Is some of the anti science movement to be blamed on scientists?

[Delphiki]

"Bird" is not a species, btw.

Going back to Maelestes Gobiensis, which was MY example of speciation, are you now admitting this is a valid example or just pretending to ignore it? Please advise.

 

[HAPMinistries]

"Bird" is not a species. Epic fail on your part - or another moving the goalposts fallacy. More dishonesty from you.

Really, give it up - you're making yourself look even more foolish with every post.

Equivocation. Even your friend directly explained this to you, you still are dull on the subject.

I made the question.
When your friend made the post, I confirmed, THIS is the meaning, so you could CLEARLY understand what I meant.

STILL, you try to use a fallacy...

you really are simple.

I claim I provided a lot more than one....

0<1
You gave 0.

I gave a list of actual evidence.

Address it, or stop dodging the issue and retract your statements.

argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

 

[Cabal]

BUT YOU STILL HAVE A BIRD!

And you can reverse the process.

Major FAIL on your part.

I can't believe I didn't pick up on this (emphasis mine).

No, you cannot reverse the process of speciation. The genetics of a population are a highly chaotic system, which puts all notion of reversibility out the window, as it is not feasible to reconstruct the exact environmental factors, population distributions, genetic crossovers etc. that lead to a given speciation event.

This is like say you can turn some rain back into its original cloud, with all the water molecules back in exactly the same spot they started.

Your ignorance of evolution is pretty much inversely proportional to the arrogance with which you respond to people who have a much better knowledge of science.

 

[HAPMinistries]

"Bird" is not a species, btw.

Equivocation.
You are the one that said it was a joke.
Yet it is you now who is claiming to not know what I asked about, even though I clearly let everyone know I agreed with your friends statement.

spe·cies


–noun 1. a class of individuals having some common characteristics or qualities; distinct sort or kind.

2. Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

3. Logic . a. one of the classes of things included with other classes in a genus.

b. the set of things within one of these classes.



4. Ecclesiastical . a. the external form or appearance of the bread or the wine in the Eucharist.

b. either of the Eucharistic elements.



5. Obsolete . specie; coin.

6. the species, the human race; mankind: a study of the species.






I let it be known what I meant, and STILL you both commit fallacies.
I am not so much upset, as I am sad. I bet you both believe you are intelligent, don't you...

Going back to Maelestes Gobiensis, which was MY example of speciation, are you now admitting this is a valid example or just pretending to ignore it? Please advise.

Ok, did you observe it happen?

 

[HAPMinistries]

I can't believe I didn't pick up on this (emphasis mine).

No, you cannot reverse the process of speciation.

Yes you can.

In fact, they changed the process on the fruit flies in 3 generations I believe.

So, another FAIL for you.

 

[Cabal]

Equivocation. Even your friend directly explained this to you, you still are dull on the subject.

I made the question.
When your friend made the post, I confirmed, THIS is the meaning, so you could CLEARLY understand what I meant.

STILL, you try to use a fallacy...

you really are simple.

You're so entertaining. The definition you confirmed involved one species becoming another species. So the fact that a bird is still a bird is irrelevant to both speciation and your strawman definition that is not even what evolution claims anyway, as bird is a taxonomical class, not a species, and species are subsets of classes. Speciation (or your strawman) can occur and the parent species and the new species can still be in the same class, because the process only takes place on the species level.

So you don't even know basic taxonomy, and you think you know better than scientists? Epitome of Dunning-Kruger effect if ever I saw it.

0<1
You gave 0.

Wrong.

argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

Irrelevant, as I am not wishing for it to slide by unchallenged. I am challenging you to challenge the contents of the list, even only a fraction of the list would be a satisfactory start. And so far, you're failing.

 

[Delphiki]

Ad hominem

Nope. Statement of fact. You show that you don't know what equivocation is. Equivocation is using a word (or two very similar words) with two or more definitions to attempt to show your opponent is wrong.

And I guess there is a large breeding of Ligers... no wait...

Ligers do exist is captivity. Tigers and lions are still considered different species party because they very seldomly cross paths in nature, and their morphological differences.

YOU OBSERVED Maelestes Gobiensis evolve into cats and dogs?
LOL nice

Give another award!

Not directly, but there is an abundance of evidence.

Subject was not changed, I gave you the origin of evolution. Glad I could help.

Thank you, a rational thought.

That's all Cabal and I have been showing you. You're the one having difficulty fitting the square peg into the square-shaped hole.

 

[Cabal]

Yes you can.

In fact, they changed the process on the fruit flies in 3 generations I believe.

So, another FAIL for you.

Cite evidence for your claim, please.

 

[Cabal]

I let it be known what I meant, and STILL you both commit fallacies.

What you claimed to mean was a fallacy in the first place, as it is not what evolution claims would happen, so it is irrelevant to the validity of evolution.

I am not so much upset, as I am sad. I bet you both believe you are intelligent, don't you...

It's not so much as that we believe that - we are.

You, on the other hand, are so inept you lack the capability to recognise it.

 

[HAPMinistries]

So lets see what we have accomplished.

I asked for 1 observed example of a species becoming a completely different species.

To clarify what I meant by Species, I responded to this post:

Originally Posted by Freodin
Cabal, with your experience here you should know by now that when a creationist asks for a species evolving into a completely different species, they mean "into a completely different already existing species". The cat into dog variant, you know?

YEA!
Someone with a brain.



​

Still, equivocation was used to try and get past this.

When I asked for 1 example, a list was thrown at me. argumentum verbosium - a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

Still, I debunked a few, because I was given a list of speciation, and not the above definition.

And throughout this, I have recieved ad hominem remarks.


So can anyone who reads this understand why I am so amused?
The 'intelligent' people are reduced to not understanding English, not knowing Evolution, and are operating on Personal Attacks.


Atheists are as much a threat to a person's intelligence as the Chicago Cubs are to winning a World Series over the past 100 years.

Have a Good Day simpletons.

 

[Delphiki]

"Bird" is not a species. There are thousands of species OF bird, but "bird" itself is not a species. When you say you breed one bird into another species, but it is still a bird, well yeah. Of course it is. Just a different species of bird.

"Bird" is pretty much anything falling under the Aves class.

Kingdom - Animal
Phylum - Chordata
Class - Aves (birds)
Order - Anseriformes (fowls, screamers, etc)
Family - Anatidae (water fowl)
Genus - Anas (ducks)
SPECIES - platyrhynchos (Mallard duck)

 

[AV1611VET]

"Bird" is not a species.

Maybe it's a "kind"?

 

[HAPMinistries]

Cite evidence for your claim, please.

One for the road, though it is 8 or more generations, not 3:
File:Speciation experiment.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And for the birds and the fruit flies, just reverse the order. Ta Daaaaa.


Go ahead, insult me some more, lol!

 

[Delphiki]

So lets see what we have accomplished.

I asked for 1 observed example of a species becoming a completely different species.

Hit the brakes. That's where you screwed up. Asking for something that's irrelevant to the argument, and basically impossible.

Again, it's not directly observed, it's upon the overwhelming abundance of evidence that we know speciation occurs.

Were your mother and father ever babies themselves? Did you OBSERVE them as babies? How do you know they were ever babies?

 

[Delphiki]

Maybe it's a "kind"?

Ok, but he's trying to refute speciation... not... kindiation... which isn't even a word, I don't think.

 

[Belk]

One for the road, though it is 8 or more generations, not 3:
File:Speciation experiment.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And for the birds and the fruit flies, just reverse the order. Ta Daaaaa.


Go ahead, insult me some more, lol!

Low post count, argumentative, belligerent, and insulting. I'm calling Poe on this one.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Maybe it's a "kind"?

lol

They are going to avoid any word that would be understandable, because they would then be held accountable to understanding the conversation, lol.

Have a Blessed Day!

 

[Cabal]

One for the road, though it is 8 or more generations, not 3:
File:Speciation experiment.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And for the birds and the fruit flies, just reverse the order. Ta Daaaaa.


Go ahead, insult me some more, lol!

That's not evidence, that's a diagram. You're still asserting that something is reversible, when basic chaos theory would indicate that it is not reversible.

Again, evidence for your claims, please.

 

[Cabal]

till, equivocation was used to try and get past this.

There was nothing to get past. You made a strawman argument, which has no bearing on the validity of evolution.

Your argument was irrelevant.

Run along now.

 

[HAPMinistries]

This is why I call them on their fallacies.

I am sure you would all much rather get into a definition debate then actually face that no species has ever been observed to become a completely different species [by my definition].

Of course, it is my definition that explains how a macro-micro-organism would become the dinosaurs and then man, lol.