Search results

1. There is too. 2. No it hasn't. 3. Cite the source. 4. In your opinion.

My post was intended as sarcasm. :)

God is the answer to all questions. Surely you must recognize this by now. Only a fool would deny God and risk eternal damnation. Scientific investigation is simply unnecessary. Knowledge of the physical world is useless. Put your faith in the Lord and all things good will come to you...

These "gentlemen" aren't interested in an intelligent discussion about any substantive issue, and I don't have time for silly games intended to bait me into rearguing the same points over and over. If I read an opposing argument supported by credible evidence, I may rejoin the discussion...

Even your insults are boring.

Talk to the hand.

Whatever.

The only "member" that's been taken away here is the one between your legs.

See below... Uh hummmm...riiiiiiight.

Still waiting for you to prove your above claim that neither the origin of biological life by chance or design can withstand scientific scrutiny.

Fertility with A is irrelevant to the outcome of the speciation. Example: suppose AA and BB comprise the entire set of A, such that no other A can possibly exist. At this point AA + BB ARE A, because that's all there is in the set of all A. Now change an allele in AA and change a...

Edit to previous post: "It may be that group AA or BB might still be inter-fertile if brought together with original species A. But, that doesn't matter, because as long as AA and BB are not inter-fertile with each other, they have speciated."

Maybe we're misunderstanding each other. You refer to species AA and BB as descendant of species A. They're not descendent, because AA and BB are not new species. They are different isolated groups of the original species A, who because of their isolation, over time, obtain changes in their...

Changes in alleles do not necessarily carry with them a certificate of infertility. So, if a change in an allele in group AA is propagated to group AA offspring and does not affect intra-group fertility, then the change is preserved. Similarly, for group BB. Only the change to group BB is...

Well, if you say that "neither can withstand scrutiny and reasonable evaluation logically and scientifically to conclude that the origin of biological life is chance over design, or vice versa...", then per your position that people should prove their claims true, it is now up to you to prove...

Just because you declare as true that "the propagation of alleles is an insufficient explanation, as would be chromosomal doubling," your declaration is merely your unsupported conclusion. I don't need to describe the process which you request, because your requested process is unnecessary...

So, let me get this straight: you are claiming that I'm sleeping with my mother and beating my kids -- and therefore it's up to me to prove it false? Also, you still haven't explained why you constantly whine like a babe about intelligent design being true, but never offer any proof to...

Exposed? Please explain.

Yes, as I have already stated. If you advance intelligent design, it falls to you to prove your claim, rather than continuously whine that design is self evident. As for the rest of your post -- it's drool. Wipe your chin after you finish your baby food.

If what you are stating were true, then AA, BB and CC could never have diverged in the first place because their infertility would have prevented the divergence. The point of a ring species is that while the chromosomal differences in one group are insufficient to render offspring sterile...