Yes, you are very careful to make sure to claim that you are all about science, but I can connect the dots. Yes, I can fathom that someone can have a rational reason not to believe in evolution, but not you. See, I have gone back and read some of your old posts on other threads, and it is obvious to me what you are all about. As for evidence of a species transitioning, please give me your definition of what a species is, since it appears you do not accept the scientific consensus of what a species is.
Not true. The so-called evidence you provided is the evidence that shows that the theory evolution is terribly flawed and needs to be manipulated. Maybe you should read more instead of accepting more. I've found that studying and investigating this flawed theory trumps blind acceptance.
Yes, I definitely understand the scientific method. You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence to support a species gradually transitioning into another species. If you did have evidence you'd have put it up. Instead all you do is another dog and pony show that has nothing of value to offer. No it doesn't. Mainly because I've not used religion. Only science which you are showing more and more that you deny. Why do you deny science? It doesn't make sense?
What so hard about GRADUAL TRANSITIONING. It means something gradually transitioned from one species into another. All anyone has produced are completely separate species that can only be connected with extrapolation and artistic renderings. The fossil record should be replete with the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
That poor soul can't produce any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Neither can you.
That is pretty pathetic. Perhaps you could provide a bit more clarity. Do you need day to day, or year to year, or exactly what. You always play the same game of vague and meaningless requirements. Doesn't fool anyone.
And, as with the theory of evolution, you do without dots. Oh good grief. Stop playing childish games and get on with it. Nobody is changing the definition of what a species is. Provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Stop playing games. This should be child's play, of course you'll need to provide the dots (evidence) instead of using a blank piece of paper which is all anyone has produced.
Since fossil evidence doesn't satisfy you perhaps once again you might actually be willing to say what evidence you require. Or perhaps, just for laughs, you would like to propose an alternative theory to evolution. Perhaps unintelligent design?
Others including myself have posted numerous cases of speciation - even cases that have occurred under the watchful eye of scientists under laboratory conditions. "No you didn't" is the response of a child. And, that has consistently been all you've got.
Nonsense. Here are some more cases: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5 https://phys.org/news/2016-11-biologists-speciation-laboratory-flask.html https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/2409766?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
I just want to make sure we are all on the same page before I give you evidence. A species is defined as "a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding". Do you agree with that definition?
Good grief, this is nothing but stall tactics. Does anyone on this thread have a college education? I'm serious. I don't need any time. Evolution is supposed to be the gradual transitioning of species into another. Remember the idea of the primordial ooze that nobody can provide evidence of ever happening but teach as though it's a fact? Everything is supposed to gradually transition from one species into another. How hard is that? You and others have been trying to say this has happened but nobody has provided the evidence. Can you provide evidence from the fossil record of a any species showing a gradual transitioning from a species into another species. That's very clear. No tricks. Nothing sneaky.
You've not provided any fossil evidence. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Just a fossil of "this" complete species and of "that" complete species with nothing to tie them together. If you have it then put it up. How hard is this? You're making much out of nothing.
I love science. When are you going to provide the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? Or are you going to continue to stall and stall?
Is that because you can't provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species?
No you haven't. There have been attempts at this but that's all. I remember very well the drosaphilia experiment from decades ago. Another fail. Not true. But if you want to play that game then your replies stating you have but really haven't are just as childish. Please put up or shut up.
Can you say subspecies? Did you read this? I say you didn't or you wouldn't have put this up. Please read this and underline words like "suggests", "may have" and the like.
That's the general definition. Yes, I can agree with this. By interbreeding keep in mind that horses and donkeys can interbreed but their offspring can't reproduce. That's goes for Tions, Ligers and other species.
You continue to demonstrate that you know little,if anything,about paleontolgy. Several decades ago the record of species-level transitions was considered quite good, and at higher taxonomic levels, the situation was improving and quite strong in situations where preservation of fossils had been favorable. Since that time, the state of transitional fossils has only improved.
How hard can it be to say what you would accept as evidence. Or just admit there is nothing that would change your mind.
Can you tell us what you would accept as evidence. Or aren't you bright enough to actually elucidate your requirements.
