand?
It says that the speciation event is complete.
You pwned yourself four times in a row!
> Also. DOGS can become reproductivly isolated but guess what? THEY ARE
> STILL A DOG DECENDED FROM SOME TYPE OF ORIGINAL CANID. They did not
> slowly diverging into something that is no longer a dog
Wolves became reproductively isolated and diverged into something that
is no longer a wolf. They became dogs.
Why are all your examples pwning your claim?
>
> ____________________________
>
> http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
>
> (please note: This is not from a creationist web site)
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why can't any of you face the truth? The above are the most famous
> cases for speciation. Well GUESS WHAT.
>
> You have NOTHING that clearly shows species diverge so far away from
> the original species that they become nothing like that original
> species anymore.
Please step aside. ASI is moving the goalpost through here.
"nothing like that original species"? Dogs are something like wolves.
Wolves are something like all mammals. Mammals are something like all
vertebrates. Animals are something like yeast. We share something like
65% of our DNA with bananas.
>
> You have conjecture. You have speculation. You have inferences. You
> have presuppositions. You have vague and misleading terms. Even the
> definitions for words are rewritten to make the case --are all rolled
> into one to deceive and lie. PLUS. None of this conforms to the
> scientific method so many of you rant needs to be met for something to
> be scientifically valid.
>
> You got nothing. So stop whining.
You just gave four good examples that destroyed your case.
>
> And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious. I have read over all
> of this crap and the best argument any of you can make is:
>
> "You do not understand".
How can you say that you understand when you gave four cases of
observed speciation and overlooked the fact that they proved you were
wrong just so you could point to the word "imply" used in a different
context?
>
> Which is bologna. I don't think any of YOU understand or you would not
> be buying into this bullshit called divergence.
>
> Now, I may not be a scientist; But i do know bullshit when i smell it.
You're getting a whiff of your own breath.
> And I am quite sick of a dishonest media repeating lies until they
> become as if they were truth.
>
> You should stop feeding this bull to kids in schools immediately until
> there is conclusive proof that shows (even us dummies) that divergence
> actually takes place.
>
> That means no conjecture, no speculation, no inferences, no
> presuppositions,
Sounds like you're against thinking. Everything you know is an
inference.
> and no vague and misleading terms.
If a term seems vague or misleading, you probably got your
understanding of the word from a creationist website. They are known
for obsfucation.
> That means an
> observable, testable model. And while you are at it,stop redefining
> words and make the thing clear enough so ALL of us dummies out here
> can clearly see you are telling the truth. Produce something that
> matches what we see taking place on thie planet.
Which planet are you on?
>
> Thanks. :)
John Harshman
Are you sure? I do. I mean I do if you turn it into real English, and
further translate into something that makes sense, like humans being
descended from fish. Don't you think that too?
raven1
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>No. Each kind of life shares a common ancestor.
Define "kind". Your sub-kindergarten notion of taxonomy is not useful.
>Nothing has been
>observed diverging to the point that is is no longer anything like
>what it diverged from no matter how long you sit and watch paint peel.
Consider the following series:
1010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101
Every few thousand years, one of the digits increases or decreases by
an increment of 1.
Question: at what point is the series "no longer anything like what it
diverged from"?
Dan Listermann
"Iain" <iain_i...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f00669c8-1963-4e02...@j42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
divergence is impossible.
.
Dan Listermann
<g...@risky-biz.com> wrote in message
news:1e7997e7-a73a-48eb...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Perhaps the goal for the intellectual vandalism of creationism.
>
.
Dana Tweedy
> On Dec 28, 1:56 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>> Not stupid enough to think that speciation should result in offspring
>> entirely different from their parents.
>
> Here is an example of evolution's deception.
What 'deception'? I was correcting one of your mistakes.
>
> You still have a Finch.
Yes, as expected.
> No one is expecting it to be something else
> but a finch.
Right. Because evolution doesn't produce organisms that are grossly
different from their immediate ancestors.
> But you make it out as if I expected the finch to be
> something other then a finch. Well. I didn't
Then why did you suggest that you did? You keep saying something to the
effect of "something entirely different" from it's ancestors. I've
explained to you over, and over that's not how evolution works.
>
> But you have not shown a single step that take place regarding
> speciation but you call it speciation anyway.
It's called speciation because it's a new species. Note that the term
"finch" doesn't describe a species, but a group of related species.
> All you have shown is
> that reproductive isolation within the same kind of birds is possible.
Which is exactly what is necessary to show speciation. Your problem is
that you don't seem to grasp the concept of speciation.
>
> Then you get shocked when people wonder, how evolution can arrive the
> conclusion that the new finches somehow show that fish can eventually
> become human given enough time.
I don't get "shocked" but I do marvel at the ignorance contained in your
statement above. The way that a population of finches can produce a new
species of finch is exactly the same process by which humans evolved from
fish. You keep imagining that fish are entirely different from humans,
when they do share a large number of common features.
>
> None of you can list (or explain) the clear order and path that a
> species takes to separate and then produce a new species that is
> nothing like the original.
Here you go doing what you claimed you don't do, just a few paragraphs
above. All new species are going to be something like their ancestor.
New species of finches are different from their ancestor, but not enough
different to assign them a different group name. By the same token,
Cladists consider all tetrapods, including humans to be highly derived fish.
That's because humans have not become "nothing like" their ancestors.
They have become different from their ancestors, but have retained many fish
characteristics. Read Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish" for more
information on this.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/your-inner-fish
>
> Until you can, you have nothing but a fairy tale based on conclusions,
> inferences and other assorted deceptions.
Science is based on conclusions and inferences. That you seem to think
that inference from the evidence is a "deception" tends to explain why you
refuse to learn anything.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>
> No. Each kind of life shares a common ancestor.
All life shares a common ancestor. There aren't separate ancestors for
different 'kinds'.
> Nothing has been
> observed diverging to the point that is is no longer anything like
> what it diverged from no matter how long you sit and watch paint peel.
Again, all living things share similarities, as a result of common descent.
There isn't any living population that is "nothing like" another population.
>
> If one starts with an original kind of land, water, and air creature
> and then let them produce variations of their own kind until they fill
> the earth you might have a valid theory.
There aren't any "original kinds", just a common ancestral population. All
life began as "water creatures", and there aren't any "original" land, or
"orignal" air creatures.
DJT
Thurisaz the Einherjer
"But I really AM a moron dammit!"
We know arsemoron. We know.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
RAM
Where is the empirical evidence for your "in vitro fertilization"
claim?
Ancient texts claims must be verified; just like global floods, a
young earth, or special creation,
Right now yell and make distracting accusations about people not being
scientists, it is still the case your "in vitro fertilization" claim
is a miracle since it is all textual claims.
Care to demonstrate otherwise.
Caranx latus
> On Dec 28, 3:41 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 28, 1:43 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious.
>>> Wow. Your knickers must be seriously twisted.
>>> <snip>
>>> Still refusing to find *any* translation for *any* Sumerian text that
>>> supports your "in vitro fertilization" claim?
>> You must be a terrible researcher. How can you possibly be a
>> scientist?
>
> Where is the empirical evidence for your "in vitro fertilization"
> claim?
I want to see the textual evidence first. He's made a lot of noise about
IVF, but the only "ancient" text that he's ever quoted from directly was
a poem written 8 years ago. I doubt he has even as much as textual
evidence.
Once I've seen that, then I'd be happy to deal with the (non-existent)
empirical evidence.
Iain
Yes, but Allseeing's "Darwin's finch still finch" argument concerns
the immediate parent species. How is that argument supposed to tie in
with fish being mankind's extremely remote ancestor? I can only
interpret Allseeing's remarks are pertaining to the idea that fishkind
begat mankind with nothing in between. If that's not what he meant,
then where does the Darwin's finch business come into it?
--Iain
Ye Old One
<allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Dec 28, 1:56�pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
>> Not stupid enough to think that speciation should result in offspring
>> entirely different from their parents.
>
>Here is an example of evolution's deception.
>
>You still have a Finch.
As explained before, the term "finch" covers a very large number of
species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finch
> No one is expecting it to be something else
>but a finch. But you make it out as if I expected the finch to be
>something other then a finch. Well. I didn't
>
>But you have not shown a single step that take place regarding
>speciation but you call it speciation anyway. All you have shown is
>that reproductive isolation within the same kind of birds is possible.
>
> Then you get shocked when people wonder, how evolution can arrive the
>conclusion that the new finches somehow show that fish can eventually
>become human given enough time.
>
>None of you can list (or explain) the clear order and path that a
>species takes to separate and then produce a new species that is
>nothing like the original.
>
>Until you can, you have nothing but a fairy tale based on conclusions,
>inferences and other assorted deceptions.
The fairy tales are in your bible Mudbrain, not in science.
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.
Dan Listermann
"Ye Old One" <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote in message
news:nntjj55ujg87p4uei...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:36:12 -0800 (PST), All-Seeing-I
> <allse...@usa.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>>On Dec 28, 1:56 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Not stupid enough to think that speciation should result in offspring
>>> entirely different from their parents.
>>
>>Here is an example of evolution's deception.
>>
>>You still have a Finch.
>
> As explained before, the term "finch" covers a very large number of
> species.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finch
>
evolution is false.
.
bpuharic
you're a creationist. what do you know about research?
>
bpuharic
<allse...@usa.com> wrote:
>
>
>No. Each kind of life shares a common ancestor. Nothing has been
>observed diverging to the point that is is no longer anything like
>what it diverged from no matter how long you sit and watch paint peel.
what is a 'kind of life?' and what is 'diverging to the point that it
is no longer like anything...blah blah blah'....
his statement asserts that nothing ever happens in the universe unless
it happens in a human lifetime. good luck with that.
creationism is so dumb....
bpuharic
sure we can. we can test the mechanism of evolution in the lab. it
produces descent with modification. that's observed.
we see the effects in the fossil record and in the nested hiearchy of
life, as evolution predicts.
that's how science works. theory....prediction....test...evidence
but, it's a science thing. you wouldn't understand
back to your cave, creationist
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>OK People. Here is the scoop on Divergence Speciation and the lack of
>evidence thereof:
>
>
>Darwin's Finches. The most famous Case for Speciation.
>
>What do you have at the end of the day?
>
>MORE DAMN FINCHES
>
>HOW STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?
so when humanity's predecessor split into apes and man, we're still
apes?
is that what you're saying? humans and apes are the same thing because
we're just apes??
you creationsits are SSSOOOOOO dumb
so he admits speciation happens then says it doesnt happen because
it's only speciation....
creationism is in very sad shape
Boikat
> On Dec 28, 1:43 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious.
You are a fucking, pig ignorant, stupid fucking troll. Seriously.
>
> > Wow. Your knickers must be seriously twisted.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Still refusing to find *any* translation for *any* Sumerian text that
> > supports your "in vitro fertilization" claim?
>
> You must be a terrible researcher. How can you possibly be a
> scientist?
How would you know? You don't know the first thing about scientific
research. To you, "research" means surfing the net, looking for
something that already agrees with your a-priori conclusions, or that
you *think* poses a problem for the ToE
In this case, "Sumerian in-vitro fertilization", is nowhere to be
found, except on "Woo-Woo" sites, and your T.O. posts. *Nothing*
shows up from any actual archaeological web site.
Boikat
Boikat
It makes his head hurt.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
> OK People. Here is the scoop on Divergence Speciation and the lack of
> evidence thereof:
I have mentioned in a previous thread you started up that the term is
actually "divergent speciation", this is a form of speciation that
results from reproductive isolation.
My question is now, why you ignored my examples in that previous
thread, to start up another thread bleating on about the same thing.
You have already been shown divergent speciation occurs, and that the
horse and donkey are an example of this in progress.
So why do you ignore it?
>
> Darwin's Finches. The most famous Case for Speciation.
>
> What do you have at the end of the day?
>
> MORE DAMN FINCHES
>
> HOW STUPID CAN YOU PEOPLE BE?
> ________________________________
>
> Another example: Hawaiian Drosophila
>
> How do they arrive at divergence?
>
> And I quote:
> "This implies that most new colonization events have lead to
> speciation events! "
>
> What part of the word "IMPLIES" is so hard to understand?
> _______________________________
>
> Another example: African cichlid fishes
>
> They admit
> " remarkable evolution of morphological, ecological and behavioral
> variation in these fish"
>
> What part of VARIATION is so hard to understand?
>
> ______________________________
>
> Finally.
> African cichlid fishes
>
> Quote:
> "the ends of the ring are reproductively isolated implying that
> speciation has gone to completion (an example of geographic
> speciation)"
>
> What part of IMPLYING is so hard to understand?
> Also. DOGS can become reproductivly isolated but guess what? THEY ARE
> STILL A DOG DECENDED FROM SOME TYPE OF ORIGINAL CANID. They did not
> slowly diverging into something that is no longer a dog
>
> ____________________________
>
> http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML
>
> (please note: This is not from a creationist web site)
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why can't any of you face the truth? The above are the most famous
> cases for speciation. Well GUESS WHAT.
>
> You have NOTHING that clearly shows species diverge so far away from
> the original species that they become nothing like that original
> species anymore.
>
> You have conjecture. You have speculation. You have inferences. You
> have presuppositions. You have vague and misleading terms. Even the
> definitions for words are rewritten to make the case --are all rolled
> into one to deceive and lie. PLUS. None of this conforms to the
> scientific method so many of you rant needs to be met for something to
> be scientifically valid.
>
> You got nothing. So stop whining.
>
> And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious. I have read over all
> of this crap and the best argument any of you can make is:
>
> "You do not understand".
>
> Which is bologna. I don't think any of YOU understand or you would not
> be buying into this bullshit called divergence.
>
> Now, I may not be a scientist; But i do know bullshit when i smell it.
> And I am quite sick of a dishonest media repeating lies until they
> become as if they were truth.
>
> You should stop feeding this bull to kids in schools immediately until
> there is conclusive proof that shows (even us dummies) that divergence
> actually takes place.
>
> That means no conjecture, no speculation, no inferences, no
> presuppositions, and no vague and misleading terms. That means an
> observable, testable model. And while you are at it,stop redefining
> words and make the thing clear enough so ALL of us dummies out here
> can clearly see you are telling the truth. Produce something that
> matches what we see taking place on thie planet.
>
> Thanks. :)
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stop crying like a baby.
There are many experts in the field of ancient archeology and
languages and they all conclude in virto and artificial insemination
were the methods used
Caranx latus
<snip failure to provide textual evidence for beliefs>
All-seeing-I
I assure you, more then a gate guard, such as yourself.
John Harshman
I doubt that was what he meant, but you certainly can't tell by
analyzing his posts using logic. Most of what he posts has no logical
connection to the point he's trying to make. Still, I can't rule out
your interpretation either, for the same reason.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:b2de51ea-d26c-488f...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
All of which you are way above mentioning. DODGE!
.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>There are many experts in the field of ancient archeology and
>languages and they all conclude in virto and artificial insemination
>were the methods used
really? i thought they said UFO's were involved...
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 7:17�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 13:41:32 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 28, 1:43 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >> All-seeing-I wrote:
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> > And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious.
>>
>> >> Wow. Your knickers must be seriously twisted.
>>
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> Still refusing to find *any* translation for *any* Sumerian text that
>> >> supports your "in vitro fertilization" claim?
>>
>> >You must be a terrible researcher. How can you possibly be a
>> >scientist?
>>
>> you're a creationist. what do you know about research?
>
>I assure you, more then a gate guard, such as yourself.
fine. then tell us why you don't do any.
how much time have you spent in a lab?
oh. none
>
Eric Root
>
(snip)
> That means an
> observable, testable model. And while you are at it,stop redefining
> words and make the thing clear enough so ALL of us dummies out here
> can clearly see you are telling the truth.
Should we quit teaching algebra until every person with discalculia
can understand it?
> Produce something that
> matches what we see taking place on thie planet.
>
Ta-da! That would be the ToE! Next problem!
> Thanks. :)
You're welcome.
Eric Root
Eric Root
> On Dec 28, 1:56 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > Not stupid enough to think that speciation should result in offspring
> > entirely different from their parents.
>
> Here is an example of evolution's deception.
>
> but a finch. But you make it out as if I expected the finch to be
> something other then a finch. Well. I didn't
Well, you seem to have trouble understanding that every step is such
that offspring are the same kind as their parents. It's just that
they aren't quite the same kind as their umpteen-great-grandparents,
and even less the same kind as _those_ ancestors' umpteen-great-
grandparents. That's exactly what evolution predicts, so not seeing
quicker change does not constitute an argument against evolution.
>
> But you have not shown a single step that take place regarding
> speciation but you call it speciation anyway.
Hundreds of examples have been given to you since you started posting
here.
> All you have shown is
> that reproductive isolation within the same kind of birds is possible.
>
Right. And there is no proposed method of keeping such changes from
going on almost forever.
> �Then you get shocked when people wonder, how evolution can arrive the
> conclusion that the new finches somehow show that fish can eventually
> become human given enough time.
>
No, it's only shocking when they don't change their minds when it's
explained to them. Then we realize they have something wrong with
them.
> None of you can list (or explain) the clear order and path that a
> species takes to separate and then produce a new species that is
> nothing like the original.
>
Come on! You've had the ridiculousness and irrelevance of that demand
explained to you more than once. How dare you ask that we respect
your opinions iin the face of such either dishonesty or stupidity?
(snip dishonesty)
Eric Root
Ye Old One
Liar!
--
Bob.
When D-G made Madman out of clay he forgot to magic the brain. I think
that explains everything.
Reddfrogg
Perhaps you can put a name to some of these "experts", and to the
evidence they used to support their contention?
DJT
hersheyh
> "All-Seeing-I" <allseei...@usa.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0f1b08fb-29bd-47ca...@26g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Dec 28, 1:24 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Scientists have to deal with the data they have. In each case, we have
> >> the choice
> >> of claiming that these different species, that are quite similar, but
> >> occupy different
> >> environments and niches are the result of independent origin, or are
> >> the result of
> >> descent from a common ancestor. Throughout the world, in every
> >> isolated
> >> environment, there are similar radiation of species. In each case, the
> >> species that
> >> are present are only those that can have migrated there in some
> >> plausible way from
> >> related stock. Now in the case of Darwin's finches, we are talking
> >> about variation at the
> >> species level from each other, and at the genus level from the
> >> mainland stock.
>
> >> In the case of other islands, such as Hawaii, or remote locations such
> >> as St. Helena,
> >> whole families, classes, and orders of organisms are found that have
> >> resulted from the
> >> reproductive isolation in those locations. In this case, while we do
> >> not have the
> >> step by step pedigree of organisms that creationists demand, it is
> >> obvious that
> >> common descent of these stocks is implied. The fact that there is no
> >> line whatsoever
> >> that can be drawn saying "beyond which common descent is not possible"
> >> leads us to
> >> the inescapable conclusion that Darwin was right-----all of life
> >> shares common ancestry
>
> > No. Each kind of life shares a common ancestor. Nothing has been
> > observed diverging to the point that is is no longer anything like
> > what it diverged from no matter how long you sit and watch paint peel.
>
> > and then let them produce variations of their own kind until they fill
> > the earth you might have a valid theory.
>
> creatures, can you . . . .You probably can't even see the pathway through
> seals, sea lions, walruses' and beavers and otters, among others. �It is
> just all a coincidence to you.
>
> .
The 'whale' pathway did not *actually* come through seals, beavers,
and otters, as I am sure you know. What those living organisms *do*
is provide evidence that organisms that are *intermediate* in form and
function between whales and a land living ancestor (an artiodactyl)
can exist. The closest living relative to whales are hippos, btw,
which themselves should be added to the list of 'intermediates'
showing that it is possible for a mammalian organism to live in both
water and on land.
Boikat
Projection.
>
> There are many experts in the field of ancient archeology and
> languages and they all
Name them.
> conclude in virto and artificial insemination
> were the methods used.
It's vaguly possible artificial insemination was used in ancient
times, since that is a relatively simple procedure. There's even "how
to's" on the web, the most common is refered to as the "Turkey Baster
Method". In-vitro, is something completely diferent, and I'd like to
see a reference to *that*.
I'm not hlding my breath for acitation from any non-"Woo-Woo" site,
however.
Boikat
Devils Advocaat
> On Dec 28, 1:43 pm, Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > All-seeing-I wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > And NO. I am not a fucking troll. I am serious.
>
> > Wow. Your knickers must be seriously twisted.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > Still refusing to find *any* translation for *any* Sumerian text that
> > supports your "in vitro fertilization" claim?
>
> You must be a terrible researcher. How can you possibly be a
> scientist?
If you made the claim, its down to you to support it.
Like your long unsupported claim that tobacco doesn't cause cancer.
Burkhard
Care citing even one?
Kermit
> On 28 Dec, 18:44, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > OK People. Here is the scoop on Divergence Speciation and the lack of
> > evidence thereof:
>
> I have mentioned in a previous thread you started up that the term is
> actually "divergent speciation", this is a form of speciation that
> results from reproductive isolation.
>
> My question is now, why you ignored my examples in that previous
> thread, to start up another thread bleating on about the same thing.
>
> You have already been shown divergent speciation occurs, and that the
> horse and donkey are an example of this in progress.
>
> So why do you ignore it?
>
Korsakoff's syndrome.
I met a young woman with it; it's quite sad. She was seriously
crippled. The determined ignorance of the Creationist and his or her
invincible shield against learning, which mimics this in important
ways, is equally tragic.
<snip>
All-seeing-I
As opposed to "evolutionary-downs-syndrome'
raven1
Down Syndrome is caused by the presence of an extra whole (in most
cases) or partial copy of chromosome 21. What your point is, I can't
begin to fathom.
mur...@tntech.edu
What do you know about research?
---DPM
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you must beg, get on your knees.
Dan Listermann
<mur...@tntech.edu> wrote in message
news:5612ea3e-3a86-4023...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
It seems that hanging around goatherds can be enlightening. Don't ask me.
.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>If you must beg, get on your knees.
Non-responsive reply duly noted.
Devils Advocaat
Also known as Trisomy 21, one of many such chromosomal anomalies,
which I mentioned in passing in a recent thread.
As to the point of ASI's post, it was a lame attempt to insult others
who don't agree with him.
Ye Old One
Most Downs sufferers and more intelligent than you, and much nicer to
talk to.
--
Bob.
Have you ever wondered what your life would be like if you had had
enough oxygen at birth?