Search results

Are you stating that while you admit that groups AA, BB and CC can become infertile with each other, that none of those individual groups' members can remain fertile within their own group?

As you say, it's your job to prove your theory right. This begs the question of why you always demand that your opponents prove your claims wrong, rather than you proving yours right. Hypocracy becomes you. As for the court of law comment, we're not in court, so this is irrelevant...

I don't know why you're having difficulty visualizing the process. It's quite simple: 1. Member AA of species A has a change in an allele which does not prohibit breeding with other members of species A. 2. Member BB of species A has a change in an allele which does not prohibit breeding...

Maybe so -- maybe not. Either way, the syntactic similarities of the conversationalists are too close to be dismissed.

And, yet you won't disprove the claim that you and Jampilier are one in the same. Evidently your credibility isn't worth much even to you.

Prove you're not Jampilier and I'll publicly apologize. As far as substantive claims for evolution, I have scientific evidence to support each claim I make. You have only bluster and multiple aliases.

The only thing common in this forum is your use of multiple aliases to prop up your arguments that cannot stand up on their own.

Prove you're not Z and not sharing your ID with him. If you do, I'll publicly apologize. Funny that you would use the term "clownish" only moments after Z used a similar reference about me in a different thread.

Your willful avoidance of the scientific evidence explaining your misunderstanding only maintains your ignorance. That's your choice.

I'm sorry that real evolution avoids your strawman with such ease -- but it does. I take it back. I'm not sorry at all. In fact, I'm rather pleased to be able to provide you with some education -- despite your steadfast resistance.

Silly is right. Clowns have bulbous red noses. Just look in the mirror.

Z's premise is false, and represents a misunderstanding of how natural evolution operates. No example evidence of can possibly be produced to meet his requirement, because his requirement is not an example of evolutionary speciation.

Your premise is false -- and I suggest that it is intentionally so. In natural evolution, a group AA of species A will be geographically dissociated from some group BB, while both groups remain inter-fertile members of species A. Over time both groups will develop allele differences which...

Z's test is a catch-22, for the reasons already stated. And, you're gonna let him move the target on you as soon as you produce any evidence, unless you force him to adopt a reasonable scientific definition of speciation -- something which he will never do -- at least not intentionally.

Nothing silly about it, ZZZzzzzzzz. You have set up conditions which are not remotely representative of natural speciation. In your test, species A cannot breed with species B, to produce a fertile offspring C, which cannot breed with either A or B, because by your own definition of...

Any/every existing species whose ancestors are now extinct satisfies your silly request.

There's no point in producing evidence only to have it dismissed as not meeting a set of conditions which are constantly redefined so as to avoid admitting that observed speciation is scientifically established.

Don't fall for the ploy. He will consistently move the goal posts to avoid admitting observed speciation if you don't force him to define all of the conditions in advance. And, if he does define all the conditions, they will likely be set up so as to be impossible to satisify under any...

Well, now we know what your "out" is. Cowardice works pretty well.

Still waiting for those definitions, bub.