I have cited to YOU several documents where scientists identify specific mechanisms whereby dna changes occur to form two populations that can not interbreed. These scientists document the methods of structural change in the genome. THAT is the ballgame. Once that permanent separation occurs, differentiation causes change over time. And, after huge numbers of such speciation events we get the life we see today. Numerous times you have been asked by me (most recently) and others for YOUR version of how we ended up with our current (and expanding) number of species. But, YOU CAN'T! You've got nothing.
I just don't understand these bluffs. You think i have not been reading the thread? Why this constant, "you've been given evidence, you just ignore it!" fake meme? Is it to fool someone else who drops in here by mistake? It doesn't fool me, and i can't imagine it fooling yourself. But it is a typical fallacy from the UCD crowd, so it fits well in this thread..
I've snipped out some ad hom, to present this new, popular fallacy from evolutionists: When asked for evidence, arguments, or facts, claim indignantly that you've already done it, even though nothing was offered. It is a bluff, presumably to fool any simpletons who drop into these threads by mistake. I've tried to figure out if this fallacy deserves its own classification, or if it just a variation of the assertion fallacy. Since it is an unevidenced assertion, i suppose putting it there makes the most sense. Thanks to the helpful posters here for the sequential illustrations. It does corroborate the OP, that UCD only has fallacies, not facts, reason, or science.
No, please pay attention. As both of us have said, the problem is that you dismiss any evidence shown to you. This indicates two things: 1) you are not honestly seeking information and answers 2) it would be a waste of time to spoonfeed you information that any child could find for themselves. Why do you think that deniers like you hold no burden? The theory of evolution is an accepted fact and is supported by all the evidence. So, if it is so rife with fallacy and deception...why aren't you deniers producing science to back this up? Why can't any of you offer an alternative, supported by empirical evidence? You embarrass yourself to act as if your posturing and whining represents any actual challenge to the theory of evolution.
I accept your concession. But all you had to say is that you can't provide the evidence necessary to show a species gradually transitioning into another species. I must be hard to not be able to defend your beliefs.
What you mean is the evidence doesn't exist. And since you can't can't find any evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another species and that you must concede. I accept your concession.
Several have posted multiple examples to you. In fact, they have included multiple mechanisms for speciation at the DNA level. You can not get more "gradual" than that.
Yes, but they are still the same species. No evidence of it becoming another species. I remember bringing that your attention. A couple of others were hoping I'd just read the title and concede. However, I read it and made that important detail clear. And those differences, according to Darwin, should be found in the fossil record. Nothing of the kind has been done. And I've never said it did. There should be evidence of the gradual transitioning in the fossil record. Or of any species. It's not nonsense. Instead it's very reasonable. The extrapolation may appear to be negative but in reality the transitioning we ever see is due to extrapolation and it is often accompanied with artistic renderings of what "might" have happened. Remember, evolution is only a theory. Period. If the evidence existed it would no longer be a theory. A competing theory isn't necessary. A theoretical foundation. Nothing more.
The "they" that were in these studies definitely became new species. They were a separate population that could not successfully breed with the precursor population. From there, they would become more differentiated through subsequent generations. Theory is the strongest truth of all of science. Saying "only theory" only means you can not even recognize what science IS. The fossil record includes a tiny sampling of life forms. It would be shocking if the kind of record you want were available. It would require numerous sequential fossils of the same species through geological history. It just doesn't work that. More importantly, the theory predicts what will be found and what will not be found. The theory has been perfect at that
In science, a theory may be invalidated or replaced by a theory that better describes how the process in question works. So far, you haven't come close to either.
In an earlier post Pruney said " Because we all know that if you could that you would.". He must be referring to the voices in his head.
and you claim to be well versed in science.... how many times does it need to be explained to you...the scientific definition of "Theory" is "Accepted as True"...it's not a hypothesis therefore the Theory of Evolution is accepted as TRUE!!!!! and it remains that way until it is displaced...and that won't happen because ever bit of evidence that is added only further strengthens the THEORY! as there is no competing hypothesis! really how can someone (you)who claims to be proficient at science not know scientific definition of Theory ????
I am weary of the hate, the phony narratives, the ad hom streams, the lies, derision, and irrationality. It is a colossal waste of time, for me to oppose these narratives, or to attempt reason in a cacophony of madness and folly.
Good! You should stop doing all of that and, instead,start producing mountains of science to back up the things you say. That would represent an actual challenge to evolution. Your parade of fallacy and lies does not represent an actual challenge to the most robust scientific theory in history.
What you require is simply not possible. There ARE NO transitional species we can produce as it has not transitioned yet. Basically every single species alive today is transitional but we do not know what it will become due to our lack of time travel equipment. Every species that existed was transitional until it became what we see today. We can show you fossils that you will dismiss and animations to explain but you will say cartoons do not count. We could show snakes with leg buds or whales with legs in their blubber but you will dismiss that as well. Basically you want me to show up and plunk a fish tank on your kitchen table with a frog that turns into a horse....Not Gonna Happen.
yes what he's demanding evidence for isn't what's explained by TOE, there can be no point in the fossil change where there you can say this is a transitional specie! ...to understand TOE is to know that can't happen, change is an incremental blend...creationists deliberately misunderstand TOE creating a strawman, they're not debating TOE they're debating their own magic scenario and attributing it to TOE and expecting us to defend their fallacious argument ....
You are declaring victory, because a bunch of non scientists on the internet won't debate -- on your terms, with you allowed to dismiss anything presented on the basis of accusing scientists of beong liars and oncompetent -- the most robust scientific theory in history? That makes you seem pretty insane. Now go on, ride that high...go produce some science...go find a serious scientific debate where you don't get laughed out of the room...go find a 7th grade science test that you don't fail miserably...report back...
Take all the parting shots you want. I'm tired of the flame wars and hostility, so you can have all the one way cattiness you want. I won't shoot back, for now. ..hardly declaring victory.. can't you smell surrender when you hear it? Enjoy your beliefs, and good luck in the forum discussions.
Separate from the population, but still the same species. Are we discussing the plants? If so please read the article. We're talking about the triticeae (sp) fauna, right? Correction. It is not the strongest truth in science. It is a theory because it hasn't got the evidence necessary to call it anything else. Then there can be no evidence of a species gradually transforming into another species, which is the entire basis of evolution. I can't buy that. There should be evidence in every step of the process. All that shows up is "this and "that complete species of it's own". This is something you made up. It doesn't predict, people who want evolution to be true may have made this prediction but only by guess work. Evolution has yet to be duplicated in the lab. Another reason it's only a theory.
That's because I don't need an alternative theory. The theory of evolution, and I've had many hours of college science, biology and zoology, hasn't convinced me it's a fact.
