Since you have extensive education in biology, please describe in technical terms your answers to the following questions: What you mean by gradual trasition? What in the fossil record are you looking for? How do you define a species? Also, please provide citations for your answers to these questions.
First of all science doesn't prove anything. Second, science doesn't say evolution exists. People who say it exists are those who adjust evidence and make it fit their ideas. Much like anthropogenic global warming.
LOL! You're funny. In technical terms a species gradually transitioning into another species is a species that transitions gradually into another species. Now, provide evidence of that ever happening.
The Bible is literal only when it's literal. Anti god people want to put understanding the Bible into a box and with a set of rules that direct the thought to a predetermined outcome. I'm not a Creationist. It's your turn to answer questions. Please provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
That is not technical terms. Those are layman's terms and your layman's definition is circular and meaningless. Also, you did not respond to any other questions. The questions are all related. You don't seem to have extensive education or training in biological sciences.
Oh look. It's the weekend already? Where does the time go? I'm done playing the game. We do this weekend in and weekend out. I'll going to go on believing what I (and the vast majority of the fragging scientific community) believe. If you can't do more than a once a week script of "don't know and don't care, I'm not a creationist, you can't prove a damn thing, maybe it was aliens..." then there is nothing more to say. I'm willing to have a discussion, but if you're going to pull a Monty Python, Argument Clinic sketch-esq bit every week...well then you can put your fingers in your ears, hum really loud and pretend that you're right and every college educated, biology major on the face of the planet is a bunch of halfwits and morons. Goodbye.
Good analogy for PP. Kneejerk denial of evolution! Kneejerk denial of being a creationist! Kneejerk denial of having any alternative! Kneejerk denial of science! Kneejerk denial of evidence of transition! Kneejerk contrarianism does not rise to the level of civil debate.
It is unfortunate and frustrating when anyone cannot absorb basic information or simply denies said data was presented to them. I and many others have provided numerous examples, verified by multiple informed sources of transitional species in both the fossil record and current living animals which have been dismissed and ignored due to either purposeful ignorance or mental issues. The member who uses this strange technique for "Debate" should simply be dismissed as what he is and ignored that actual discussion can take place. The very limited entertainment value (like a car accident) quickly wears off and further attention becomes a detriment to intent.
IOW, The Bible contains only what YOU say/feel it does. :^) Yes you are. If species didn't evolve into one another, they were created, basically As Is. You are the most repetitive Troll of all time. One has to conclude there are 'issues'. 1. The Fosssil Record which is constantly filled in with Intermediate species, which Only Evolution would predict, and in fact does find the predicted tweeners. 2. GRADUAL DNA Change between species. 3. Species have Anatomical Remnants of past ancestral ones, (some useless), and this includes humans. Your Demented Denialism is Trolling and you have been answered Hundreds/Thousands of times and then just say "no." +
If I did use technical terms you certainly wouldn't understand them because you can't understand what you cal layman's terms. Secondly, they are not circular and meaningless. They strike you to the bone because you know that there is no evidence anywhere that shows a species gradually transitioning into another species. The other questions were meaningless and circular. I have quite an extensive education in physics and biology and, from reading your fearful posts, you have no education beyond high school in biology. Please, stop grasping for a red herring and answer the question. Will you provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? You won't even try. You'll stay with the red herring.
We're not playing a game. This is very serious. Please provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. And you'll be wrong. The sad thing is that you know it but refuse to do anything about it. I've shaken your faith and you don't like it. I've asked a very hard and realistic question that you nor science has been able to answer. I say I'm not a Creationist because I'm not a Creationist. I know you want me to be one because it would help you feel good about yourself. Secondly, don't post everyday because I have a life outside of PF. Besides, you won't answer the tough question. Why should I waste my time everyday when once a week is sufficient? Will you please provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? I say you'll either chase the Creationist red herring (because you can't answer it and won't admit it) and would rather cut and run instead of face the truth. Please, prove me wrong and provide the evidence I've asked for.
Hey, they're really loud to. But what more can you expect when the pro evolutionist crown refuse to answer the question. LOL! Just provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Or do we insert more crickets?
Correct, and I'm surprised that you don't know that. But then again most people think science is supposed to prove things, which it isn't. Science simply observes and takes notes. Very little, but there are people with an agenda, who may be scientists, who will say anything to make it look like evolution really exists and that there's insurmountable evidence. Honestly and truly it says there's this species and that species. Science observes and takes notes. Science may say something like, "this species MAY MIGHT have come from that species. But it doesn't say that they did. People with an agenda say they did. Once I found that it's not the purpose of science to prove anything it opened my eyes to the proper way to understand science. Too many people rely upon their dogma's of intolerance and hate to dictate their beliefs, philosophies and desires. Too many of those people are teaching in our education systems.
Okay, you just want to throw insults and nonsensical statements, but stop deflecting and provide a technical definition of species and gradual transition. Let me explain this to you like I do with the undergraduate students that I teach experimental methods to. I don't believe, you have been taught this. Science builds upon the previous work available. A good research question is one that uses precise language. The jargon used is different than colloquial phrases used to describe phenomenon. Scientific jargon has evidence to support its claims and can be understood by following the citations. A bad research question: Why do forget answers to questions on tests? This is a very general question that could be understood by anyone, but is quite meaningless as a research question. A better research question: Are proactive or retroactive interference common when incorrectly answering questions on multiple choice tests? You have jargon that is used by scientists to investigate memory. Thus, you have clearly stated your question with a precise description of the context. You question is an example of bad research question. You need to reword it sith specific definitions of species and gradual transition. I will give you a little help. Are you talking about genotypic, phenotypic or both? Look up how species are defined and choose one system. I am expecting more deflections in the forms of insults. You do not seem to care like you claim to.
Not at all. I'm also not a Creationist. One must never allow feelings to interfere with matters of intellect. If you do you could become a believer in evolution. Are you saying that my answering your repetitive questions makes me a Troll but you not answering my incredibly reasonable question doesn't make you one? SHOE. FIT. Then provide an answer my question and stop trolling. These are not evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. These tweener (you call them that) are complete species. The don't show any gradual transitioning. Evolution is based on extrapolation and artistic renderings. It can predict nothing. There is no gradual dna change between species. There is this species and there is that species. Anatomical remnants do not guarantee ancestry. Looking similar doesn't make it related. It only makes it look similar. Now for the hard question you've dodged. Provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. It will be in the fossil record. If you read Darwin's you'll find that's what he says in his Origin book around chapter 6. You haven't done that. You only parroted the usual pro evolution dogma which in no way. Good news! You don't have to buy the book. You can read it here for free. Be the first of your peers to actually read the book. http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf
You're the one throwing insults. I'm simply replying to your limited understanding since you can't comprehend, on your own, what a species gradually transitioning into another species is. Darwin didn't have to use silly technical terms when he said that. See chapter 6 of OofS. Maybe the way he says it will be better, even it's exactly what I've been asking. I haven't been taught this. I've had the audacity to do research and study scientists like Fred Hoyle and Lynn Margulis. No it isn't. It's a good question. You don't like it because your on a Red Herring chase. You'll do whatever is necessary to keep from providing the evidence. It's a question that challenges your belief system. Will you provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? I say you'll continue with your red herring.
That is great. Do you have publications? If you do, then you would know that my critisms are correct. You need to properly define your terms. Fred Hoyle defined his terms well. He cited previous work and produced some important findings. Your question is a bad research question, but fine for layman question. You claim to have extensive scientific training; yet, you refuse to do the most basic things. It should only take you a few minutes to produce what I asked for. I have asked three simple questions. If you were given a talk, it would be in your first few slides giving background information. Yet, you deflect and accuse me of being uninformed or unable to comprehend your jargon. Why not just post it, and prove that you are right?
What part of "I'm not playing this game" do you not understand? Give it up... we're done. You go and belve as you want, me and the vast majority of the scientific community will believe what we want.
If it was serious you would answer my question with something more than off the cuff bull crap like aliens or a theory from someone who didn't even write about evolution. I have, you can't be bothered to even consider it. I've been willing to entertain an alternative theory...if you could be arsed to provide one. And I've asked a question in return and you can't be arsed to even try. Stalemate. I feel fine about myself regardless of who/what you are. I'm just annoyed that in one breath you say that the Bible is the truth, then in another say it's not the literal truth. Down our way we call that "Straddling the fence". I'd accept that as an answer if the first thing out of your fingers wasn't the same thing every weekend. What truth? That you don't understand or don't want to understand the evidence that the vast majority of the scientific community have accepted as support for the theory of evolution? I'm not cutting and running from anything other than a "Uh-huh/Nun-uh" level of argument. There's nothing to cut and run from apart from the same @#$%ing script. You come in and say that evolution is bullcrap and that people need to provide evidence. Evidence is provided (or more recently the evidence already submitted is referred to) You say that we haven't provided sod all I say "Well what's an alternative theory?"\ You reply with an apathetic response ranging from "Don't know, don't care" to a half-baked and equally apathetic theory that makes no bloody sense Someone (usually me but there are others) points out that by believing that the Bible is the truth, you therefore believe that Genesis, a book in the sodding Bible, is equally true You say that you're not a creationist... Lather, Rinse, Repeat next weekend. I have grown weary of going around and around with you for much the same reason that I've grown weary of dealing with all of the other conspiracy theorists out there (especially the Flat Earthers). That trying to convince you/them is impossible since neither of you are willing to even entertain something that is outside your belief system. I've asked them questions like "Well what's the benefit reaped by the conspiracy?" or "But what about the known and documented fact of...?" or "What's an alternative theory?" or "How did/are they doing that?"... ...and no one ever answers. So why should I get into a discussion (and I use that word loosely) with people like that when I'd have a more meaningful conversation with the hogie I'm currently eating? No. Find someone else to beat the dead horse with.
You are wrong that science simply observes and takes notes. Science also explores, exposes, explains and predicts. And while science will rarely claim anything is absolute, it will say that something is extremely likely or something is extremely unlikely. See, nothing else comes close to explaining the diversity of life the way evolution does. No other competing theory can make predictions like evolution can. No other competing theory is as supported by as many different disciplines and evolution is. In fact, there are no competing theories at all.ID/Creationism does not even rate as a hypothesis in comparison. Sure evolution has its issues, but it is continually tweaked as new data is uncovered and none of its issues stop it from being functional. You say too many people rely upon their dogma's of intolerance and hate to dictate their beliefs, but this just sounds like projection to me.
I have. You refuse to accept them because you're caught up in play a silly game of semantics and intentionally inducing self ignorance. In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another species. You might have something that's called a transitional species but it's a complete species of it's own with extrapolation and artistic renderings to make any kind of connection to any species. Now, stop trying to be mister college teacher, which from your juvenile posts you might be a college intern getting to teach an occasional class. Read what Darwin calls gradually transitioning species in chapter 6 of OofS. This will help you to see the light and suddenly realize the simple definition. Good grief.
