Hey Everybody!

I guess we're Gonna have to throw out plate tectonics. :dunno:



Example one:

Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.

(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.)

Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Example two:

Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock, but they do meet the criteria which you suggested.)

(Test for speciation: cannot produce offspring with the original stock.)

Mosquin, T., 1967. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719

Example three:

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)

Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Example four:

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago.

(Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.)

Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348




*sigh*

People that are the most against evolution are also the ones who know the least about it.

First of all evolutionary theory is about the Origin of species, NOT the origin of life. So it doesn't really matter where the first life came from it wouldn't affect the validity of evolution the least.

Secondly the origin of life is ABIOGENESIS not evolution, and it is not spontaneous generation.






Red herring.

What does the origin of the universe have to do with evolution. You are all over the place.




argumentum ad ignorantiam




You don't know the first thing about science. But I do find this amusing.

Indeed you are going to have have throw out PLATE TECHTONICS, a deflection based upon your ignorance....simply because YOU CAN NOT give Just ONE EXAMPLE where live has been exampled to be a product of DEAD MATTER. All the rest of your AD Hominem nonsense is just that.....ad hominem personal philosophy. Show me PROOF of Spontaneous Generation. If not, you can not present General Evolution as a FACT of SCIENCE. Just like all pseudo intellectuals you spend the most of your breath in attempting to inform everyone just how intelligent YOU ARE...and how stupid I am, in ad hominem attacks...but you still lack the ability to prove just how smart you are....show me the proof. DOGMA IS NOT SCIENCE. And do not even attempt to pull the Miller/Urey experiment form your ass, it been debunked time and time again.

Show me ONE EXAMPLE...of LIFE coming from DEAD MATTER. JUST ONE. Or present a valid theory that does not contradict all laws of Probability and LOGIC. Is such PITY...not always the case demonstrated...WHEN IT'S "YOU" that cannot present the EVIDENCE that you claim to be in possession of? Go Figure. Thus, the ad hominem attacks against CHARACTER....very scientific indeed.

[SIZE="7"]ABIOGENESIS/SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IS NOT THE SAME SCIENTIFIC TOPIC OR AREA OF STUDY AS DARWINIAN EVOLUTION.[/SIZE]

[SIZE="7"]ABIOGENESIS/SPONTANEOUS GENERATION IS NOT THE SAME SCIENTIFIC TOPIC OR AREA OF STUDY AS DARWINIAN EVOLUTION.[/SIZE]

So, as I said, YOU AGREE, LIFE did not come from dead matter, but was a product of CREATION. Of course you do not want Spontaneous Generation and General Evolution to be connected....you DEMAND the right to deflect away from this DOGMA, but as I said, if Spontaneous Generation is not part of EVOLUTION....pray tell, just how can you propagate a message that ALL LIFE stems from ONE COMMON source, unless LIFE was a product of CREATION..which is the entire point of the Dogmatic Philosophy of Darwinian Religion, to simply do away with GOD. So, with your clear DEFLECTION, one can only conclude that you are in total agreement with CREATIONISM.

Don't you just hate when LOGIC is applied to DOGMA exposing it for the nonsense that it clearly is?

I will check back again in couple of months and see if the same old idiots are still around attempting to take advantage of the weak minded while pompously promoting their own SELF WORTH....to be accepted by the rest of ALL THE SMART PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. Later. But it was fun....and I still did not get ONE straight answer from any of you self confessed SMART PEOPLE.

What I find strange is your attempt to deflect from the Doctrine of Spontaneous Generation when Mr. Darwin himself, informed the world that was the basis to his THEORY....or George G. Simpson in his book {modern evolutionary synthesis....THE MEANING OF EVOLUTION}...clearly defined evolution as such, "The general theory of Evolution is that ALL LIVING THINGS have arisen by a materialistic, naturalistic, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS from a SINGLE SOURCE which by itself arose from an inanimate world." Someone is found guilty of lying...in order not to admit that LIFE can not be proven to have EVOLVED from one single source, which was a product of NATURAL HAPPENSTANCE. But, that's half the fun.....allowing the words of the liberally minded to place themselves into a corner...and then stand back and watch all the fun, when they come SPINNING OUT, just like a top...in an attempt to dance all over the place to HIDE from the message they have self propagated. It makes me dizzy sometimes, but it is fun. :rollinglaugh: Peace....later :peace:

So, as I said, YOU AGREE, LIFE did not come from dead matter, but was a product of CREATION.

So Of course you do not want Spontaneous Generation and General Evolution to be connected....you DEMAND the right to deflect away from this DOGMA, but as I said, if Spontaneous Generation is not part of EVOLUTION....pray tell, just how can you propagate a message that ALL LIFE stems from ONE COMMON source, unless LIFE was a product of CREATION.

which is the entire point of the Dogmatic Philosophy of Darwinian Religion, to simply do away with GOD. So, with your clear DEFLECTION, one can only conclude that you are in total agreement with CREATIONISM.

Don't you just hate when LOGIC is applied to DOGMA exposing it for the nonsense that it clearly is?

I will check back again in couple of months and see if the same old idiots are still around attempting to take advantage of the weak minded while pompously promoting their own SELF WORTH....to be accepted by the rest of ALL THE SMART PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. Later. But it was fun....and I still did not get ONE straight answer from any of you self confessed SMART PEOPLE.

What I find strange is your attempt to deflect from the Doctrine of Spontaneous Generation when Mr. Darwin himself, informed the world that was the basis to his THEORY....or George G. Simpson in his book {modern evolutionary synthesis....THE MEANING OF EVOLUTION}...clearly defined evolution as such, "The general theory of Evolution is that ALL LIVING THINGS have arisen by a materialistic, naturalistic, EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS from a SINGLE SOURCE which by itself arose from an inanimate world."

Someone is found guilty of lying...in order not to admit that LIFE can not be proven to have EVOLVED from one single source, which was a product of NATURAL HAPPENSTANCE.

But, that's half the fun.....allowing the words of the liberally minded to place themselves into a corner...and then stand back and watch all the fun, when they come SPINNING OUT, just like a top...in an attempt to dance all over the place to HIDE from the message they have self propagated. It makes me dizzy sometimes, but it is fun. :rollinglaugh: Peace....later :peace:

I've never claimed to present evidence of complex life spontaneously occurring.

Then simply demonstrate in the SCIENTIFIC METHOD of OBSERVATION, and REPRODUCE life FROM DEAD MATTER IN THE LAB. Show me the money. To say that life is not a product of dead matter is to cut the legs from the theory of Darwinism.

So, as I said, YOU AGREE, LIFE did not come from dead matter, but was a product of CREATION. Of course you do not want Spontaneous Generation and General Evolution to be connected....you DEMAND the right to deflect away from this DOGMA, but as I said, if Spontaneous Generation is not part of EVOLUTION....pray tell, just how can you propagate a message that ALL LIFE stems from ONE COMMON source, unless LIFE was a product of CREATION..which is the entire point of the Dogmatic Philosophy of Darwinian Religion, to simply do away with GOD. So, with your clear DEFLECTION, one can only conclude that you are in total agreement with CREATIONISM.

This is priceless. It truly is. It brings a tear to my eye. You keep swinging but you keep missing.

First of all Evolutionary theory says nothing of god nor the origin of life. No matter how life originated it is true, evolution is true whether life was conjured into existence by a deity or it formed naturally from chemicals. the reason this is so funny to me is that your point of contention, actually has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the origin of species NOT the origin of life. But i'm sure you've not really concerned yourself with trying to understand what you're arguing against as it is apparent you have no clue. Quite funny really. You've set up this false dichotomy where it either happened exactly according to your fairy tale or god doesn't exist. Evolution does not disprove god nor does it attempt to, most evolutionists are theists, they believe in god. One of the biggest supporters of evolution, Ken miller, is a theist, he believes in god. Evolution does not question the existence of god, it questions your literal account of creation. Your arguments are very ill-informed.