You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
" if you can't produce something then admit it."
Not a chance of that happening...
If these clowns have reasoned that all the ID supporters in this thread are the same person...then that is a perfect demonstration of how wacko their powers of observation and deduction really are, how they reason from conclusion, and have no means to verify their claims...then having made claims without fact, they challenge you to "prove me wrong."
So silly...
Not a chance of that happening...
If these clowns have reasoned that all the ID supporters in this thread are the same person...then that is a perfect demonstration of how wacko their powers of observation and deduction really are, how they reason from conclusion, and have no means to verify their claims...then having made claims without fact, they challenge you to "prove me wrong."
So silly...
Quote from ratboy88:
this isn't about producing something that meets ZZZzzzzzz's approval. come on, you are losing credibility fast. if you can't produce something then admit it.
Quote from Jampilier:
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 parents? We can examine how viable this process is as well.
Species: a group whose members can interbreed.
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 will not affect intra-group fertility, but which will eventually prevent inter-group fertility. And, the result is species AA and species BB. Meanwhile, species A will no longer exist -- it will have become "extinct," as neither AA nor BB will be a genetic match to what species A once was.
Thus there is no "direct" path from two parents of species A to a single child of species B, because this would be a practical impossibility, as there would be no second member of the new species B with which any other members of species B could be reproduced.
Your required test does not occur in nature (or if it does occur, examples would be incredibly rare), because of the near zero probability of two offspring of a species A being produced simultaneously, from two different sets of species A parents, with their respective offspring capable of reproducing among each other, but not with their respective sets of parents.
However, scientific evidence exists demonstrating that successive incidences of geographical dissociation will produce a "ring species," of groups A, B, C, etc., where group members A <-> B, and B <-> C are inter-fertile, but groups A <-> C are not. Species A and C, thus originated from the same same species A, yet no "direct" species C offspring of species A ever existed.
So, Z, your premise -- is false.
Quote from ratboy88:
this isn't about producing something that meets ZZZzzzzzz's approval. come on, you are losing credibility fast. if you can't produce something then admit it.
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.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
" if you can't produce something then admit it."
Not a chance of that happening...
If these clowns have reasoned that all the ID supporters in this thread are the same person...then that is a perfect demonstration of how wacko their powers of observation and deduction really are, how they reason from conclusion, and have no means to verify their claims...then having made claims without fact, they challenge you to "prove me wrong."
So silly...
Silly is right. Clowns have bulbous red noses. Just look in the mirror.
"a group AA of species A will be geographically dissociated from some group BB"
Oh man, now the "chance mutations" aren't enough, we have to have geographical dissociations...
LOL!
Oh man, now the "chance mutations" aren't enough, we have to have geographical dissociations...
LOL!
Quote from john dough:
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 will not affect intra-group fertility, but which will eventually prevent inter-group fertility. And, the result is species AA and species BB. Meanwhile, species A will no longer exist -- it will have become "extinct," as neither AA nor BB will be a genetic match to what species A once was.
Thus there is no "direct" path from two parents of species A to a single child of species B, because this would be a practical impossibility, as there would be no second member of the new species B with which any other members of species B could be reproduced.
Your required test does not occur in nature (or if it does occur, examples would be incredibly rare), because of the near zero probability of two offspring of a species A being produced simultaneously, from two different sets of species A parents, with their respective offspring capable of reproducing among each other, but not with their respective sets of parents.
However, scientific evidence exists demonstrating that successive incidences of geographical dissociation will produce a "ring species," of groups A, B, C, etc., where group members A <-> B, and B <-> C are inter-fertile, but groups A <-> C are not. Species A and C, thus originated from the same same species A, yet no "direct" species C offspring of species A ever existed.
So, Z, your premise -- is false.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
"a group AA of species A will be geographically dissociated from some group BB"
Oh man, now the "chance mutations" aren't enough, we have to have geographical dissociations...
LOL!
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.
this is no bluff...Quote from 2cents:
i don't care if jampi or zizzz are the same or different species...
basically there are positive answers to jampi's question... if you find them, don't blow it... if he's got any balls, i am expecting him to meet this test first:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1279073&highlight=erroneous#post1279073
what is he afraid to lose?
zizzz are u game? since jampy doesn't seem to have it...
Only so called "scientists" can take something as simple as nature and make up a complicated explanation to rationalize their unproved position...
What was it about the simplest theory usually being the right one?
LOL...
What was it about the simplest theory usually being the right one?
LOL...
Quote from john dough:
I'm sorry that real evolution avoids your strawman with such ease -- but it does.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Only so called "scientists" can take something as simple as nature and make up a complicated explanation to rationalize their unproved position...
What was it about the simplest theory usually being the right one?
LOL...
Your willful avoidance of the scientific evidence explaining your misunderstanding only maintains your ignorance. That's your choice.