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
Quote from Jampilier:
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 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?
Then produce an observation of that happening.
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 with other members of species A.
3. The change in allele attributed to member AA, and which does not prohibit breeding with other members of group AA, propagates across a geographically isolated portion of species A.
4. The change in allele attributed to member BB, and which does not prohibit breeding with other members of group BB, propagates across a different geographically isolated portion of species A.
5. Step 1 through 4 are repeated until the change in alleles of the two groups AA and BB, while insufficient to prevent breeding among each respective group, becomes sufficient to prevent breeding between the two groups.
6. AA and BB are now distinct species, incapable of breeding with each other.
Sample evidence: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=16050109&query_hl=40&itool=pubmed_docsum
Doubtless you have similar peer-reviewed evidence to support your theory of intelligent design. I look forward to your presentation.
Quote from 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...
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.
Finally, what the moderators have is only proof when evaluated by disinterested third party. Without such a control, there is no means of determining whether or not the moderators are providing unbiased evidence.
Quote from john dough:
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 with other members of species A.
3. The change in allele attributed to member AA, and which does not prohibit breeding with other members of group AA, propagates across a geographically isolated portion of species A.
4. The change in allele attributed to member BB, and which does not prohibit breeding with other members of group BB, propagates across a different geographically isolated portion of species A.
5. Step 1 through 4 are repeated until the change in alleles of the two groups AA and BB, while insufficient to prevent breeding among each respective group, becomes sufficient to prevent breeding between the two groups.
6. AA and BB are now distinct species, incapable of breeding with each other.
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 artificial means.
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 internally fertile group B that is not fertile with group A. The propagation of alleles is an insufficient explanation, as would be chromosomal doubling. That is, you still haven't shown how group B could become infertile with group A while SIMULTANEOUSLY maintaining fertility within itself.
Get it?
Quote from Jampilier:
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 artificial means.
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 internally fertile group B that is not fertile with group A. The propagation of alleles is an insufficient explanation, as would be chromosomal doubling. That is, you still haven't shown how group B could become infertile with group A while SIMULTANEOUSLY maintaining fertility within itself.
Get it?
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?
Quote from pattersb:
I have but one small request. Could you provide a brief description of the peer-reviewed, and therefore most-likely correct, theories of existence?
Ask and you shall recieve.
I took the liberty to create a new thread of thought...here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1279717#post1279717
I invite my peers to review it.
Jesus
So if I claimed you sleep with your mother, or are beating your kids, or that all non ID supporters are the same person, you have to prove me wrong to maintain your credibility?
LOL...
The responsibility is on you, when you make claims to prove them true.
Your claim is false, prove it to be true.
"Finally, what the moderators have is only proof when evaluated by disinterested third party. Without such a control, there is no means of determining whether or not the moderators are providing unbiased evidence."
Oy vey, now it is some grand conspiracy that the moderators would be in on...that I would have power over them.
Get a grip, if I had that kind of power, I could just ban you ass...I could manipulate your posts, etc.
Seek professional help...
LOL...
The responsibility is on you, when you make claims to prove them true.
Your claim is false, prove it to be true.
"Finally, what the moderators have is only proof when evaluated by disinterested third party. Without such a control, there is no means of determining whether or not the moderators are providing unbiased evidence."
Oy vey, now it is some grand conspiracy that the moderators would be in on...that I would have power over them.
Get a grip, if I had that kind of power, I could just ban you ass...I could manipulate your posts, etc.
Seek professional help...
Quote from john dough:
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.
Finally, what the moderators have is only proof when evaluated by disinterested third party. Without such a control, there is no means of determining whether or not the moderators are providing unbiased evidence.
Quote from john dough:
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?
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.
Quote from Jampilier:
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 couldn't be the basis of so-called evolution.
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 intra-group, upon the occurrence of multiple diverging intra-fertile groups, eventually a sufficient DNA divergence between the endpoint groups exists so as to render them infertile.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
So if I claimed you sleep with your mother, or are beating your kids, or that all non ID supporters are the same person, you have to prove me wrong to maintain your credibility?
LOL...
The responsibility is on you, when you make claims to prove them true.
Your claim is false, prove it to be true.
"Finally, what the moderators have is only proof when evaluated by disinterested third party. Without such a control, there is no means of determining whether or not the moderators are providing unbiased evidence."
Oy vey, now it is some grand conspiracy that the moderators would be in on...that I would have power over them.
Get a grip, if I had that kind of power, I could just ban you ass...I could manipulate your posts, etc.
Seek professional help...
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.