Search results

"Imagine evolution." That's the foundation of Darwinism.

Dude, why don't you start a thread that's just you posting to yourself?

America is less about where you came from as a member of a group and more about where you are going as an individual. All are welcome. Everyone assimilates.

Ah yes, the surest sign of an ass-kicking thoroughly received: The bitchy ad hominem comeback.

With any mutation effecting the fertility of an individual within either AA or BB, there is now a new group CC composed of only that member. That's the takeaway.

No, infertility with A is required by definition. With any mutation effecting the fertility of an individual within either AA or BB, there is now a new group CC composed of only that member. Surely you realize that. Exactly, it is INFERTILITY between A and AA or BB that is required, as...

I appreciate the effort, but there still seems to be a logic problem in your argument. Perhaps you can explain how AA can be infertile with BB, while at the same time both AA and BB are fertile with a common ancestor, namely A.

There is no such process without species A becoming mutually infertile with at least one of its descendant species AA or BB. So again, you're dodging the question.

I get the feeling you're preparing to declare victory and flee the field. Your repeated returns to ring species fail to address the logical flaw in your position. The fertility or infertility between daughter "species" is not a point in contention. I am not disputing that at all, and I...

That's right. That's basically a repeat of what you have already stated. In response, I will paste in a paragraph from what I just posted earlier: What has never been shown, and what you don't seem able to describe, is a process whereby an internally fertile group A "evolves" into an...

Correct, putting aside one-step processes that can't be extended to produce a diversity of species. Note that any candidate process must be extendable to produce a diversity of species, otherwise it can't be the basis of so-called evolution.

This appears to be a difficult concept for some, so I'll spell it out in simpler terms. The divergence in fertility between AA, BB or CC is not the issue. It doesn't matter how many daughter "species" are produced that are not fertile with each other. That happens all the time through...

And I'm still waiting for your example of species A and species B where A lead to B by this "evolution" process you keep referring to.

Now it looks like you're trying a dodge. At some point, species A must develop a first member of species AA, if AA is a product of the evolution of A, and at some point, species A must develop a first member of species BB, if BB is a product of the evolution of A. Yes, that appears to be...

You yourself brought up hybrids. I'm asking for examples, and we'll see where it leads. What's the big deal?

Nevertheless, at some point, species A must develop a first member of species B, if B is a product of the direct evolution of A. An instance of that, or the original: What are the species names of two parents and their hybridization that is fertile with itself and infertile with both...

Now you're being silly. Tell me the species names of two parents and their hybridization that is fertile with itself and infertile with both parents, and I'll go look them up and get back to you.

I'll do my best. Repeating: Give me an example of a hybrid "species" that is fertile with itself and not fertile with either parent species.

I suggest you look them up yourself.

Give me an example of a hybrid "species" that is fertile with itself and not fertile with either parent species.