Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Asking for interpretations of this cladogram
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
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
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Justatruthseeker" data-source="post: 72077931" data-attributes="member: 332164"><p>I’ll let you take your pick, please post whatever you think is right and show how it is correct..... you can’t....</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Hmm, is this that missing common ancestor again? I think you missed the words.... all 14 are closely related... are of mixed ancestory. Are subspecies, but then you already refuse to accept your own deffinitions.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>...........</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>I asked you which speciation process led to their speciation, you have so far been unable to show they are separate species...... speciation has never occurred.</em></p><p><em>.............</em></p><p></p><p><em>We agree they ignore the definition of speciation. Ignore they have been exchanging genes from the beginning and are of mixed ancestory. That are interbreeding without difficulty right in front of their eyes....</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>..............</em></p><p></p><p><em>Oh look, the Grants ignore the scientific deffinition of subspecies, and ignore the scientific deffinition of speciation.... and refers to them as <strong>lineages and not species</strong>. Yet refer to all the others that are exactly the same as separate species, contradicting themselves at every turn.....</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>.............</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>No, one species gave rise to many subspecies. Try following the scientific definitions of subspecies for once in your life. And you have yet to show how that one finch spectated, despite my repeatedly asking....</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>...............</em></p><p></p><p>And yet the DNA sequencing of those finches showed they had always been interbreeding, are of mixed ancestory, and are mating in front of your eyes. I bolded the part the grants and you continually ignore.....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Justatruthseeker, post: 72077931, member: 332164"] I’ll let you take your pick, please post whatever you think is right and show how it is correct..... you can’t.... [I]Hmm, is this that missing common ancestor again? I think you missed the words.... all 14 are closely related... are of mixed ancestory. Are subspecies, but then you already refuse to accept your own deffinitions. ........... I asked you which speciation process led to their speciation, you have so far been unable to show they are separate species...... speciation has never occurred. .............[/I] [I]We agree they ignore the definition of speciation. Ignore they have been exchanging genes from the beginning and are of mixed ancestory. That are interbreeding without difficulty right in front of their eyes.... ..............[/I] [I]Oh look, the Grants ignore the scientific deffinition of subspecies, and ignore the scientific deffinition of speciation.... and refers to them as [B]lineages and not species[/B]. Yet refer to all the others that are exactly the same as separate species, contradicting themselves at every turn..... .............[/I] [I] No, one species gave rise to many subspecies. Try following the scientific definitions of subspecies for once in your life. And you have yet to show how that one finch spectated, despite my repeatedly asking.... ...............[/I] And yet the DNA sequencing of those finches showed they had always been interbreeding, are of mixed ancestory, and are mating in front of your eyes. I bolded the part the grants and you continually ignore..... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Asking for interpretations of this cladogram
Top
Bottom