Fallacies of Evolution

I'll ask this again. If B isn't a mixed species what is it?
Here's what you said

If B isn't a mixed species what is it? Of course the fossil record shows no evidence of
this taking place. However, if it did, how can you deny that B isn't a mixed species?

 

I was agreeing with Darwin. He said we should be seeing transitional species everywhere. From
what I gather from evolutionists a transitional species is a species that comes from another
species. While there are Tions, Ligers and the like, they are a mixed species but they cannot
reproduce within their species. They are a dead end like all other non propagating species.

Evolutionists tell us that the species would be mixed. So far no transitional species have been
found. Every single propagating species is a species of it's own.

 

Here is what I said:

My apologies, apparently you only understand comments in bold red. Here, for your ease in understanding, is my original post with that part you missed now in bold red...

 

You didn't understand the question so let me elaborate. Take two groups of the same species that are able to reproduce together and separate them. There are still individuals within the same group that they can reproduce with, but they are prevented from reproducing between groups. Apply different selective pressures forcing the genetic pool in each group to drift away from each other. If the groups genetically drift far enough apart that they can no longer reproduce with each other, would you call them different species?

The site is a collection of observed instances of the scenario I describe above, showing that science has in fact observed the evolution of new species, per the definition you accepted.

 

I assume that you exhibit traits that you inherited from your parents, and that your children (if you have any) exhibit traits that they inherited from you. I would be willing to bet that the same can be said of every other living creature on this planet. By the definition ARDY provided, that makes every living creature "transitional".

 

This is just another 'moved goalposts' fallacy. We were talking about macro, & you change it to micro.

 

Where do evolutionists say that? I'm not even sure what a "mixed" species would be. What do you mean by that term? Just so we're clear, there is no part of the theory of evolution that says that two separate species come together to make a third species, as is implied with your comment about Tions and Ligers being mixed. So within evolutionary biology, what would it mean for a species to be mixed?

 

Clearly what they don't understand goes beyond the subject of speciation.

 

When the same mechanisms explain both micro and macro evolution, there is really no difference.

 

He wants you to produce a Crocoduck.

 

Of course there is. That was point #1 of the OP.

This has never been refuted, with anything that resembles evidence, but the false correlation is just asserted. 'Micro' is an observable, repeatable phenomenon, that is simple variability within a genetic structure. 'Macro' is the imagined scenario where organisms vary OUTSIDE that genetic structure.. adding chromosome pairs, genes, or other assumed events. There is nothing scientific to support that belief. We cannot observe it. We cannot force it. It does not happen, as the claimants believe.

 

They depend upon magic time. Time exerts a powerful force on genetics. It can do things, which our intellect does not have a clue as to how it does it. So, it is magical, powerful magic. To replicate what time does, which has no intent, requires a magician. The are scientists and not magicians. They are missing the magic.

- - - Updated - - -

They depend upon magic time. Time exerts a powerful force on genetics. It can do things, which our intellect does not have a clue as to how it does it. So, it is magical, powerful magic. To replicate what time does, which has no intent, requires a magician. The are scientists and not magicians. They are missing the magic.

 

One can lie out of ignorance; it's telling a lie "inadvertently".
Definition: without knowledge or intent
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/inadvertently
What do you know? You did.

 

The same mechanism, mutation and natural selection, behind the genetic variability in individual organisms is also responsible for the genetic diversity of entire species. Scientists have observed this in the lab as well as in nature. Unless you can produce a mechanism that limits genetic diversity, your argument that micro and macro evolution are different fails.

 

Prove that assertion.

 

It's progress of a kind. 30 years ago you would probably have been in denial of 'micro' but, the scientific evidence now compels you to accept it. If it has to be baby steps then so be it.

 

Hundreds of years after Galileo people still believed geocentricity.

 

You mean it's not the centre?

 

When it comes to analyzing claims, usfan relies heavily on "Do as I say, not as I do."

 

It's also not the center.

 

Where is the "magical" line that organisms cannot cross?
At what point do they hit this invisible wall that prevents them from evolving any further?
That is a question that you must answer if you are going to say that macroevolution is impossible.

 

I define the 'center' as the 'creator' of what we call the Universe so you are just guessing now...



- - - Updated - - -

I think that is in my bedroom. Oh right, you said organisms! My bad.

 

LOL
...

 

Any such barrier or limit would have to be located in the gametes so it could be passed from generation to generation. It would have to be a gene or group of genes. Of course, these genes would somehow (i) have to keep a historical record of how much change had occurred in the past for the current organisms' historic genetic lineage, (ii) keep that historical record for mutations throughout the entire genome (e.g., what occurred to genes on other chromosomes), (iii) be able to determine when the limit or barrier was reached and (iii) when the limit or barrier was reached would have to be able to stop further mutations from occurring at all (e.g., stop cosmic rays, insure no duplication errors, etc.). Of course, evidence that this process was actually occurring would include a total lack of mutations from one generation to the next. Such evidence has not been observed. Indeed, all observed evidence demonstrates that mutations always occur from one generation to the next.

 

Complex information can emerge spontaneously out of blind and natural processes following relatively simple rules.Genetic algorithms are excellent evidence of nature’s ability to produce spectacular results without thought.The everyday use of genetic algorithms to solve difficult problems demonstrates, again and again, that the unthinking processes (mutation and natural selection) identified by Darwin are quite sufficient for the task