By ignoring me, it's clear you keep choosing the "shut up" option because you can't "put up". Not that I'm happy about it. I keep hoping you'll provide the scientific community with the evidence you have that makes you know all this to be true: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-23#post-1067744546 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...ism-is-abstract.425438/page-3#post-1065392370 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...volution-redux.504291/page-21#post-1067674356 http://politicalforum.com/index.php...g-christianity.446908/page-30#post-1066931364
As I said. My questions are always met with hostility or silence. It might be because none of you have scientific evidence for your own claims. You're happy to attack evolution with questions about scientific proof, but the minute the same is asked of you, you all back down or insult me. It honestly says more about ChemEngineer, Yguy, and Prunepicker than it does of everyone here who presumes that evolution is absolute fact.
This has been explained many times and obviously not understood....I will try again. There can be no real time transitional species as each species is....a species. Transitional species must inherently be extinct and fossilized by definition and this evidence is not accepted by people who debate Evolution. No one will ever be able to produce something today that is transitioning into itself.
That makes perfect sense. But I suppose something like that is beyond the comprehension of a very persistent hypocrite I won't name.
Not true. A theory is just a theory. I've had more lab time than you've ever had and I have a significantly large knowledge of science.
Not true. There isn't an accredited science school that would dare make such a statement. Of course if you can produce such evidence I'd like to see it. What happens when the theories are found to be wrong? This happens quite often. How about Einsteins Static Universe Theory? How about the Martian Canal Theory? Ooops. So much for nothing being stronger... Wrong again. They are theories as to WHAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED and not what actually happened. They are guesses, albeit (even pseudo) educated, at best. I've already answered this and you have yet to provide reputable evidence that I'm wrong. All you've produced has been made up. Provide a reputable source from an accredited science school that would make such statement. Not true. There have only been new species found and NOT evidence evolution. Nobody has provided an iota of evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. NOT A SINGLE SHRED. I understand that you've never taken a science course in college and you rely totally upon google searches for your limited knowledge of science. I've taken many hours of science and physics and have spent many hours in college lab.
YOU DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE. Good grief. At least to some homework and stop relying upon headlines for your education. Pay very careful attention. They are the same species. They are hybrids. Yes, the article says the words "classic definition of a new species" BUT THEY AREN'T NEW SPECIES! Here is a report that doesn't use "new species". There's a reason. https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-10-291 READ! READ! READ! Good grief.
I don't. Never have. You on the other hand have been prolific in dodging the question: Where is the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? I'll expect you to do the usual cut and run. Which means more insults since you obviously can't discuss this in a civil manner. What is is it about people who are ignorant? They, just like you, resort to insults instead of intellectual debate. I believe it's intellectual laziness. C'mon. Defend your case. Put up evidence. Show us that you can do some besides casting aspersions.
Believe me. It's blatantly obvious that you haven't produced a shred of evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. That means if anyone is profoundly ignorant it's the poor soul who claims the evidence exists but can't produce the evidence. Put up or shut up, as they say.
Conclusion? I have asked for you to produce evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. All you've done is run as fast as you can from producing evidence and make childish insults. Of course that's what people who can't defend their cases because of ignorance have to do. Why? Because there's no evidence. Announcer: Will Cosmo actually produce evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species or will he be forced to resort to childish playground insults because s/he has nothing?
They are examples of the classic definition of a new species. That is CLEARLY stated. The fact that the process included hybridization is totally irrelevant. The results successfully interbreed with themselves, but NOT with the original species. You can find many articles that don't include the phrase "new species" - BFD. There are lots of issues in the biology of reproduction. If you want some other definition of species, you better state what it is. Until then, how about we agree to go with the definition that is in use TODAY?
Only someone who doesn't have the education, intelligence or ability to understand the topic make such ignorant statements. Creationists misrepresent the facts, laws, theories, history, philosophy and methods of science. Wherever you find a modern creationist, there too, you find someone with a cartoon understanding of science in general and evolution in particular.
claim to be in labs but don't know the scientific meaning of "theory" ...yeah I doubt you ever been in lab....
I haven't. But you have. In fact you've yet to show any knowledge of scientific observations. You don't know what a theory is. You don't have any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species, which is what evolution is supposed to do. Why can't you provide honest evidence?
They are the same species. They are not a new species. You didn't read your own article. Good grief. They are the same species. They are not a new species. But no evidence that that came from another species. An new species is a new species. It's that simple. You mean the one you change to fit your agenda?
Except that a new species wasn't created. They are the same species. You see, in order for a species to gradually transition into another species it must become a new species. They can't be different species if they are the same species.
Hmmm. Another non answer. When are you going to produce evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species? I've been waiting for over a year and you've provided nothing. You mean like you've been doing? You know, like making up what a theory is. I'm not a creationist. Annoncer: Cosmo still can't produce evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Wiil He continue to run from the facts or will he make up more lies an resort to more childish banter?
The fact that I know what I'm talking about and you don't shows volumes of how greater an education in science I have than you. I'm still waiting for your, or anyone else, to produce evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. You must believe it happened. Wouldn't you like to see the evidence for yourself? C'mon. Produce the evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species.
I know you are but what am I....meeny poo poo head. You have been told before that there are no transitional species alive anywhere because you cant show them until they transition into whatever they will.
What I gave you met the definition of being a different species - the new group can breed among itself successfully, but not with those from whom they were derived.
