Why Evolution is True

[CabVet]

like I said they need to document common ancestry.

Funny how DNA tests can be used to document ancestry in a courtroom but when it comes to evolution, isn't it?

 

[bhsmte]

Fossils obviously are not enough for him, you have to have a book saying that it is the case, and that book has to be faithfully followed by billions. Forget evidence.

I have seen this before. Nothing will be good enough and he will continue to play games trying to muddy the waters with frivolous garbage.

It is a waste of time.

 

[CabVet]

I have seen this before. Nothing will be good enough and he will continue to play games trying to muddy the waters with frivolous garbage.

It is a waste of time.

I know, what is really amazing is that he provides his own definitions, asks for evidence, we provide it, and then he quickly changes the definitions. If he won't ever accept what we say, why provide a definition and ask for evidence in the first place?

 

[createdtoworship]

I know, what is really amazing is that he provides his own definitions, asks for evidence, we provide it, and then he quickly changes the definitions. If he won't ever accept what we say, why provide a definition and ask for evidence in the first place?

please provide evidence of these claims

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

the only qualifications for macroevolution (per the definition) is to have a hybrid link two genras and also create fertile offspring, as this is what would be required to share common ancestry on a macro level. So please provide your "many more" hybrids. Most of what I have seen is infertile and thus the evolution failed.

Hybreds are not the way evolution works. Successful hybrids are, however, a demonstration that the two separate species share a common ancestry, and despite considerable genetic drifting can still produce . . . hybrid offspring.

Since this is the case, the fact that the offspring are infertile is not a "failure" of evolution. Instead, the limited success of the breeding is cited as evidence for evolution that has happened in the past.

You speak as if getting hybrids to come along is an attempt to make evolution happen!

Please achieve a better understanding of what evolution proponents are trying to share. It does no good to present nonsense as arguments against evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have seen this before. Nothing will be good enough and he will continue to play games trying to muddy the waters with frivolous garbage.

It is a waste of time.

how so?

 

[bhsmte]

I know, what is really amazing is that he provides his own definitions, asks for evidence, we provide it, and then he quickly changes the definitions. If he won't ever accept what we say, why provide a definition and ask for evidence in the first place?

It would appear, he thinks he is actually accomplishing something, or at least, really needs to convince himself of the same.

Again, it is a waste of time.

 

[createdtoworship]

Hybreds are not the way evolution works. Successful hybrids are, however, a demonstration that the two separate species share a common ancestry, and despite considerable genetic drifting can still produce . . . hybrid offspring.

Since this is the case, the fact that the offspring are infertile is not a "failure" of evolution. Instead, the limited success of the breeding is cited as evidence for evolution that has happened in the past.

You speak as if getting hybrids to come along is an attempt to make evolution happen!

Please achieve a better understanding of what evolution proponents are trying to share. It does no good to present nonsense as arguments against evolution.

I never said that hybidization is the only form of evolution. it proves my point nicely. namely that when push comes to shove there are no missing links.

 

[PsychoSarah]

please provide evidence of these claims

We have, you don't care.

 

[CabVet]

It would appear, he thinks he is actually accomplishing something, or at least, really needs to convince himself of the same.

Again, it is a waste of time.

I just found this gem now, apparently plant evolution is accepted by everyone and is a non-topic:

we were talking about vertebrates, and you bring up plant life? Do plants have backbones? I jest, but..

thats not changing the bars?

secondly, most people do not question the evolution of plant life. Thats a nontopic.

I guess flies evolve too, it's just vertebrates that don't, because, you know, backbones.

 

[createdtoworship]

It would appear, he thinks he is actually accomplishing something, or at least, really needs to convince himself of the same.

Again, it is a waste of time.

I gave you what you want. more leniency. this is how you repay?

 

[bhsmte]

I just found this gem now, apparently plant evolution is accepted by everyone and is a non-topic:



I guess flies evolve too, it's just vertebrates that don't, because, you know, backbones.

One of the many clues as to what is going on.

 

[CabVet]

please provide evidence of these claims

What claims? Of your definition of macroevolution? Here is your answer to what a species is, right after saying that macroevolution is evolution above the species level:

inter breed ability, reproduction of fertile offspring

obviously, not all species can interbreed with all other species but more commonly species within a genus may interbreed although there are exceptions as taxonomy is not a perfect science.

Of course, if I find a species that was formed by reproductive isolation in our lifetime, that doesn't count because these cases are of plants or flies, you know, things with no backbones. For those, evolution is accepted and a non-issue, right?

 

[createdtoworship]

I just found this gem now, apparently plant evolution is accepted by everyone and is a non-topic:



I guess flies evolve too, it's just vertebrates that don't, because, you know, backbones.

you got two different things here. first plant evolution is another topic. which we could migrate to if you want to change the bars. secondly flies do evolve. fruit flies are still flies regardless of how their eyes evolve. thirdly, you can migrate to plants as soon as you own the fact that you dont think vertebrates share common ancestry. are you willing to do that?

 

[createdtoworship]

I just found this gem now, apparently plant evolution is accepted by everyone and is a non-topic:



I guess flies evolve too, it's just vertebrates that don't, because, you know, backbones.

What claims? Of your definition of macroevolution? Here is your answer to what a species is, right after saying that macroevolution is evolution above the species level:



Of course, if I find a species that was formed by reproductive isolation in our lifetime, that doesn't count because these cases are of plants or flies, you know, things with no backbones. For those, evolution is accepted and a non-issue, right?

again lets move on to flies or plants. but will you accept the fact that vertebrates do not evolve?

 

[createdtoworship]

One of the many clues as to what is going on.

you seem bitter? can I help?

 

[PsychoSarah]

you seem bitter? can I help?

You can stop acting as if we haven't shown you evidence

 

[bhsmte]

You can stop acting as if we haven't shown you evidence

I can't imagine the constant vigilance the act requires.

 

[bhsmte]

you seem bitter? can I help?

Not in the least. Just stating the obvious.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not in the least. Just stating the obvious.

you sound angry. just sayin.