Intelligent Design is not creationism

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

My "willful" avoiding you trying to explain science, after your stupid claim that everyone is ZZZzzzzzzz is common sense....

Hubristic science followers, the flip side of the coin from the Hubristic "saved" and "chosen" theists are the same animal who live off of dogmatic fumes...

Quote from john dough:

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

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

My "willful" avoiding you trying to explain science, after your stupid claim that everyone is ZZZzzzzzzz is common sense....

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.

 

[2cents]

Quote from 2cents:

this is no bluff...

zizzz are u game? since jampy doesn't seem to have it...

seems you don't have the balls either... what a surprise

g'nite all

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

More making claims for which you have no proof, seems to be a habit...

Quote from john dough:

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.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

More making claims for which you have no proof, seems to be a habit...

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.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

You claim something to be true, can't prove it, then demand someone else prove you wrong.

Classic childish thinking...

Quote from john dough:

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.

 

[john dough]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

You claim something to be true, can't prove it, then demand someone else prove you wrong.

Classic childish thinking...

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.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

It is not up to me to prove your claim wrong. It is your job to prove it right...

Doh!

You would do wonders in a court of law...

LOL!

The moderators have the proof, they see not only the IP address, but can tell you what state it is coming from.

You are such a tool. A grand conspiracy theory, too funny...

Quote from john dough:

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.

 

[Jampilier]

Quote from 2cents:

tick tock tick tock tick tock.... so how about those balls jampy matey?

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

 

[Jampilier]

Quote from john dough:

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.

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.

Quote from john dough:

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.

Yes, that appears to be a rather serious logical problem for your "evolution" theory.

Saying there is no "direct" path but rather a path of some other sort really doesn't solve anything, because you still need a CONTINUITY of parent and child between species A and species B.

How does that work, exactly?

Quote from john dough:

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.

Then produce an observation of that happening.