does evolution exsist

If the new type of goatsbeard can pollinate itself and make new fertile offspring but only makes sterile seed with the old kind of goatsbeard, then...

IT'S SPECIATED! It's a new species!

DUH!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i wonder how long it will take for the following site to get hacked?
http://www.evillusion.net/

gee, i might even get banned for posting it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"Prove its a tulip", lol. It's like he actually expects an ape to give birth to a human in one easy step.

Same with the earthworms I mentioned earlier. It's a new species in less than 170 years.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

HR,
what was you saying about intellectual dishonesty?

 

Something like that...or like he doesn't actually understand the terminology.
Not bothering to understand something you have contempt for makes a lot of sense, no?

 

Well, I've given up bothering to understand him...

 

A goatsbeard seems to be in the rose family

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and is a woody perennial.
A tulip's in the lily family, and comes up from a bulb

Something you'd be more likely to see is a leaf-size change or flower pigmentation change in the goatsbeard.

Things don't just undergo radical taxonomy change overnight.

Quite frankly, Leo, I think you're trolling here. Either that or an event horizon is about to form around your head.

 

You know its almost as if leo is completely oblivious to how utterly disingenuous his behaviour is - even to the point of where he will admit to lying and apologise (weakly) for it (post 197) - but then continue a few posts later with what he knows to be a lie (post 261 for example), only to act insulted and affronted when confronted with the evidence of his attempted deceit.

In his defence I think his feeling of affront when challenged about his dishonesty is genuine - his narcissism has reached such an elevated level that it is impossible for him in his current frame of mind to behave otherwise.

I think perhaps spending a little time off the site cooling his heels, and perhaps taking a step back to reflect and to make a more honest appraisal of how he has behaved in this thread might do him some good - forcibly so if necessary.

 

thanks, i'll check it out later

every biologist?
well, i wonder how the new proposed forum rule will fare now.

apparently by living at high altitudes.

no.

okay.

good question. the universe is a big place, it would be insane for someone to say "we know everything there is to know" even when it comes to a "natural origin" for life. life IS nature, it's the alien in the grand scheme of things.

spoon fed guppies would be a better phrase.

i have reviewed #225 yet again thinking i might have missed something.
i have revised my answer: "I DON'T GOD DAMNED FUCKING KNOW SO STOP FUCKING ASKING ME"

swallowing the creationist line? what have i posted in here that leads you to believe i'm a creationist? where have i said "god did it"?
as a matter of fact i challenge you to search this entire site from the day i enrolled to find such a reference.
so back the fuck off already with this "leo's a creationist" bullshit.

no.

you can't see sarcasm when it slaps you in the face.

 

wow! leo answered a direct question

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

question is have you learned anything from it?

do you now understand why petulantly demanding to see the precise point at which a mscroevolutionary event takes place is nonsensical?

 

Why don't you know? Do you think they are difficult questions? Do you think there are answers? Do you understand what the questions and your inability to answer them demonstrate about evolution?

 

if we follows james reasoning i posses the intelligence of an 8 year old.
a fine example to set for the board don't you think?

personally i find them impossible questions.

i don't have an answer to them, whether they can be answered or not is for someone else to decide.

i don't remember anybody proving they apply to evolution.

 

Please answer my question. I haven't called you an eight year old. I do not represent James. Stop equivocating.

They are impossible questions. That is the entire point.

They cannot be answered as asked. Do you truly fail to see that where we set the dividing line between the starting point and the ending point is arbitrary and does not reflect the continuous gradation that actually exists. Do you not understand this or are you simply being obtuse, since to admit you understand it would make it difficult for you to continue to deny macroevolution.

Now I think you are being deliberately obtuse. The example given is directly comparable with micro/macro evolution, showing how macro evolutionary change is built up from micro evolutionary change. If you accept the latter is possible the former is an essential consequence.

 

Precisely the point Ophioloite - it's why he so desperately tried to avoid answering the question, or any other question for that matter, for so long. Had it not been James R asking it I seriously doubt it would have ever been answered.

When forced to accept what evolution really says, rather than what the creationist websites he trawls for quotes say it does (you may not be a creationist leo but it's obvious where you glean your sources from), evolution is a fairly simple proposition to accept.
Therefore by fabricating ridiculous criteria for his demands for proof, and by avoiding any question that would force him bring the discussion within the bounds of genuine evolutionary predictions for which there is a huge body of evidence, he avoids inadvertently educating himself.

It is 100% textbook creationist behaviour ....... and if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck ......

 

cant you just admit your wrong?

 

That's the whole point.

There is no defined jump from one to the next, so it is difficult to determine where one species is categorised into another.

 

excellent question

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, usually one just evolves into another specie over hundred of thousands of years (or longer) and most of the intermediate stages leave no fossil record, but there is an interesting case where space, in addition to time separates two species, and all the intermediate species still exist.


I forget the name of this arctic bird*, but it is not a good flyer - walks a lot as that takes less energy and lets it look for food as it goes. It is found mainly above the arctic circle. Those in N. Norway can mate with those of Western Russia; and they can mate with those in central Arctic Russia. Those can mate with the Eastern Russians birds. Those of E. Russia with those of Western Alaska can mate, and they can with those of central Canadian Arctic and they can with Eastern Canadian Arctic birds; but the Eastern Canadian birds can not mate with those of Western Norway!

I.e. the Western Norwegian birds are a different species than the Eastern Canadian birds.

All the intermediates in this evolutionary change to new species still exist! The most genetically similar to the Norwegian birds are those of Western Russia, and the difference in their genes is not great enough to prevent fertile eggs from forming. But as you continue going Eastward around the "top of the globe" these differences accumulate to such a degree that by the time you get to Eastern Canada, nearly all the way around except for inhospitable thick ice covered Greenland, the genetic difference accumulated is too great for fertile eggs to be produced. - I.e. they are two different species.

No one can say exactly where this small, but accumulating genetic change made a new species. Just as no one can say when some dinosaur became a bird. - The change in each generation is too small to be noticable. We don't have fossil records of all the intermediate stages that transformed dinosaurs into birds**, but in the case of these arctic birds ALL the intermediate stage still exist. One could say they evolved over both space and time, but no intermediate stage became extinct.

In other words a case of: "Macro evolution", with ALL the in between "micro evolution" stages still available for examination."

* It may be called a "tarmigan" in Norway, but that is my phonetic spelling attempt. I have eaten part of one.*** My ex-brother in law was a typical Norwegian male - went hunting in the north of Norway and had a primative cabin there as his base.

**Some have been found in China in the last decade or two: I.e several fossils of dinosaur like creatures with feathers and more bird like mouth / beak. Studies show it could at best only glide, not fly up, so the feathers were probably for better thermal control.

*** And whale too a few times, but that is off thread. BTW it is red meat - clearly not a fish. The whale evolved from a land animal, so that comment, puts this back on thread.