Quote:For new species to constantly be introduced , members of one species must frequently give birth to offspring which are not of their species. It should be commonplace.
But it's not.
There should be so many intermediate variations between existing species that it's hard to tell where one stops and the other begins.
But it's not.
This shows how little you know about evolution. The first statement is flagantly false; you don't need members of one species frequently giving birth to offspring of other species for speciation to occur.
The second statement about it being difficult is true, but your negation of it is false. Looking at the genetic record and the fossil record, it is in fact hard to tell where one stops and the other begins. I recommend you look into the difficulty in defining species; the difficulty arises from that exact problem.
Besides the above arguments, you have yet to provide any evidence in support of a god, only evidence (poor evidence at that)
against evolution. We're on our 24th page in this thread, and you still haven't provided this. We've asked you for it in multiple other threads, and you haven't provided it. Until you provide evidence that a god exists, you have no footing to stand on.
fungotheclown wrote:Quote:For new species to constantly be introduced , members of one species must frequently give birth to offspring which are not of their species. It should be commonplace.
But it's not.
There should be so many intermediate variations between existing species that it's hard to tell where one stops and the other begins.
But it's not.
This shows how little you know about evolution. The first statement is flagantly false; you don't need members of one species frequently giving birth to offspring of other species for speciation to occur.
The second statement about it being difficult is true, but your negation of it is false. Looking at the genetic record and the fossil record, it is in fact hard to tell where one stops and the other begins. I recommend you look into the difficulty in defining species; the difficulty arises from that exact problem.
Besides the above arguments, you have yet to provide any evidence in support of a god, only evidence (poor evidence at that)
against evolution. We're on our 24th page in this thread, and you still haven't provided this. We've asked you for it in multiple other threads, and you haven't provided it. Until you provide evidence that a god exists, you have no footing to stand on.
Do you agree with this definition of the word "species"?
'a group of organisms capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring'
If not, please provide the definition that you find acceptable in distinguishing where the line is drawn between one species and another.
That definition excludes organisms that reproduce asexually from any species at all. For more on the trouble defining species, look at the site below
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Science_can't_define_species
I'm still waiting for evidence of a god.
fungotheclown wrote:Actually I have. Five times, in fact. Don't remember any guidelines concerning how you have to pray for god to hear you and respond.
Personal experience is entirely subjective, and thus does not constitute evidence for anything.
all experience and record is subjective. Science reaches its ends by subjective consensus... but, is the most popular answer absolutely the correct one? no. scientific data evolves, it is no more absolute than the belief in God. Even in the past hundred years, there have been any number of changes in what is "truth" according to science.
fungotheclown wrote: Your experience of a god carries as much weight in this argument as that nutball at the bus stop who thinks goblins are eating his underwear.
At least you've had the common sense to imply God is unconditionally real.
Saying he does or does not exist is ludicrous; there is no absolute answer. Even if it is the manifestation of a delusion, God is real. Everything is real... in what level of reality something exists is the correct question to ask. Does He exist as a string of events erroneously corelated to a trend (e.g. this happened therefore God did this), or as a definitive acting force within reality.
answer me these two questions: 1 what is god? 2 how does one measure the reality of reality?
real life wrote:There has never been, nor will be IMHO , a 'scientific' study of prayer. Those who propose it betray their lack of understanding of the nature of the subject.
There was some interesting work with water crystals in japan awhile ago, wherein prayer (or projected emotional energy) was used to change the structure of the crystals for better or worse. Infact, the same projection can be used to create movement on a polygraph machine sitting a good distance away from you.
there are studies, but chances are you will find it in the parapsychology section of any library. Scepticism of parapsychology routes from the ambiguity of what factors factually lead to the outcome.
check out the movie
what the bleep do we know - down the rabbit hole
fungotheclown wrote:real life wrote:fungotheclown wrote:real life wrote:For new species to constantly be introduced , members of one species must frequently give birth to offspring which are not of their species. It should be commonplace.
But it's not.
There should be so many intermediate variations between existing species that it's hard to tell where one stops and the other begins.
But it's not.
This shows how little you know about evolution. The first statement is flagantly false; you don't need members of one species frequently giving birth to offspring of other species for speciation to occur.
The second statement about it being difficult is true, but your negation of it is false. Looking at the genetic record and the fossil record, it is in fact hard to tell where one stops and the other begins. I recommend you look into the difficulty in defining species; the difficulty arises from that exact problem.
Besides the above arguments, you have yet to provide any evidence in support of a god, only evidence (poor evidence at that)
against evolution. We're on our 24th page in this thread, and you still haven't provided this. We've asked you for it in multiple other threads, and you haven't provided it. Until you provide evidence that a god exists, you have no footing to stand on.
Do you agree with this definition of the word "species"?
'a group of organisms capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring'
If not, please provide the definition that you find acceptable in distinguishing where the line is drawn between one species and another.
That definition excludes organisms that reproduce asexually
In context, I'm obviously referring to critters that reproduce sexually. (btw you don't even want to talk about the problems asexual reproduction poses for the likelihood of seeing a new species evolve)
I'm sure you would agree that evolution is an all-or-nothing proposition, i.e. either all species came about by evolution or none of them did.
So, let's talk about the 'origin of species' in that context.
Do you agree that the commonly accepting dividing line between these species is the ability to interbreed successfully, (i.e. the ability to produce fertile offspring) ?
http://www.google.com/search?q=species+definition
A better question that: "Does god exist"
yes,,, and i hope he and everyone he knows,,, ~forgives me for being an etcetra hole,,, because,,,, that is,,, what i am taught.
~ "To err is human to forgive is divine."
I forgive everyone and thing that has ever hurt me and may GoD help me (and everyone and everything) if i and others can't.
Amen
.
Jovana said...
Quote... "what i am taught" .
What others? taught you... is, at the best, a meaningless statement; but if you are a child, one could understand.
Dear God,,, i wish/~PRAY~ i could live as Raphael (the artist~~you know the scumbag who sells hisselves short,,, the one and only somewhat almost has talent but is reasonably decent to you i think more than 50 percent of the time,,, shame people have to beg to die and or stay alive so they don't get raped!) forever in Thee New Order and never anything else ever.
btw,,, your welcome,,, JayeY?! raphael.
Amen.
God ,,,thanK YoU and your closest male relatives for notieting and helping we stupid lowly females for giving birth to all of you scum sucking men.
GoD it must be nice to be you and your buddies Amen.?!
Grinding wheel for i who is Raphael.
Amen.
~Dear God
would you and your buddies
(excluding pjgy and Raphael)
like to be Thee New Order Holy Spirit/Ghost as a/an
1.ultra modest
2.insanly attractive female
3.that has no choice when it comes to giving birth to nothing but all men,,, and females.
4.from nothing to forever,,, forever,,, pregnant,,,poor,,,barefoot,,,smart,,,creative,,,talented,,, ~very much so,,, reasonably decent,,, at least 50 percent of the time,,, stupid funny talented,,,dumb and dumber slut,,, whore,,,
5. You have no choices.
6. You absolutly have no privacy
7. No mental stability what so ever with the exception of having to take drugs so you don't freeze almost to death
8.Yet not and always wanting to take drugs that you don't want to take,,, even though you don't want to be a drug addict but never the less are more than scummy that but treated less than because men are smarter than you,,, forever,,,.
9.Let's not forget how important you are not,,, yet you are,,, as long as ,,,you will become important as long as you are being raped and beaten and only when you love being raped and beaten then you will feel your soul,,, cry out in living agony forever,,, but remeber,,,you and your buddies must be ultra females that are raped and beaten and less than until ,,,that's just the way it goes.
9. Forever.10. God Bless
11 Amen
12 .
~Are buildings sacret,,,sacrud?,,,??!? "yes",,, there fore none of them should be burned, unless it will sexually turn God and his buddies on.
Amen.?
Quote:fungotheclown wrote:
real life wrote:
fungotheclown wrote:
real life wrote:
For new species to constantly be introduced , members of one species must frequently give birth to offspring which are not of their species. It should be commonplace.
But it's not.
There should be so many intermediate variations between existing species that it's hard to tell where one stops and the other begins.
But it's not.
This shows how little you know about evolution. The first statement is flagantly false; you don't need members of one species frequently giving birth to offspring of other species for speciation to occur.
The second statement about it being difficult is true, but your negation of it is false. Looking at the genetic record and the fossil record, it is in fact hard to tell where one stops and the other begins. I recommend you look into the difficulty in defining species; the difficulty arises from that exact problem.
Besides the above arguments, you have yet to provide any evidence in support of a god, only evidence (poor evidence at that) against evolution. We're on our 24th page in this thread, and you still haven't provided this. We've asked you for it in multiple other threads, and you haven't provided it. Until you provide evidence that a god exists, you have no footing to stand on.
Do you agree with this definition of the word "species"?
'a group of organisms capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring'
If not, please provide the definition that you find acceptable in distinguishing where the line is drawn between one species and another.
That definition excludes organisms that reproduce asexually
In context, I'm obviously referring to critters that reproduce sexually. (btw you don't even want to talk about the problems asexual reproduction poses for the likelihood of seeing a new species evolve)
I'm sure you would agree that evolution is an all-or-nothing proposition, i.e. either all species came about by evolution or none of them did.
So, let's talk about the 'origin of species' in that context.
Do you agree that the commonly accepting dividing line between these species is the ability to interbreed successfully, (i.e. the ability to produce fertile offspring) ?
http://www.google.com/search?q=species+definition
Just because it is commonly held does not mean that it is correct. It's commonly held in the US that a boss can prohibit discussing wages at work; this is incorrect. It's commonly held that nuclear power is dirty and unsafe, when in fact it is cleaner and safer than any other source of energy we have available to us. You are trying to set up definitions that don't reflect the real world, and then use those definitions to explain real world phenomena. Stop trying to artificially constrain the issue at hand.
Oh, also, I'm still waiting for that evidence of a god. You know, whenever you get around to it.
fungotheclown wrote:real life wrote:fungotheclown wrote:real life wrote:fungotheclown wrote:real life wrote:For new species to constantly be introduced , members of one species must frequently give birth to offspring which are not of their species. It should be commonplace.
But it's not.
There should be so many intermediate variations between existing species that it's hard to tell where one stops and the other begins.
But it's not.
This shows how little you know about evolution. The first statement is flagantly false; you don't need members of one species frequently giving birth to offspring of other species for speciation to occur.
The second statement about it being difficult is true, but your negation of it is false. Looking at the genetic record and the fossil record, it is in fact hard to tell where one stops and the other begins. I recommend you look into the difficulty in defining species; the difficulty arises from that exact problem.
Besides the above arguments, you have yet to provide any evidence in support of a god, only evidence (poor evidence at that)
against evolution. We're on our 24th page in this thread, and you still haven't provided this. We've asked you for it in multiple other threads, and you haven't provided it. Until you provide evidence that a god exists, you have no footing to stand on.
Do you agree with this definition of the word "species"?
'a group of organisms capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring'
If not, please provide the definition that you find acceptable in distinguishing where the line is drawn between one species and another.
That definition excludes organisms that reproduce asexually
In context, I'm obviously referring to critters that reproduce sexually. (btw you don't even want to talk about the problems asexual reproduction poses for the likelihood of seeing a new species evolve)
I'm sure you would agree that evolution is an all-or-nothing proposition, i.e. either all species came about by evolution or none of them did.
So, let's talk about the 'origin of species' in that context.
Do you agree that the commonly accepting dividing line between these species is the ability to interbreed successfully, (i.e. the ability to produce fertile offspring) ?
http://www.google.com/search?q=species+definition
Just because it is commonly held does not mean that it is correct.
You are trying to set up definitions that don't reflect the real world, and then use those definitions to explain real world phenomena. Stop trying to artificially constrain the issue at hand.
What gave you the idea that I made up the definition of 'species' and then managed to get my definition posted under all those links on Google?
That's pretty funny.
Now please address the issue.
If the 'origin of species' is that one species 'evolves' from another, then at some point members of species X must give birth to members of species Y. Correct?
If evolution happens all the time, then this should be commonplace.
It's not.
Instead we see members of species X giving birth to Xs. The dividing line between species is generally held to be the ability to successfully reproduce.
No fine gradations with difficulty telling where one species stops and the other starts.
Instead a very distinct break between species.
You are incorrect. We do see a variety of species with fine dividing lines between them, and we have witnessed speciation.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
STILL WAITING ON EVIDENCE OF A GOD. ANY TIME WOULD BE GREAT REALLIFE
You allude to a 'dividing line' but still are unwilling to say what divides one species from another.
Is it done on a whim?
Or are there criteria that determine what separates one from another?
Are scientists simply and subjectively deciding to follow those criteria in some instances, but not in others?
You didn't like my definition of what divides species, so provide your own. Let's hear it.
The definition of species is a hot topic, and is a subject of great debate in the scientific community. There are currently many working definitions, depending on what type of organism is being discussed and who is doing the classification.
You want a definition of species? Funny, I've been asking for evidence of a god for weeks, and you haven't even addressed the question. At least I have the guts to admit that a definition of species is currently undecided. You refuse to even acknowledge the request for evidence of a god.
If you can't even decide what a species is, then how are you going to tell me you understand all about the 'origin of species' ?
I never claimed to know all about origin of species. I have a fairly accurate and in depth understanding of evolution, and I know that the current evidence all points to that being an accurate description of what happened. Defining species is not essential for this.
How many times do I have to ask for evidence of a god before you provide something, or at least acknowledge the question?
I think I have stated on a number of occasions that I do not claim to have 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural'. It is an absurd request, like asking if one can hear an odor, or smell a color.
As for the 'origin of species', is not Darwin's hypothesis published under that name?
I would think that being able to define a species would precede giving evidence of how they originate.
I posted definitions to authoritative sources (evolutionary ones, for your benefit) stating what defined a species.
Your insistence that the definition is subjective and can vary based on the whim of the taxonomist is very bad for your side.
But what alternative do you have?
If you admit that species can be defined , then you must show that members of species X can, in fact, give birth to members of species Y , in order for a new species to 'originate'.
