Big contradictions in the evolution theory

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Oh, the good old days when I came here first and still was inclined to take everyone seriously!

Oh I am well aware of the old Jokers here, and I'm sure they bred like crazy in my absense

 

[quatona]

Oh I am well aware of the old Jokers here, and I'm sure they bred like crazy in my absense

..but Carico - at least in my memory (which might be fooling me for several reasons) - was certainly playing in a league of his own.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can grant that? Cool

I sent you 30,000 blessings.

Click on USER PANEL
Then BLESSINGS
Then PRODUCTS (under SHOP)
Select 30 DAY PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

 

[AirPo]

I thought I made a good point in post 198.

Biological evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Did I do this correctly AV?

#1

 

[Justatruthseeker]

On paper.

Biological evolution requires you to pencil in anything that hasn't been found.

And to mark out all the infraspecific taxa within a species and pencil them in as separate species instead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And to mark out all the infraspecific taxa within a species and pencil them in as separate species instead.

Wrong, try again. We have been over this. Or did you forget your failure with the fertility of Ligers and tions?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wrong, try again. We have been over this. Or did you forget your failure with the fertility of Ligers and tions?

Except once again you never do your research.

Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!

And you might look up li-ligers.

So before you talk about failures you should gaze long into the mirror and admit your own since they are deffinately producing fertile offspring. So again we just have the incorrect classification of infraspecific taxa as separate species.

And I am still waiting for the list of those infraspecific taxa in the fossil record.

Did you think you could get out of that by attempting to change the subject?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except once again you never do your research.

Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!

And you might look up li-ligers.

So before you talk about failures you should gaze long into the mirror and admit your own since they are deffinately producing fertile offspring. So again we just have the incorrect classification of infraspecific taxa as separate species.

And I am still waiting for the list of those infraspecific taxa in the fossil record.

Did you think you could get out of that by attempting to change the subject?

You made the same error that you did last time. You found a bogus post that thinks in the same errant all or nothing terms that you do. The fertility of Tigons and Ligers is greatly reduced. I did not say sterile.

See if you can find a valid source that says that they are not of greatly reduced fertility, otherwise simple sources such as Wikipedia are far better than the lame source that you used:

Tigon - Wikipedia

Liger - Wikipedia

"The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y).

According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[18]"

Please note, it points out that the fertility was so reduced that they were thought to be sterile. Reduced sterility of that degree is enough to demonstrate that they are different species. You can't make up your own definitions every time that you are shown to be wrong.

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[19]

 

[Kenny'sID]

Biological evolution requires you to pencil in anything that hasn't been found.

And to mark out all the infraspecific taxa within a species and pencil them in as separate species instead.

I'd guess that happens a lot more of that than we'll ever know. Opinions to pencil and from pencil to fact, all because someone thought that might be the way it is. But in the end, that makes perfect sense, in that it takes those type actions to conclude something no one has ever proven, is now "fact".

It used to be the "Theory of Evolution" yet today many claim it's fact, and for the life of me, I don't recall any particularly convincing finds between theory and fact, so all I can reasonably conclude is someone isn't telling the truth. So following that, the thought process would be if they aren't telling the truth there, how often did they do the same to get where they supposedly got with evolution in the first place?

 

[Jimmy D]

so all I can reasonably conclude is someone isn't telling the truth. So following that, the thought process would be if they aren't telling the truth there, how often did they do the same to get where they supposedly got with evolution in the first place?

Who's not telling the truth?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Look if we'd come from the Apes how come it was "Adam" and "Eve", not

 

[Speedwell]

It used to be the "Theory of Evolution" yet today many claim it's fact...

No problem, it's easy to get confused. Facts are facts, theories are explanations of facts.
Evolution is a fact: life has adapted and diversified since it came into existence, producing countless new species. The theory of evolution is not a fact, it is an explanation for the fact of evolution.

 

[kekinean]

MENSTRUASI

 

[kekinean]

 

[kekinean]

I have yet to see one post of yours that contains any facts, Nathan. Your comments only show you cannot defend your position. Attacks only show frustration at the lack of evidence for your comments. That's the easiest thing in the world to do. As Jesus said to the paralytic; "Which is easier; to say your sins are forgiven or to say; "get up and walk?" Unless you can put your money where your mouth is, your posts are not credible.

 

[Freodin]

Wow... an AV-worthy necro!

Nice way to introduce yourself, kekinean.

 

[AirPo]

Wow... an AV-worthy necro!

Nice way to introduce yourself, kekinean.

Or is it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or is it?

You won't see me complaining (like others do).

 

[USincognito]

..but Carico - at least in my memory (which might be fooling me for several reasons) - was certainly playing in a league of his own.

Her. Her name is Heidi Carico.

 

[samiam]

POE'S LAW:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is uttrerly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

This is probably the single most famous posting ever made at ChristianForums, establishing the well known Poe’s law. Now, I don’t think Nathan Poe still posts here, but I propose an important corollary to Poe’s law:

It is possible to find, somewhere on the Internet, someone who actually advocates the straw man argument we’re about to tear down

Just as, with Poe’s law, there isn’t an argument so bad that it has to be a parody, there isn’t an argument so bad that someone hasn’t made it somewhere on the Internet.

I propose calling this rule the Strawman Corollary to Poe’s Law.

For example, if we want to condemn the BLM protests because they include looting, we can, if we look hard enough, find people who actually advocate looting:

* Did a BLM Organizer Say, 'I Don’t Care If Someone Decides to Loot'?
* One Author's Controversial View: 'In Defense Of Looting'

We can use these two examples to support the straw man argument that BLM protests are bad because BLM protesters advocate looting and property destruction. Of course, finding two people on the Internet who advocate looting at BLM protests does not mean that’s a mainstream position of BLM protesters.