Quote from john dough:
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.
Quote from john dough:
Exposed? Please explain.
Quote from john dough:
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.
Quote from john dough:
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:
Everyone who is posting in support of non ID is you.
How do we know? Because I claim it, and you have to prove me wrong.
Oy vey...
Oh, and you have to prove the other claims wrong too, you know, sleeping with your mother, beating your kids...
Quote from john dough:
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 support your claim. That seems quite inconsistent with your insistence that I prove all my claims true.
Why can't I use your approach? Do you have some special authority to which others are not also entitled?
Quote from Jampilier:
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 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.
There is no ring species that satisfies those conditions.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I see no proof of non ID, I see guesswork with lots of holes, followed with dogmatic belief being practiced here by the supporters of non ID. The non ID types here are downright evangelical in their comments.
I am not saying ID is true, not saying no ID is true, I am saying that neither one can withstand scrutiny and reasonable evaluation logically, and scientifically to conclude the origin of biological life is chance over design, or vice versa...
Consequently, I think neither should be taught in school systems, or used to indoctrinate youth into either belief system...teach agnosticism and real scientific approaches, and remove dogmatism.
Quote from john dough:
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 for evolution to proceed via ring speciation. Which is what the referenced article demonstrates.
Quote from Jampilier:
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 don't rely on it either way. All it looks to be is an attempt on your part at changing the conversation.
Again:
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. That is, you still haven't shown how group B could become infertile with group A while SIMULTANEOUSLY maintaining fertility within itself.
So far, your arguments have been rather lacking.