Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

neologist wrote:

parados wrote:
neologist wrote:
Still looking for the specific item referred to by parados.

Start here..

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2808493#2808493

Read the one about insects then do some research on it.
Thanks. I will study it.

The one about insects contains the link http://www.sciam.com/news/102000/1.html
which appears to be dead.

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

maporsche wrote:
real life wrote:

How does the very first member of any 'new species' produce offspring since there are no other members of his species to breed with?

Please cite for me ONE evolutionary paper, source, article, textbook, etc that makes this claim?

I'm done calling you dishonest, you are being an OUTRIGHT LIAR!

Let me get this straight! RL asks a question - and you BOLDLY accuse him of being a liar. Please explain.

Yes it is quite funny.

'Show me one evolutionist which makes the claim that evolution doesn't work!!!!!!' Laughing

*oh my sides hurt*

And maporsche calls ME disingenuous?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

real life,

People have been trying to tell you that speciation does not work the way you describe.

Yes I know speciation doesn't work.

And that is exactly what I've been trying to tell you.

Perhaps if the specific point I've raised wasn't talked around and dodged so often, we'd have seen a better conversation.

Don't get me wrong. Some have made an effort, but many of the evolutionists on this thread (and every other) seem to prefer dishing insults or talking past objections hoping to change the subject.

I don't include you in that group . You have usually been one of the few to stay civil and stay on subject.

My specific point has to do with speciation.

How is one species supposed to give rise to another -- specifically.

Does a member of species X someday give birth to the first member of species Y?

No, I'm told by ros. A species NEVER starts with just one member.

Well then, how does it magically start with many?

Last time I looked, critters don't become a new species at midstream in their lifetimes.

If a member of X species ALWAYS gives birth to little Xs (even if they vary slightly, as long as they can interbreed with their contemporaries of species X , then they are X also, right? ), then there's no new species.

If a member of X species gives birth to a Y species member, who is he going to breed with?

Simple birds and bees stuff.

Good to hear from you again. Over 100 expected here again today. I guess it's off to the old water hole when I get home.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Considering I defined X before I started the "point", I don't know how you could be confused.

You have defined a population with members X, Y and Z as groups within that population. You then proceeded to define a point at which Y and Z developed certain properties. My question has to do with the point.

At what time did a representative member (pair of members) of X produce Y and Z? Or, if this did not happen as a result of a single representative member, what quality(s) of the distinct members of X, subset a and X, subset b allowed them to produce Y and Z which could each mate with X but not with each other? And, of course, when did this happen?

I'm beginning to wonder if RL's question about the first member of a new species might have more merit than I had previously thought.

0 Replies

real life,

A person can be called a liar for basing their questions on distortions of what other people have been trying to explain. Many of us have called you a liar using more polite expressions ("strawman" "you cannot be that dense" "disingenuous"). Your questions do not seem to be an effort to interact honestly with other posters. Rather, you seem to be playing to an audience of readers who are already anti-evolution.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
real life,

People have been trying to tell you that speciation does not work the way you describe.

Yes I know speciation doesn't work.

And that is exactly what I've been trying to tell you.

Perhaps if the specific point I've raised wasn't talked around and dodged so often, we'd have seen a better conversation.

Don't get me wrong. Some have made an effort, but many of the evolutionists on this thread (and every other) seem to prefer dishing insults or talking past objections hoping to change the subject.

I don't include you in that group . You have usually been one of the few to stay civil and stay on subject.

My specific point has to do with speciation.

How is one species supposed to give rise to another -- specifically.

Does a member of species X someday give birth to the first member of species Y?

No, I'm told by ros. A species NEVER starts with just one member.

Well then, how does it magically start with many?

Last time I looked, critters don't become a new species at midstream in their lifetimes.

If a member of X species ALWAYS gives birth to little Xs (even if they vary slightly, as long as they can interbreed with their contemporaries of species X , then they are X also, right? ), then there's no new species.

If a member of X species gives birth to a Y species member, who is he going to breed with?

Simple birds and bees stuff.

Good to hear from you again. Over 100 expected here again today. I guess it's off to the old water hole when I get home.

Your silly point was addressed. Failing to respond to it by repeating the same crap only means you are making your crap pile bigger. It doesn't make your questions any more intelligent. It makes them less intelligent. It shows a complete failure to understand simple things.

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

real life,

A person can be called a liar for basing their questions on distortions of what other people have been trying to explain. Many of us have called you a liar using more polite expressions ("strawman" "you cannot be that dense" "disingenuous"). Your questions do not seem to be an effort to interact honestly with other posters. Rather, you seem to be playing to an audience of readers who are already anti-evolution.

I don't think there's much of an audience here, wandeljw.

Setanta has made this charge previously that somehow I was posting on A2K because of it's large audience.

But if you look at the number of views on any given thread, and compare it with the number of participants, the 'audience' is relatively small. Very small in fact.

And as you know almost all A2Kers seem to be evolutionists.

The insults say more about the speaker's lack of anything substantive to contribute at that point than they do about me.

0 Replies

What Wandel said is spot on!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

What Wandel said is spot on!

Hi there MeToo,

How are you this morning?

Can you tell us how the first member of a new species can produce offspring?

0 Replies

real: Can you tell us how the first member of a new species can produce offspring?

This has been explained ad nauseum, and you still ask these dumb Q's.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

wandeljw wrote:
real life,

People have been trying to tell you that speciation does not work the way you describe.

Yes I know speciation doesn't work.

And that is exactly what I've been trying to tell you.

Perhaps if the specific point I've raised wasn't talked around and dodged so often, we'd have seen a better conversation.

Don't get me wrong. Some have made an effort, but many of the evolutionists on this thread (and every other) seem to prefer dishing insults or talking past objections hoping to change the subject.

I don't include you in that group . You have usually been one of the few to stay civil and stay on subject.

My specific point has to do with speciation.

How is one species supposed to give rise to another -- specifically.

Does a member of species X someday give birth to the first member of species Y?

No, I'm told by ros. A species NEVER starts with just one member.

Well then, how does it magically start with many?

Last time I looked, critters don't become a new species at midstream in their lifetimes.

If a member of X species ALWAYS gives birth to little Xs (even if they vary slightly, as long as they can interbreed with their contemporaries of species X , then they are X also, right? ), then there's no new species.

If a member of X species gives birth to a Y species member, who is he going to breed with?

Simple birds and bees stuff.

Good to hear from you again. Over 100 expected here again today. I guess it's off to the old water hole when I get home.

You will likely not get a point by point answer(s) from the evo's on here because your questions do not fit into their plan; or your questions are simply beyond their comprehension. If they answered your questions - it may adversely effect their staunch emotion-based positions.

Any scientist worth his/her salt will first systematically answer the posed questions, then offer their own thoughts if they choose. Rarely if ever will a competent scientist resort to ridicule when it comes to answering related questions. Ridicule is an emotional response that scientists find little gain from.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

real: Can you tell us how the first member of a new species can produce offspring?

This has been explained ad nauseum, and you still ask these dumb Q's.

Actually, the answers so far have been nauseatingly devoid of specificity.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

parados wrote:
Considering I defined X before I started the "point", I don't know how you could be confused.
You have defined a population with members X, Y and Z as groups within that population. You then proceeded to define a point at which Y and Z developed certain properties. My question has to do with the point.

At what time did a representative member (pair of members) of X produce Y and Z? Or, if this did not happen as a result of a single representative member, what quality(s) of the distinct members of X, subset a and X, subset b allowed them to produce Y and Z which could each mate with X but not with each other? And, of course, when did this happen?

I'm beginning to wonder if RL's question about the first member of a new species might have more merit than I had previously thought.

His question has NO merit. It is based on ignorance. There are a multitude of ways that Y and Z can be produced. They could be the result of a single mutation or of a series of mutations. They could be the result of different environments and predators. There is no one way to produce Y and Z. There are millions of ways. One might as well ask at what point did the posters on A2K become intelligent? There is no one answer. There are many answers and all of them are correct.

X is the original species. When Y and Z finally arrive they have those properties. They don't develop them later on. They are born with them. They may be properties that X has. They may be something X doesn't have. We are talking about evolution here. I assumed some basic understanding of genetics. Y and Z could arrive in one generation or it could take mutiple mutations over millions of years to produce Y and Z
When Y and Z appear doesn't matter. They could both be born on the same day. They could be born 200 or 1 million years apart. They could be born in seperate populations or the same population. They could look exactly like X. They could be completely different from X. It doesn't matter. It is more likely they appear in seperate populations because they must have some trait that allows them to propogate faster than X or be more likely to survive than X. Both can breed with X and continue to produce more Y and Z. Y and Z can be any of a number of possible traits.

Lets deal with it as if Y and Z are a single gene. Y has a mutation that is recessive that allows individuals that are Y to still breed with the species X. (Do you understand what recessive genes are?) Z is the same thing. Z has a recessive gene but Z can't breed with Y even though both can breed with X. The recessive genes are not compatible and can't produce offspring. Or they could produce offspring but the offspring are sterile. It really doesn't matter. It's simple genetics.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
What Wandel said is spot on!

Hi there MeToo,

How are you this morning?

Can you tell us how the first member of a new species can produce offspring?

Can you tell us how you can completely ignore the answer to your question?

I have a theory.. You are doing everything you can to support my theory.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
real: Can you tell us how the first member of a new species can produce offspring?

This has been explained ad nauseum, and you still ask these dumb Q's.
Actually, the answers so far have been nauseatingly devoid of specificity.

Your failure to understand does not make them devoid of specificity.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Your failure to understand does not make them devoid of specificity.

Which is true of this:

Quote:

neologist wrote:
At what time did a representative member (pair of members) of X produce Y and Z? Or, if this did not happen as a result of a single representative member, what quality(s) of the distinct members of X, subset a and X, subset b allowed them to produce Y and Z which could each mate with X but not with each other? And, of course, when did this happen?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

There are many answers and all of them are correct.

Oh.......

Well, I guess that settles it.

Why didn't I see it before? Rolling Eyes

Well....um, I guess we're done then.......

Coffee, anyone?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

parados wrote:
There are many answers and all of them are correct.

Oh.......

Well, I guess that settles it.

Why didn't I see it before?

Well....um, I guess we're done then.......

Coffee, anyone?

Yes, we are done..

It is false logic to think there is only one answer to a complex question.

But if you prefer to continue to play along those lines then please specify the exact time that you first had an intelligent thought and provide evidence. Without that, we can only conclude that you have never had an intelligent thought.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

real life wrote:
parados wrote:
There are many answers and all of them are correct.

Oh.......

Well, I guess that settles it.

Why didn't I see it before?

Well....um, I guess we're done then.......

Coffee, anyone?

Yes, we are done..

It is false logic to think there is only one answer to a complex question.

And it's good logic to state that ALL answers to a question are correct?

I guess you must believe that it's so........as long as they lead to the answer you are looking for.

It's this sort of non-falsifiability --- 'we don't know HOW evolution happened, we are just sure that it MUSTA happened'--------

that causes some of us to continue to doubt.

I thought falsifiability was part of the scientific approach. But I could be wrong about that as well. (That's scientific.)

Since you can't be wrong, yours is very much a faith-based approach.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

And it's good logic to state that ALL answers to a question are correct?

I guess you must believe that it's so........as long as they lead to the answer you are looking for.

It's this sort of non-falsifiability --- 'we don't know HOW evolution happened, we are just sure that it MUSTA happened'--------

that causes some of us to continue to doubt.

I thought falsifiability was part of the scientific approach. But I could be wrong about that as well. (That's scientific.)

Since you can't be wrong, yours is very much a faith-based approach.

Again, you are distorting what other posters have said. (Parados said "many" not "ALL".) Again you are ignoring explanations given to you numerous times.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know