Are there transitional fossils?

[Justatruthseeker]

Science disagrees. Hyracotherium is regarded as the ancestor of the horse and zebra. It led to the Eohippus, which is now regarded a different genus, that led to the Orohippus and all the other fossils leading up to the horse and zebra.

What about the Eohippus or Merychippus? Do you think they are in the horse family?

Right and before that you believed it was equus. But now you want me to believe that they were wrong but now right.

You still haven't given me any evidence to believe they are correct when they can't even get babies and adults of the same species correct.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I did, you just never read it like you never read anything.

Are there transitional fossils?

You are trying to jump into a conversation you know nothing about nor have the knowledge to comprehend.

Yeah, that article isn't saying what you think it's saying. That article is only talking about dogs IN RUSSIA. Not the world. IN RUSSIA.
LEARN TO READ BASIC ENGLISH.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Right and before that you believed it was equus. But now you want me to believe that they were wrong but now right.

Uh, no I never said that Hyracotherium was Equus. Again, here is a chart of what we have found in the horse series:

Equus is at the top of the chart. It does not appear until the last few million years. It is a genus that includes the modern horse species, donkey and zebra. Hyracotherium is a different genus, from 50 million years ago, at the bottom of the chart.

Hyracotherium is virtually identical to Eohippus. In fact, at one time they were considered the same genus. They are that close. But now they are regarded as two different genera. Not only that, but Eohippus is still considered in the "horse family" while Hyracotherium is not. But the line between "horse family" and "not horse family" is strictly arbitrary. With a continuous sequence of fossils going back through time, where does one draw the line? It has been decided to draw the line between two very close genera, the Hyracotherium and the Eohippus. But that is strictly arbitrary.

But anyway, if you strike Hyracotherium off as not a horse ancestor, what about Eohippus? What about Orohippus? What about Merychippus? Somewhere you need to draw the line. And wherever you choose, there will be something just over the line that looks very much like the animals you included.

All of this is expected from evolution. None of this is expected from young earth creationism.

What is your explanation for why the fossil record looks like this? Why isn't it donkeys and zebras all the way down to 6000 years ago, and then no more fossils?

You still haven't given me any evidence to believe they are correct when they can't even get babies and adults of the same species correct.

Oh dear, somebody once misidentified a fossil so you conclude that all identification of fossils is wrong. (Except, of course, when they say something you think supports your case, in which case, we are told we should never question the pronouncement of that scientist.)

I disagree. That fact that a scientist once made a mistake does not prove all scientists are wrong.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, they didn't evolve at all. Two subspecies merely mated and the joining of genomes created different subspecies, just like we observe with dogs.

Wait, if the finches on the Galapagos came from two sub-species of finch, doesn't that agree with what I said that they came from one species? And yet when I say the Galapagos finches came from a small group of one species of finch, you say no, they came from two sub-species of the same species of finch. Huh? How does this contradict what I said?

Regardless, all the finches of the Galapagos appear to have come from one species (or as you put it, two sub species of the same species). They then spread out to form what scientists now regard as multiple different species.

The article you quoted said the original finches on the islands were about 1.5 million years ago. Do you agree that this is when the first finch reached the islands? If not, when do you think it happened?

What do you find difficult to understand when they are interbreeding and producing fertile offspring right in front of their noses?

You misunderstand the concept of species. "Species" is not a cast in stone definition, with all members of a species interbreeding and no gene transfer outside the species. Rather there is a huge gray area, with anywhere from frequent gene transfer to a gene transfer that occurs only in exceptional conditions. So where do we draw the line as to where a species ends? Species are an arbitrary definition simply for convenience in naming animals.

Now if a scientist was arguing that two different finches were not interbreeding, when they were interbreeding "under their nose", that would be wrong. But they are not arguing that. So you appear to misunderstand "different species of finches" to mean "groups that never, ever, have gene transfer between them," but that is not what species means.

Today, most biologists are more interested in understanding the process of speciation than in trying to find a strict species definition that is always applicable. Speciation is usually a gradual process, so it is not unusual to encounter populations that are only partly reproductively isolated. This means that individuals from diverged lineages may still exchange genes to a limited degree, perhaps even to the extent that they will merge again. These situations are challenging for both the biological species concepts and lineage species concepts. Although some people may wish for a black-and-white criterion for defining species, this is unrealistic. By analogy, imagine a population of maturing humans. Most individuals will be easily recognized as children or adults, but some will be difficult to categorize and these difficult individuals might be tagged differently by different people using different criteria (e.g., different physical characteristics, different measures of emotional maturity, etc.). Similarly, most individual birds or snails or mushrooms can be readily categorized as belonging to one species or another, but exceptions are not rare. (source)​

Must I show you where other birds that were thought to be reproductively isolated from others when found to be mating were reclassified as the same species? So apparently they know the right thing to do, just refuse to do it.

You are arguing from semantics. You are arguing whether it is OK to call these finches by a different species name. See Darwin Finches - Galapagos Darwin Finch Facts with Quasar Expeditions. All agree that each finch basically interbreeds with itself, but there has been some gene transfer between them.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And yet radiocarbon dating their fossils gives dates of 45,000 to 85,000.

Why is it acceptable to accept radiocarbon dates on canine fossils but refuse to accept them on Dino fossils? Besides that they want to believe one is correct and the other incorrect because it doesn't agree with their pet theory?

Radiocarbon dating? Why would one use radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils? Radiocarbon is not accurate beyond 50,000 years. At that point, all it can tell you is that this object must be older than 50,000 years. So I am not at all surprised that a method that is good at dating recent objects, but can not tell us the actual date of Jurassic objects, tells us that dinosaur fossils are somewhere more than 50,000 years old.

When we use methods that are meant to measure really old stuff, we find the dinosaur bones are in layers that are over 60 million years old.

 

[xianghua]

The occurrence of a fossil ape in Mesozoic rocks would be quite impossible and would contradict everything that we know about the evolution of primates.

what is the problem? we can say that apes exist eariler then we assumed. we just dont find yet their fossils. remember then even according to evolution about 99% from the species that ever exist dont left any fossil.

If the Devonian tetrapods didn't have Silurian ancestors, where do you think that they came from?

they was designed, and doesnt evolved from other species.

by the way- your link need to registration. but lets assume that those tracks are indeed not a real tracks.

 

[doubtingmerle]

what is the problem? we can say that apes exist eariler then we assumed. we just dont find yet their fossils. remember then even according to evolution about 99% from the species that ever exist dont left any fossil.

We have found many fossils in the ape family, but none that date to dinosaur times. That makes it extremely unlikely that we will find an ape fossil back then. Should we find one, that either means that apes and mammals evolved a lot earlier than expected, or that this ape somehow came from somewhere else (popped into existance, came on a rocket from the planet of the apes, fell down a hole and ended up in an older layer, etc.) That would be huge news, and scientists would work to resolve the problem.

But again all your arguments seem to be based on "what if". What if we find a fossil that refutes the known fossil record? Then we deal with it. But for now what we have is a very clear fossil record, which tells a very significant story about the past, and we go by it. We have found enough fossils that we can say with statistical certainty that microbes existed long before trilobites, that trilobites existed long before fish, that fish existed long before Tiktaalik, that Tiktaalik existed long before mammal-like reptiles, that mammal-like reptiles existed long before early placental mammals, that early placental mammals existed long before apes, and that apes existed long before humans. We can make such claims with statistical certainty, because there is so much evidence for each claim. We have known this for many years, and have found nothing to refute it.

And yet you will make a case over the idea that perhaps the first land dweller has been on the land a little earlier than we had previously had evidence for. This is not a major upset to science. Scientists are looking at it, and seeing if they need to make a minor adjustment in the timetable. None of this refutes the major timeline we found.

they was designed, and doesnt evolved from other species.

Why do the two need to be mutually exclusive? Why does "being designed" exclude "evolved"? Couldn't a creature have both evolved and been designed? You have been asked that over and over. You refuse to answer. And you keep coming back with, "It was designed, therefore it couldn't have evolved." And you must surely know how I will answer when you say that. I will ask why it couldn't be both designed and evolved. And you know i will ask that, and yet you just keep coming back with the claim that if it was designed, then it could not have possibly evolved.

You have not proven that any creature was designed. But even if you had, that would not rule out evolution. That would not prove the theistic evolutionists here are wrong. But that will not stop you form pretending that all the posts that told you this were never written. Why are you doing that?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, we are going to settle the issue once and for all. For the sake of this debate we will assume that Leptocyon is indeed the predecessor to the wolf species. we will assume it has been proven beyond all shadow of a doubt. You may have as many or as few transitional links between it and it's decendant the wolf. I will assume for this debate the number and forms are also beyond doubt.

We know for a fact that the decendant the Cocker Spaniel has gone through several transitional forms from its predecessor the wolf. See attached image provided by an evolutionary site.

Now we all understand that the decendant of the wolf, the Cocker Spaniel, despite having gone through several intermediary transitional forms, is of the same species as it's predecessor the wolf. This is indisputable as DNA evidence shows this to be simple fact.

If we apply what we know is fact and using the same logic, then the wolf and Leptocyon, along with all the transitional forms between them, are also all of the same species.

You may of course ignore genetic evidence and known lineages, and pure logic. But unless you have direct evidence they are separate species besides "they said so", it will simply show you are protesting for no other reason than to protest.

Likewise all of your transitional and predecessors in all other lineages when the facts are combined with logic show they as well are the same species. At least those you have kind of, sort of correct except for having gone species happy.

There is no evidence that the Leptocyon is of a seperate species, in fact the evidence points to it being the same species. And this is why your fossil classifications of those subspecies, breeds, taxa, strains, whatever you want to call them is flawed and does not match reality or emperical evidence in the slightest.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have found many fossils in the ape family, but none that date to dinosaur times. That makes it extremely unlikely that we will find an ape fossil back then. Should we find one, that either means that apes and mammals evolved a lot earlier than expected, or that this ape somehow came from somewhere else (popped into existance, came on a rocket from the planet of the apes, fell down a hole and ended up in an older layer, etc.) That would be huge news, and scientists would work to resolve the problem.

Or tha it as you put it, popped into existence after the dinosaurs went extinct.

But again all your arguments seem to be based on "what if". What if we find a fossil that refutes the known fossil record? Then we deal with it. But for now what we have is a very clear fossil record, which tells a very significant story about the past, and we go by it. We have found enough fossils that we can say with statistical certainty that microbes existed long before trilobites, that trilobites existed long before fish, that fish existed long before Tiktaalik, that Tiktaalik existed long before mammal-like reptiles, that mammal-like reptiles existed long before early placental mammals, that early placental mammals existed long before apes, and that apes existed long before humans. We can make such claims with statistical certainty, because there is so much evidence for each claim. We have known this for many years, and have found nothing to refute it.

Which is as to be expected since water creatures were created first, then land animals then man.

And yet you will make a case over the idea that perhaps the first land dweller has been on the land a little earlier than we had previously had evidence for. This is not a major upset to science. Scientists are looking at it, and seeing if they need to make a minor adjustment in the timetable. None of this refutes the major timeline we found.

And shouldn't since created in that order. But since most misinterpret the Hebrew word hayah, it's understandable if they believe incorrect dates of creation.

Why do the two need to be mutually exclusive? Why does "being designed" exclude "evolved"? Couldn't a creature have both evolved and been designed? You have been asked that over and over. You refuse to answer. And you keep coming back with, "It was designed, therefore it couldn't have evolved." And you must surely know how I will answer when you say that. I will ask why it couldn't be both designed and evolved. And you know i will ask that, and yet you just keep coming back with the claim that if it was designed, then it could not have possibly evolved.

Except there is no evidence anything evolved into anything. Each new order of life is separated by a global extinction, followed by the appearance of all new life forms fully formed that resemble not those that went previously. Just as after the sixth destruction, all new life will again be created to repopulate the earth. Such as a lion that eats straw, which will certainly not be the lion we know today.

You have not proven that any creature was designed. But even if you had, that would not rule out evolution. That would not prove the theistic evolutionists here are wrong. But that will not stop you form pretending that all the posts that told you this were never written. Why are you doing that?

Got more proof of design than you got that random chance will produce the complex structures we see along with a universe that follows laws so well we can predict things will happen. Nothing random to it its design at all. I understand you believe it's all random, but that's merely faith as well.

Nothing will prove evolution wrong, they have seen to that. Prove something incorrect and they simply make new claims. It has become an unfalsifiable theory because it has become a religion unto itself.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Radiocarbon dating? Why would one use radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils? Radiocarbon is not accurate beyond 50,000 years. At that point, all it can tell you is that this object must be older than 50,000 years. So I am not at all surprised that a method that is good at dating recent objects, but can not tell us the actual date of Jurassic objects, tells us that dinosaur fossils are somewhere more than 50,000 years old.

When we use methods that are meant to measure really old stuff, we find the dinosaur bones are in layers that are over 60 million years old.

You don't accept any dating unless it conforms to your evolutionary beliefs, what are you talking about.

When Richard Leaky found the modern appearing skull KNM-ER 1470 well below the KBS tuff, the tuff was argon 40/argon 39 dated, fission-track dated, and dated by paleomagnetism dating. All agreed that the KBS tuff was 2.7 to 3.0 million years old.

Since belief in human evolution did not allow a date that old, those dates were rejected and instead dates that agreed with theory was instituted. You'll reject any dating method if the dates obtained don't agree with your pre conceived theory. Actual data is irrelevant, it will be conformed to theory, not theory to the data.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Wait, if the finches on the Galapagos came from two sub-species of finch, doesn't that agree with what I said that they came from one species? And yet when I say the Galapagos finches came from a small group of one species of finch, you say no, they came from two sub-species of the same species of finch. Huh? How does this contradict what I said?

Regardless, all the finches of the Galapagos appear to have come from one species (or as you put it, two sub species of the same species). They then spread out to form what scientists now regard as multiple different species.

Incorrectly regarded as separate species. And they were regarded as separate species from the moment they arrived not later after they "spread out", because Darwin incorrectly believed they were reproductively isolated.

I never once said they came from two subspecies. Get the facts correct. I have stated from the beginning it takes two, count them two subspecies to create a third, fourth, etc, etc.

They are still one species, have always been one species and will forever be one species.

The article you quoted said the original finches on the islands were about 1.5 million years ago. Do you agree that this is when the first finch reached the islands? If not, when do you think it happened?

I could care less when they arrived. They have been interbreeding since they arrived. Were never reproductively isolated and never underwent speciation.

You misunderstand the concept of species. "Species" is not a cast in stone definition, with all members of a species interbreeding and no gene transfer outside the species. Rather there is a huge gray area, with anywhere from frequent gene transfer to a gene transfer that occurs only in exceptional conditions. So where do we draw the line as to where a species ends? Species are an arbitrary definition simply for convenience in naming animals.

Good excuse to attempt to ignore your own scientific definition of species.

Now if a scientist was arguing that two different finches were not interbreeding, when they were interbreeding "under their nose", that would be wrong. But they are not arguing that. So you appear to misunderstand "different species of finches" to mean "groups that never, ever, have gene transfer between them," but that is not what species means.

Today, most biologists are more interested in understanding the process of speciation than in trying to find a strict species definition that is always applicable. Speciation is usually a gradual process, so it is not unusual to encounter populations that are only partly reproductively isolated. This means that individuals from diverged lineages may still exchange genes to a limited degree, perhaps even to the extent that they will merge again. These situations are challenging for both the biological species concepts and lineage species concepts. Although some people may wish for a black-and-white criterion for defining species, this is unrealistic. By analogy, imagine a population of maturing humans. Most individuals will be easily recognized as children or adults, but some will be difficult to categorize and these difficult individuals might be tagged differently by different people using different criteria (e.g., different physical characteristics, different measures of emotional maturity, etc.). Similarly, most individual birds or snails or mushrooms can be readily categorized as belonging to one species or another, but exceptions are not rare. (source)​

​

Because the scientific definition restricts them from calling whatever they choose a separate species, without which you could never show speciation. Not my fault they can't follow the very scientific definitions they wrote. I didn't write them, I just follow them as any real scientist would. Pseudoscience begins when one starts ignoring scientific definitions.

You are arguing from semantics. You are arguing whether it is OK to call these finches by a different species name. See Darwin Finches - Galapagos Darwin Finch Facts with Quasar Expeditions. All agree that each finch basically interbreeds with itself, but there has been some gene transfer between them.

No I am arguing from science. Without scientific definitions there is no meaning to anything. People can then say what they want at any time and call it science, just like you are trying to do. You are the one arguing semantics, insisting we need not follow the scientific definitions simply because you find them too restrictive and not to your liking, despite the fact evolutionists wrote every last one of them.

So since ecological niche is a valid reason, why don't we go ahead and call Joe who lives in the high rises of New York a separate species from Jim who is a hunter/gatherer on the plains in Nigeria? See where a free for all takes us?

Without scientific definitions there is no order or structure and it becomes a free for all. People call whatever they want whatever they want and the problem becomes worse. Perhaps you have a species problem for the exact reason you refuse to follow the scientific definitions.

But take that pseudoscience elsewhere. And answer my question. Which of the 7 causes of speciation do those Finches fall under? Did you think your pseudoscientific mantra excuse of why you refuse to accept scientific definitions would make me forget you have yet to justify their speciation in the first place?

Besides, you don't believe your own PR to begin with because if you believed it was simply a convention to name things you wouldn't be resisting calling them one species so hard. So don't give me excuses you yourself do not believe in. At least show some respect, maybe you'll get some back.

So yah, let's ignore those scientific definitions.

Subspecies - Wikipedia

A common way to decide is that organisms belonging to different subspecies of the same species are capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, but they do not usually interbreed in nature due to geographic isolation, sexual selection, or other factors.

So those Finches fit the scientific definition to a T. Oh but I forgot, you are ignoring the scientific definitions.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Justatruthseeker,

All of the following statements about me from your last few posts are false. Can I ask you to please be more careful in what you say about other people.

You don't accept any dating unless it conforms to your evolutionary beliefs, what are you talking about.

This is false. I accept any dates that are confirmed by science.

You'll reject any dating method if the dates obtained don't agree with your pre conceived theory.

This is false. I accept any methods that are confirmed by science.

Actual data is irrelevant, it will be conformed to theory, not theory to the data.

This is false. I accept any data, even if it makes me change a preconceived theory.

Good excuse to attempt to ignore your own scientific definition of species.

This is false. I made no attempt to ignore the scientific definition of species.

People can then say what they want at any time and call it science, just like you are trying to do.

​

This is false. I am not trying to say what I want and call it science.

You are the one arguing semantics, insisting we need not follow the scientific definitions simply because you find them too restrictive and not to your liking, despite the fact evolutionists wrote every last one of them.

This is false. I am not insisting we need not follow the scientific definitions simply because I find them too restrictive or not to my liking.

Did you think your pseudoscientific mantra excuse of why you refuse to accept scientific definitions would make me forget you have yet to justify their speciation in the first place?

This is false. I do not refuse to accept scientific definitions.

Besides, you don't believe your own PR to begin with because if you believed it was simply a convention to name things you wouldn't be resisting calling them one species so hard.

This is false. If you want to call all the the finches on the Galapagos one species you may. I don't call them one species, because scientists do not regard them as one species.

So don't give me excuses you yourself do not believe in.

This is false. I believe the things I post. I am not making up things that I do not believe in.

At least show some respect, maybe you'll get some back.

This is false. I have shown respect to you and others here. I ask only that you please not post false statements about me.

So those Finches fit the scientific definition to a T. Oh but I forgot, you are ignoring the scientific definitions.

This is false. I do not ignore scientific definitions.

Sincerely, from a man who just seeks the truth,
doubtingmerle

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That would assume human population always grew at that rate. Nobody believes that.

So then what reason would we have to conclude that the population of animals released from the ark and then rapidly diversifying would no come into stability with their environment which every animal population but man does?

Only man outgrows the environments ability to sustain a specific number of individuals, that and virus's.

All other animals reach an equilibrium with the environment and so no, we would not expect to see trillions of variations or animals in every species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker,

All of the following statements about me from your last few posts are false. Can I ask you to please be more careful in what you say about other people.


This is false. I accept any dates that are confirmed by science.


This is false. I accept any methods that are confirmed by science.



This is false. I accept any data, even if it makes me change a preconceived theory.



This is false. I made no attempt to ignore the scientific definition of species.

This is false. I am not trying to say what I want and call it science.
​

This is false. I am not insisting we need not follow the scientific definitions simply because I find them too restrictive or not to my liking.

This is false. I do not refuse to accept scientific definitions.

This is false. If you want to call all the the finches on the Galapagos one species you may. I don't call them one species, because scientists do not regard them as one species.

This is false. I believe the things I post. I am not making up things that I do not believe in.

This is false. I have shown respect to you and others here. I ask only that you please not post false statements about me.


This is false. I do not ignore scientific definitions.

Sincerely, from a man who just seeks the truth,
doubtingmerle

Let me try that without justifying my claims.

This is false....

 

[doubtingmerle]

Let me try that without justifying my claims.

This is false....

That is the opposite of what I did. You will notice that for each one of the false statements you posted about me, I explained why it was false.

We are not here to attack other posters. Please quit attacking the integrity of other posters. You did that multiple times in the last few posts.

It is too much to ask that you please quit posting false statements about other people?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Uh, no I never said that Hyracotherium was Equus. Again, here is a chart of what we have found in the horse series:

Equus is at the top of the chart. It does not appear until the last few million years. It is a genus that includes the modern horse species, donkey and zebra. Hyracotherium is a different genus, from 50 million years ago, at the bottom of the chart.

But they once believed it was Equus, and since you believe whatever they tell you, you believed that once too.

"This small, dog-sized animal was once considered to be the earliest known member of Equidaebefore the type species, H. leporinum, was reclassified as a palaeothere, a perissodactyl family basal to both horses and brontotheres."

But anyway, if you strike Hyracotherium off as not a horse ancestor, what about Eohippus? What about Orohippus? What about Merychippus? Somewhere you need to draw the line. And wherever you choose, there will be something just over the line that looks very much like the animals you included.

I don't care where you draw the line, they will all be one species.

All of this is expected from evolution. None of this is expected from young earth creationism.

That's your mistake believing I accept the same flawed interpretation of the Hebrew "hayah" as they promote. We agree totally.

What is your explanation for why the fossil record looks like this? Why isn't it donkeys and zebras all the way down to 6000 years ago, and then no more fossils?

For the same reason there have been six creations and five destructions, with each form in the new creation being fully formed and different than those that went before.

As there will soon be a sixth destruction and a seventh and final creation.

And I'll find no surprise that a lion like creature will exist capable of eating straw. Anymore than I am surprised that every new creation created new forms of life similar to the old, but completely different as well.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is the opposite of what I did. You will notice that for each one of the false statements you posted about me, I explained why it was false.

We are not here to attack other posters. Please quit attacking the integrity of other posters. You did that multiple times in the last few posts.

It is too much to ask that you please quit posting false statements about other people?

Stop ignoring the scientific definitions of species when we discuss those finches that are interbreeding right in front of the researchers noses and perhaps I won't attack your integrity.

Just because they refuse to follow the very definitions they wrote, is no excuse for you to follow their example.

Ignoring scientific definitions leads to pseudoscience.

And please, they have attacked me since my first post, even if it contained not a single personal attack towards anyone. Almost every post they have made has been an ad hominem attack, and I have no problem fighting fire with fire, even if I would prefer using water.

That you get caught in it, perhaps you should speak to your fellow evolutionists?

But ill be happy to apologize as soon as you tell me which of the seven scientific definitions of speciation those finches fall under that led to their speciation? Since you follow science as you claim, this shouldn't be too difficult for you. Even if you have tried everything possible to not have to follow the scientific definitions and answer the question.

And no, I am not interested in what whover said what about how difficult it is, because their is no confusion or difficulty in observing those finches mating right in front of their noses. There is no question of fact of whether they do or not. Had you not observed it you might have an argument, but the observation removes any attempt at claiming difficulty.

 

[doubtingmerle]

But they once believed it was Equus, and since you believe whatever they tell you, you believed that once too.

OK, let's add this to your list of false, derogatory statements about other people that you have posted. Please quit publishing false, derogatory statements about other people.

It is false to say "I believe whatever they tell me". I think for myself.

It is against the forum rules to post personal attacks on people. Please stop doing it. It is against the forum rules to attack the motives of other people. Please stop doing it.

And no, scientists never said that Hyracotherium was Equus. If you think they did, please document your claim.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Stop ignoring the scientific definitions of species when we discuss those finches that are interbreeding right in front of the researchers noses and perhaps I won't attack your integrity.

I have not ignored the definition of species. I have been addressing it with you. I have explained to you that it is a complex concept, and is not always clear where the species dividing line is.

Here is the Webster definition of species;

1a : kind, sortb :
a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class
confessing sins
inspecies and in numberc : the human race : human beings —often used with the survival of the species
in the nuclear aged (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name
(2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological speciese :
a particular kind of atomic nucleus, atom, molecule, or ion​

That is consistent with everything I have been saying.

What is your definition of species?

 

[Speedwell]

What is your definition of species?

Whatever it takes to disprove universal common descent.