Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The scientist who enjoys debating creationists
(08-04-2015, 10:34 PM)JGodHatesBengals Wrote:
Quote:Mkay, first off... The article does indeed list multiple definitions of species, because there are in fact multiple definitions of species in biology. Note, however, that all of the given definitions have at least one example of observed speciation.
I'll re read.


Quote:"Housefly turning into a bumble bee"? Do you realize that nobody with even the most basic understanding of the theory of evolution has ever proposed that we would witness such a thing? Do you not understand that evolution is an incredibly slow, gradual process? Even punctuated equilibrium events take many, many years for the type of drastic change (i.e. something being almost unrecognizable next to its ancestor) you are requesting. You are demanding that evolution do something that nobody has ever claimed it would.

well at least you didn't try to rationale with a tadpole/frog video. 

Yes it does take time. I'm just asking for proof of speciation, which I haven't discounted outside of my interactions with this thread. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong, I fully admit that, that speciation is missing key components a la the missing link. Go easy, I'm just trying to understand this stuff without accepting it blindly. Isn't it based on assumptions, as I highlighted in my previous reply?

the house fly/bee was a simple analogy to homosapiens in relation to other homonoids. They're not all related, even though they're similar. 

Quote:"That doesn't count"? So descendants that cannot reproduce with the initial species does not count as a new species? You are proving my prediction 100% correct: moving the goal posts.

it isn't my intentions to move the goal posts.  I don't know if that counts or not. I'll get back to you on that one. 

Quote:I don't think I do care to explain ***** sapiens evolution to you, frankly. You may claim to be non-religious, but your MO reeks of a typical evolution denialist, and as I've explained numerous times in this thread, I have zero interest in "debating" reality with such folks.

No bud. I have not believed in God since I was 13 years old. I'm 41 now. only  recently have I began to really delve into evolution. I've always accepted it as fact. But it's only a theory, thus, may not explain anything at all.  You'll find no creationist here. Not in the sense of what you're used to anyway. But what I may believe is irrelevant. I'm simply looking for answers as always. Sometimes I have to play ...well... Devils Advocate to find them. 





Messages In This Thread
RE: The scientist who enjoys debating creationists - Devils Advocate - 08-04-2015, 10:56 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)