Challenging Evolution

[Jet Black]

/me bags the 1100th reply

 

[razzelflabben]

Well, first you have to show that there IS another interpretation. You have said you are interpreting the evidence differently, but (as usual) you have not said what that different intepretation is. We cannot determine anything at all until you do.

You already answered this in the post in which I addressed the issue.

Once you have explained what your interpretation is, we determine what predictions each theory makes about the evidence and then we check the predictions against the evidence.

The theory which makes the most correct predictions is the stronger theory.

If a theory makes a prediction which is shown by the evidence to be false, then that theory is deemed to be false. (That could apply to both theories in which case we would have two false theories and no good theory.)

Let's cut out the middle man and go with that that assumption, that we have no good theory. Yeah, I think that will work out fine.

 

[Jet Black]

can you define the word "overwhelming" for us?

 

[Ishmael Borg]

Just disproved...yet AGAIN...above!

Since the majority of your silly replies were based on your flawed interpretation of my avatar (it's not a vampire), I'd say you've proven nothing. As usual.

 

[razzelflabben]

Slight correction: population of single-celled organisms. We would not be looking for one single cell.

No, we are comparing the DNA of different species. Not of single cells, but of populations of organisms both multi-cellular and single-cellular.

Don't be silly. Any cell which was part of the ancestral population has long since died and probably left no fossil evidence. What we may be able to do one day is reconstruct the genome of the common ancestor. Much in the way linguists are reconstructing the original Indo-European roots of all the Indo-European languages.

But there are no unanswered questions remember, that means, that we must have evidence of this single celled population. If it is not in the fossil record, then how can we examine it and prove it's existance? You are the one asserting overwhelming evidence. I would like to see this single celled population, or proof of it, so that we can see what we looked like million and millions of years ago.




[/quote] There will be both identical sequences in some places and a great deal of variation in others. Both the similarities and the differences help to sort out the "family connections" and point toward a common ancestor. And no, it is completely independant of fossil evidence.

That is what makes the agreement of this line of evidence with that of the fossil evidence so remarkable.

It is as if you had two different maps, drawn by different people, using a different perspective, and they both led you to the same buried treasure.[/QUOTE]But, it proves the species are similar, how does it prove that the species are decendants form the same population? It is not the similarities that determine one human being from another, but rather the differences, even in the DNA. But it is the similarities that we want to base all our assumptions which are not assumptions because we have overwhelming evidence, on. What about the differences? Oh yeah, they help sort out the family connections, like the only use for the differences in human beings DNA is to sort out who my descendants are, not to determine who I am. I had this DNA stuff all wrong, I thought it was the differences that proved who, what, and how at the crime scene, now you are informing me it is the similarities.

 

[razzelflabben]

It didn't. It was taken for granted and didn't need to evolve. It only began evolving under pressure of the growing evidence for TOE. So the history is complete as it stands.

 

[Jet Black]

the sound of screeching goalposts is too much for my ears. I'm outta here.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, the woodpecker migrated. That is the conclusion TOE comes to, since obviously it was not created for the treeless grasslands of Argentina. But what about the bone structures. Why would TOC predict the same bone structures being used over and over for different functions. Would it not make more sense to design new bone structures that would be more efficient for each function?

TOE explains that the basic bone structure appeared in a common ancestor and was inherited and adapted to various different functions.

How does TOC explain this?

If it ain't broke don't fix it!

On the contrary, you have just described exactly what evolution is.

And you have also adopted the latest fashion of creationism which is to state that "Evolution is not evolution."

How? How does TOC explain variation and adaptation?

That the offspring will have difficulty reproducing, yes.

Because it is rare (especially in animals) that the offspring of inter-breeding is a new species. But evolution does not depend on inter-breeding. Evolution depends on successful breeding within the horse and donkey species, not by mules. After all, we already have many sub-species of horses. If one of them developed a problem in cross-breeding with other sub-species, it would become genetically isolated from other horses, and be a new species. But it would still breed easily within its own species boundaries. Unlike the mule.

It would be nice if you commented on the speciation which lucaspa presented. This is off-topic.

If I missed it, you will have to ask again, I have been trying to keep up, but I can make mistakes.

 

[Ishmael Borg]

That would be a great suggestion, but I am afraid that there would be nothing to discuss because I have been told by people on this thread, that all the questions have been answered. That is why the TOE is said to have overwhelming proof, because all the questions have been answered, there are none left.

C'mon now, I've never seen anyone post that all the questions have been answered. I have seen another poster describe your attitude as 'petulant', and I think that applies here. If you really feel that there is nothing to discuss, why are you posting so frequently? Maybe your passion for truth should lead you to seek the conclusions of actual, peer-reviewed scientists who work in the biological fields relevant to evolutionary theory. Why take our word for these things? See what the experts say.

-Ish

 

[razzelflabben]

Sorry this is a long one.



Are you looking for a single piece of evidence that is overwhelming? If so I don’t think you will find it, you have to fit them all together, it is only when one looks at the entirety of the body of evidence that one finds an overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of the theory, no one piece on its own is going to do it for you. Sciences does not work like that, and its the very point you were making with your criminal justice analogy, that one needs more than one source of evidence.

Also can you explain to me why it is that you have repeatedly made the claim that the fossil record is the only evidence evolutionary scientists are using, and then, all of a sudden you admit that it is not the only form of evidence that evolutionary scientists are using?

Over whelming, leaving no room for other explainations. I have focused in on the fossil record because people here have continued to bring it back to the fossil record.

If you have, as you claim here, examined all the types of evidence that where presented, then even if you don’t find them compelling you must still admit that they are being brought to the table. Hence its just not true to make the claim that the fossil record is the only evidence that is being examined.

The fossil record became a focal point because when asked for overwhelming evidence, that is what was presented. If that is what is being called overwhelming evidence, then that is what I will address as overwhelming evidence.

Also, can you please stop using the terms evidence and proof as interchangeable because they are not.

I'll give it a shot. It is amazing how much of this discussion relies on symantics, and then we can't understand how we don't understand each other.

You haven’t? You are stating that you have never heard the term “survival of the fittest”?

I don't recall it being brought up in this discussion until just now, but was the questions that stated this entire discussion.

Proof is for maths, everything else has to make do with evidence.

And evidence should lead us to truth.

There is no such thing as proof that is not reliable. You are using Proof when you mean evidence.

Point made.

BINGO! That is it exactly. Theories (like legal cases) are based on lots of different forms of evidence, none of which is enough to be conclusive on its own, but when it is all put together, it leaves little to no doubt. You can not truthfully claim that the fossil record is the only evidence for evolution, because it is not, as many people have pointed out.

Well Jet Black has repeatedly presented you with evidence that is not linked to the fossil record and both he and I mentioned the fact that speciation has been observed. Can you explain to me why you want it to be unique to the theory of evolution? You do not need evidence that is unique to one theory, what you need is evidence that fits the theory, a lack of falsifying evidence that falsifies the theory and the presence of falsifying evidence for all competing theories. Now we have all that. The evidence Jet keeps asking you to address is consistent with the theory of evolution, there is no evidence to falsify its inclusion and as he has pointed out he can not see how the theory of creation could account for it. Now its okay if you don’t understand some of the evidence he presented, I will be honest, I don’t understand all of it, but then he is the biologist and I am the criminologist.

And because he is the biologist, I should accept his word for overwhelming evidence without ever examining the evidence myself? Is that how we convict criminals? By telling the jury what to believe about the evidence that is found, why then are there two sides to every case?

Yes I am. Good grief, if you do not believe me look up modern scientific method in a modern scientific textbook. Yes this is how it is done, I know because I have done it several times myself and I have seen other scientists do it. We look for falsifying evidence to use to test our ideas, we then expect some one else to come along and try and prove us wrong, and we hope we got it right and can withstand their best efforts to make us look silly.

And yet, when someone comes here and questions the evidence, they are laughed off the thread rather than held as fellow scientist, seeking to disprove the theory. No matter how many times you assert differently, this is still a double standard.

All that tells us is that the arguments you presented were not sufficient to falsify the theory because people saw flaws with your arguments or answers to your questions. That's what you got, answers to your questions. You may not consider them sufficient but the evolutionary scientists on this thread do consider the arguments against your points valid, that is because you are going over ground they have seen people go over before and they are satisfied that they have seen answers to the questions. I hope I am being clear here, because I am not sure I am.

yeah I get that, but if they were truely willing to be challenged, they they would listen and answer without accusations and assumptions. This is the problem, and was addresses umpteen posts ago, there is no communication between the theories. at least on the forum. Communication is required by those who value the scientific process, not those whose agenda is to prove the other side foolish.

The two are not exclusive. Criticism means to look at critically and to weigh up the pros and cons. Evolutionary theory is open to challenges, but your challenges are based on misconceptions. Your challenges have been dismissed not because people do not wish to hear it but because they feel they have an answer for all the question you feel you are raising.[/auote] That is why, that I was told the same thing about 6 million times, (okay a bit of an exageration) that I already understood, but the point I was making was totally ignored. Yeah, that is open to challenges! NOT, that is open to proving your point.

It is not that you challenged the theory that got you the reaction, its that your challenge has been seen and debunked before. You base it on a couple of fairly big mistakes (no I am not calling you thick, this is complicated stuff and you are not a biologist) and you have claimed repeatedly that the fossil record is the only evidence we have when it is not. People are frustrated that's all. So are you, I know. Its not surprising you are pretty much on your own here and you have a lot of other commitments, so by the time you are getting back to the discussion you are seeing page after page of responses. Frankly the fact you have not found it overwhelmingly daunting is a testament to your endurance. Also keep in mind that not everyone in this debate is a scientist, so not everyone is going to debate in the manner a scientist might debate.

If the challenge has been seen and debunked, and not open to further exporation or discussion, then why is there even an evolutionary debate category on this forum?

Yes I agree. Problem is there are a lot of people wanting to say their part, and by the time you get back to the thread it must look like a bit of a dog pile. Frankly how you can be bothered to read all the posts is beyond me, since there seems to be no one backing you. Its not surprising you miss one or two posts, its more surprising that you miss so few. And yes, some people have treated you shoddily on occasion. I may be one of them, if so I apologise, I disagree with you but I don’t want to insult or belittle you because of it.

Sorry I am not always as clear as I intend. I simply meant that most major Christian denominations accept evolution as the method by which God created the variety of life we see today.

Yeah, I agree, but that does not automatically mean that someone in the christian denominations will accept the theory or that if someone does accept the TOC it is because of the chrisitan denomination they belong to.

Well it would need to stand up to all of it. I also think this may be worth exploring more (I am going off to re-read Genesis tonight I think). Creationism is generally attached to a number of hypothesise that we know are wrong. The Geological evidence falsifies the global flood (but not a local one. I think if memory serves it actually supports a fairly extensive local one), it falsifies the age of the earth etc. Now you keep mentioning a newer model of creationism but if you have set it out for us then its been in a post I missed. Perhaps the answer to this conundrum can be found by looking at that. Some of what I am picking up from your other posts makes me wonder if what you are talking about is just a form of Theistic Evolution, but other things you say make me think it may not be.

My belief system alway tends to be as biblical as I can get. That would include the Creation story in Gen. Because there are different interpretations of the bible, I try to reference, cross reference, apply history, apply science, etc. before coming to an actual belief of the issue at hand.

Okay fair comment.
You are welcome. As it happens this book came up on a discussion on the Soc. Sci. Faculty forum of my university recently (after I brought it up here) and apparently not everyone finds Smith as clear and concise as I do. The undergraduates and the ecologists especially seem to find him obtuse, so perhaps its not the best reference for you. I will try and think of another if you are interested.

Ghost

My interests are not always what my time permits, sad to say.

 

[razzelflabben]

Yes, we do know for sure, for as you have been informed many times, with examples, we have actually seen speciation occur. It only takes one example of speciation to confirm that evolution is a fact, and we have seen many more than one.

Of the speciations we have observed, which became more than a "mutation" of thier parent. In other words, which looked so differently that we can put them in a new phylum, family group. This would be proof of the TOE.

From their ancestors. Remember we began with a population A. When a part of it separated out to a new area, we are not assuming that it was only one lone individual; it was a sub-set of population A consisting of many individuals. And it was the whole sub-set that evolved into population B, not just one or two individuals. (To understand this more fully, you need to understand how natural selection works.)

That doesn't answer my question unless of course I don't understand the question I am asking.

No, males and females are not different species. By the time you read this again you will have seen the post on hermaphrodite species. If you still have questions, ask.

I don't recall saying that males and females were different species. These last to paragraphs are exactly what I have been talking about. I am not an idiot people. You need to listen.

Actually its not. To survive in a dynamically changing environment you want to be prepared for changing times with lots of potential variation. Species that reproduce sexually are much better at that than species which use a-sexual reproduction. A good book on this is The Cooperative Gene by Mark Ridley. (I believe I recommended this to you once before.)

It may be new to you, but it is not new to TOE. You can find it in the first edition of Origin of Species published in 1859.

A Okay

 

[razzelflabben]

As long as there is no answer to the suggestions done earlier, but by others and by me, to start a new one, I'm wondering about another position you have on species Razzelflabben.
Do you consider donkey's and horses to be of the same species?
Do you consider them to be seperate creations or species derived from a common ancestor?

And to both questions, could you also explain in a little bit of detail why? Because I'm getting totally confused at your understanding of the concepts kinds/species and speciation, and this might at least clear up a bit of my confusion.

skipping a bunch of stuff to catch up and to try to stay on topic. That might help if I don't answer every question but only those that relate to the overwhelming evidence. (I know, I know it all is related to the overwhelming evidence, but I have had suggestions to narrow it down, so you will have to abide by the same suggestions I should think)

 

[razzelflabben]

Where in the Bible -- your source for TOC -- is this mentioned.

You said "Kind would go back to when the species were not able to reproduce." But what I am talking about is the exact REVERSE of this. We started with a situation where they did reproduce. Then we ended up with 2 populations that could not reproduce with each other. By what you said, we ended up at "the species were not able to reproduce". We made new kinds.

Well, then, the lab experiments are not at all what you say. One original population, then split into several populations (each with 500 individuals). Population A is captured from the wild and is kept in the original environmental conditions. Population B is placed at colder temperatures. Population C has different food than A and B. Now, after 2,500 generations, population A is the original species. It can still breed with the wild population. However, populations B and C can't breed with A or the wild. They can't breed with each other. So, where we had one kind: A, we now have three kinds: A, B, and C.

Did you follow all that?

For the twenty millionth evolving time yes, I'm not a moron. Doesn't address the issue I am asking about.

 

[razzelflabben]

It doesn't. All it does is remove an argument against it. Some people have claimed that some fhuman ossils are older than they are because they were buried and thus were found in sediments lower (older) than when they actually lived and died. Burial made the fossils look older.

But why aren't you reading in the subject? Both what creationists are saying what TOC is and what biologists say evolution is? It's apparent that you are doing some reading. You tell us that TOC comes from Genesis, but the idea that speciation is part of TOC comes from articles at ICR and AiG written since 1995 or so. It's a very recent addition/change to TOC. And not a change based on the Bible!

No, that burial does occur by digging a hole. And it is this hole that is going to have the fossil appear to be in sediments older than when the individual lived and died.

Razzel, remember the claims. ALWAYS remember the claims. Testing and arguments are done in relation to claims. If you don't remember the claims, you end up posting the irrelevancy of burial in caves where the body is just set on top of the existing rock.

Not my point at all, but this moron doesn't have the strength to keep repeating myself. Move on.

 

[gluadys]

I am asking where TOC suggests this scenario (population A splits into sub-groups which become population B and C) or is even compatible with it. Everything I have heard about TOC says this contradicts TOC. It doesn't mimic it.

So explain why you think this works from TOC, please?

I am so far behind, overwhelmed by the response to my accusations that there is not overwhelming evidence, (especially from those who claim that it is not a belief system), frustrated at not being able to keep up, bored with trying to repeat my answers to a dozen or so posts because everyone is saying the same thing and then complains if I don't respond to a post.

If everyone is saying much the same thing---and I agree they are---why not make just one post and address it to everyone?

And if you are tired---take a day off. You do not have to come everyday.

I am tired of feeling like people here feel like they have to talk down to me, I assure you that my college professors didn't talk down to me. And, I am just plain tired.

It is because it seems to take so long for you to understand anything we say. Now part of that is because you have not been telling us when you do understand things. And part of it is because you keep asking the same questions we have already answered---so it looks like you did not understand.

So please bare with me as I try to explain to you why I do not find the evidence overwhelming. I thought I had covered that many times already but apparently, I either didn't cover it or some here will not be content until I change my mind and claim to know truth and that truth is the TOE.

No,you have never covered why you think the evidence is not overwhelming. You have just repeated and repeated your opinion.

For an animal to reproduce after it's kind, it would also need to reproduce in the same way that it's parents do. This process means that in the case of male and female reproduction, the creature is a part of both parents.

Got that. But that doesn't answer the question that I asked. I asked how does TOC predict that population A will split into different groups and that after a time the groups (B and C) will no longer be able to interbreed with population A. I thought that TOC said this was never possible.

Do you understand that evolution leads to new species that keep on reproducing?

That is exactly my point. If we see species that interbreed but cannot reproduce, then the question must be asked, to what extent will the reproducing continue. We can assume that it will stop or we can assume it is limited to a few species. Either way, the observations are inconclusive. We are still making leaps of faith to claim we know what is not known. We do not know to what extent reproduction will continue because our observations are inconclusive. Thus, we lack overwhelming evidence.

You did not answer the question.

Do you understand that evolution leads to new species that keep on reproducing?

You complain about people talking down to you. This is why. You keep bringing up the red herring of different species inter-breeding and producing a hybrid which cannot reproduce itself.

But that is not an evolution scenario. The hybrid is not a new species.

You have been shown a different scenario. Many times. In that scenario we end up with parent population A, and daughter populations B and C. None of the three inter-breed well with each other, but they all breed easily within their own group.

This is an evolution scenario. Do you understand that this is an evolution scenario? Do you understand that the hybrid produced by inter-breeding is not an evolution scenario?

But, the issue is that it is not conclusive.

If you don't get continued reproduction, you don't get a new species. No speciation has happened.

Right, but if the new species cannot reproduce, evolution stops. That is what I am talking about.

Do you see what you have just done? I said "you don't get a new species". And you start your answer by saying "if the new species cannot reproduce..."

The point, Razzleflaben is that there is no new species that cannot reproduce, so there is no species to speculate about with an "if the new species cannot reproduce" What new species that cannot reproduce? There is no new species that cannot reproduce.

Now if you have understood the scenario above, then you should understand that when you speak of hybrids produced by inter-breeding, you are not talking about an evolution scenario. Evolution doesn't stop, because what you are describing is not evolution. Using a correct evolution scenario shows that new species keep on reproducing.

Do you understand that now?

Can we stop talking about the problem of the mule now? Can we go on with the understanding that new species have no problem with continued reproduction? They keep on reproducing and they keep on evolving.

That is what you are talking about. What I am talking about and have been trying to get people to understand is that if even one "new" species is not a viable breeder, it is an assumption to claim that species evolve.

No, as usual, you have it backwards about. Even if your mythical non-breeding species could exist (and it does not), even if we had hundreds of new "non-breeding species" (how we would ever get that I don't know), all that is necessary for evolution to continue is one new species that reproduces normally.

And, in fact, all new species breed just fine. That is what makes them species.

Do you understand that now?

There is question. That question means that the evidence is not overwhelming.

Since all new species do reproduce, the evidence is overwhelming, even on the basis of your false assumption. Because there is not even one new "species" which is not a viable breeder.

Is that clear now?

I think I have this one covered, if there are still questions, let me know.

Yes, I do have questions.
What do you mean by "I have this one covered"?
Do you mean that you now understand that the common ancestor was a population, not an individual?
Do you mean that your questions about the common ancestor have been cleared up? answered?
Do you mean you understand now why concern about having a suitable mate was misplaced?

If any of these questions have not been cleared up, please explain what the ongoing problem is.

So which is it, no unanswered questions, or still unanswered questions? That should clear up this entire thread with one simple answer.

Depends on the type of question.

If the question is: do we know evolution is a fact---the answer is a resounding YES! There is no more question about the fact that evolution happens.

If the question is: do we have overwhelming evidence that evolution is a fact---the answer again is YES! in spades!!!. Heaps and heaps of evidence which supports evolution and none which casts doubt on evolution.

If the question is more detailed, such as "how did the nucleus of the eukaryote cell evolve?" or "what is the exact lineage of Hydrangea arborescens? or "what genetic changes led to the development of feathers?"---sure, there are lots of unanswered questions.

But note the difference between this kind of question and those above. All of these questions take for granted that evolution is a fact. They are not questions which cast doubt on the theory of evolution. They are questions scientists seek answers to in order to fill in the details of our knowledge about evolution.

No more overwhelming than the explainations that can be found in the original TOC and the room it allows for explainations.

What explanations? You keep talking about these TOC explanations but you never tell us what they are. And "allowing room" for TOE explanations does not count. If TOC is a legitimate theory, it must come up with its own explanations.

Now, first off this assumes that I have never read or studied anything about the TOE. That would be a false assumption. I may not know everything there is to know about it because quite frankly, it bores me and I think there are a whole lot of more important things to focus on, but none the less, I know more than you give me credit for knowing.

We give you credit for knowing what you have told us you know. If you want more credit, tell us more of what you know. Show us that you really understand TOE instead of a strange straw man that has nothing to do with TOE.

You assume because I tell you what we were taught, that that is what I believe,

If you believe different from what you were taught, you just have to say so. If you don't say where your beliefs differ from what you were taught, it is a natural assumption to think you believe it. Don't blame us for problems you create for yourself.

Secondly, if there is overwhelming evidence to convince us of all the above and more, where then are the unanswered questions you spoke of? Why do the people here accept there are unanswered questions then assert that we have overwhelming evidence to answer those questions? Where is the logic in this?

See the examples above. The unanswered questions do not detract from the overwhelming evidence that evolution has occurred. They are a different kind of unanswered question.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's because she is forgetting the title of Darwin's book. Origin of the SPECIES. Not "every living thing comes from a single cell", but the origin of species.

So, what has happened is Razzel has incorporated speciation into TOC. She isn't really discussing evolution anymore, because she is admitting it happened. She is arguing theism vs atheism. Deep down to her evolution = atheism. So evolution is always going to be a "possibility".

These are the types of posts that are the most disturbing to communication for they assume to know what I think and feel without ever knowing or asking. In fact, it goes against what I have said and feel but because I do not agree with you, then I must be this.

Let's look at it this way.
Because E a has had dealings with C b and C b does not agree with E a then person D must believe what C b does because person D also disagrees with E a.

Are you getting it yet, or can I explain in a few hundred more times before you understand, that I am not your typical C or "christian" I do not hold the same views or teachings and these accusations do nothing to prove your point, but confirm my suspicians that there are many more E out there whose belief system is E than what want to admit it. Only those who have something precious to loose would resort to this type of accusations. That usually comes in the form of a belief system.

 

[Aron-Ra]

..Razz is 1 of the best posters in the whole CvE board

Can't say da same for you tho'

So if I were more petulent, and ignored people more, you would consider me a better poster?

Jesus said that Satan is the "father of lies"

And Thor said his brother, Loki was a trickster. So?

Your handle wouldn't be a pathetic demand to be worshipped as the phoney pagan occult sun-god Ra, by any chance?
Or a priest of a Ra cult, ape-ing Aaron?

No. My name is Aron, (pronounced like Arn or are + run). I use Aron-Ra to remind others of Amen-Ra, whom I believe to be one of the primary inspirations your god was based on.

 

[razzelflabben]

Well you haven't said until now that you have understood us. You have just kept on asking the same questions that we thought we had answered clearly. If you do not want to look like an idiot, tell us what you have understood and rephrase the question so that we know what we haven't covered. Don't act like you are ignoring the answers you have been given.



So define your terms.

What, in your opinion, is inter-breeding?
What is breeding?

Isn't lucaspa describing two species which are successfully breeding? (not inter-breeding)?

Where is the problem you see that we are too stupid to see.

Help us out here Razzelflaben. We don't know what problem you are talking about. Using lucaspa's salmon example, show us what the problem is.

You know what, I give up, I rephrase the question and you ignore it to repeat the answers. If you want to see someone asking the same questions, I will take you to a thread where every post, (almost) is the exact same question. I understand what you are saying, but I am talking about reproductive problems, not interbreeding. Come on, give me a little credit.

 

[razzelflabben]

This is what the theory originally said:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

We are not similar to Genesis. We are still saying there was a common ancestor population or species, but we are saying that this common ancestor species had many, many, individuals.

Okay, let's talk about populations. Where in the Bible does it say that God only created on or two of a kind? (apart from man)

 

[gluadys]

I will can these kind of remarks when people stop treating me like I don't know the difference between interbreeding and breeding. I say that a species that cannot breed becomes extinct, and I get pages of posts explaining interbreeding to me. If I was talking about interbreeding, I would have specified interbreeding. This type of response make me feel like you people view me as an uneducated idiot and though I view myself as stupid, I assure you that is not what the tests, and people who know me think. I would appreciate being treated with this type of respect, if you intend this type of comment to be dropped.

Hey, communication problems arise when different people are using the same words for different realities. Don't get peeved with me because I try to improve communication.

Do you agree with the definitions I set out?

breed = mating individuals of the same species
inter-breed= mating individuals of different species.

Is this how you understand these words? I just need a simple confirmation. Or if you define them differently, tell me what your definitions are.

For example, in this sentence: "I say that a species that cannot breed becomes extinct, and I get pages of posts explaining interbreeding to me." what do you mean by "breed" and "interbreeding"?