:roflmao: You haven't even responded to my posts. It's typical of someone on the losing side of an argument to declare victory and run away.
Likewise. I'm wondering what S.A.M. is going to say when I tell him that eugenics is mandated by the Bible. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
True. I'm sure, if determined, a breeder could find some way to make it work (though I don't want to go in that direction Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). But if they were in wild now, without humans, they could be classified as a different species by the same standards that are applied to other species. If a field biologist (who somehow never knew of dogs) encountered them, he would probably think there was sympatric speciation.
If i responded the way i want to it would be viewed as personal insult towards you, this is not my intention.
:shrug: It says you're a tranny, so technically I'm still correct. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Then tone it down. You certainly can't refuse to respond for fear of insulting me and then declare victory. At least, not without looking rather foolish.
I missed that :bugeye: (My eyes/brain probably weren't working after damage from looking at that picture).
I did not respond because the post is pointless. I gave the opportunity to provide coherent argument for determining that biological evolution, not simply changes from plant to plant or within Canis lupus familiaris, does not rely on faith. Neither you, SnakeLord or Spidergoat came close to achieving that. They left, your still here posting things that are not even relevant just as they were. Hey, i dont look foolish at all because i am relying on facts. And after all you did post that evolution was from land to water, remember that? Where did that come from anyway? I think your just googling as you go along, that is my theory.
Starting @ John99 La Eab Ga Ia Oa Na (6,495 posts) Old Today, 01:06 PM POST #61 We shall let the readers determine the winner here. Because at this point looks like you will continue posting strawman arguments.
You stopped challenging the point that was made, because it appeared that you were incapable. You can't declare an argument invalid without finding fault with it. More to the point, you certainly aren't doing anything useful if you declare an argument invalid without providing one of your own. I posted that the evolution of cetaceans was from land to water, not that all evolution was from land to water, and that's true. The evolution of the precursors to cetaceans was probably from water to land. So what?
But we are not arguing any points about children growing into adults.:shrug: Start a new thread for that. As to the other point, they teach that in third grade. I misunderstood your circular arguing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
You brought it up. I'll happily carry on the arguments about evolution and speciation if you can find any fault with the argument as it stands. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If they teach that in third grade, then why did you get it backwards when I presented it? The reason I told you that it was from land to water, if you recall, is because you asked why there were still dolphins, which is a moronic question on numerous levels. I'm beginning to think that the reason you keep presuming that you've won an argument is because you're entirely incapable of keeping track of one.
