If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

originally posted by: GetHyped

Ignoring the fact we didn't evolve from monkeys for the moment...

If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

Can you think of an example that doesn't involve intelligent agency?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped

Ignoring the fact we didn't evolve from monkeys for the moment...

If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?

Can you think of an example that doesn't involve intelligent agency?

Speciation.

Terrible comeback from you as usual, cooperton.

a reply to: cooperton

yes we can

because it was made on this thread earlier: "if Adam was from mud, why is there still mud" as said by a believer in the state religion, meaning they think the agency of a god is limited to exploding nothing into everything, which sounds buddhist but isn't (siddharta was all about socials: born a prince and becomes a forest bum)

so yes the phrasing of the thread title is bait

it is derived from a Bob Marley interview that was broadcast

but the debate is about the claim that the origin of species is other species

which is a demonstrably false claim as long as you accept logic

a reply to: GetHyped

speciation does not count, he said an example, as in something you can observe bud

originally posted by: GetHyped

Speciation.

Terrible comeback from you as usual, cooperton.

An unpleasant response, as usual.

If a hypothetical population were to theoretically undergo speciation, the old species would not be present. You may then turn your delusion to Allopatric speciation, but again, that is only theoretical, so it wouldn't suffice as a proven example - the purpose of a metaphor is to explain something similar to the phenomenon at hand, while not being redundant and using the same phenomenon as an example of itself.

Essentially, You are saying speciation is like speciation. Great job.

Aw, this thread is so cute. Almost all the creationist trolls are here at once spouting the same debunked crap they have been claiming for the past 40 years. I appreciate the laugh, boys, but don't you have flat earth youtube videos to watch?

a reply to: Barcs

more straw? you must have a farm somewhere

flat earth is an obvious propaganda stunt


neither does knowing that the origin of species is not other species imply anything about geography

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: GetHyped

speciation does not count, he said an example, as in something you can observe bud

Speciation has been observed. That you were not aware before you even made such a claim speaks volumes.

www.talkorigins.org...
blogs.scientificamerican.com...
evolution.berkeley.edu...

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped

Speciation.

Terrible comeback from you as usual, cooperton.

If a hypothetical population were to theoretically undergo speciation, the old species would not be present.

More nonsense from you as usual.

originally posted by: Barcs
Aw, this thread is so cute. Almost all the creationist trolls are here at once spouting the same debunked crap they have been claiming for the past 40 years. I appreciate the laugh, boys, but don't you have flat earth youtube videos to watch?

And here it is, blind insults to everyone who disagrees. Your theoretical great uncle Nemo, and your greatest-grandparent Germy would be so happy you're here defending your lineage.

This video of one of your theoretical far-distant cousins reminds me of the stories passed down by theoretical aunt Lucy and Uncle Monkey:

originally posted by: GetHyped

Speciation has been observed. That you were not aware before you even made such a claim speaks volumes.

www.talkorigins.org...
blogs.scientificamerican.com...
evolution.berkeley.edu...

Adaptation is not speciation. Allelic drift is not speciation. I'm not going to waste my time explaining this because your mind is already made up.

All this is erroneous to the fact that speciation is not a proper metaphor for speciation.

originally posted by: cooperton
Adaptation is not speciation.

As usual, you either didn't read the sources before dismissing them out of hand or you completely failed to comprehend them.

a reply to: GetHyped

Speciation has been observed.

This same argument was made on this website ans supported by the same barks

yet, these articles, if you read them, propose a new and fraudulently (because public grants) misleading semantic drift of a definition of "species".

This is like calling your dog "the president" just so you can say "I've seen the president's balls"

originally posted by: GetHyped

As usual, you either didn't read the sources before dismissing them out of hand or you completely failed to comprehend them.

All the examples still exhibited interbreeding between the supposed "new species" and the old. This is not textbook speciation. And here we slip into a semantic game - the grey zone where evolutionary theory thrives.

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs

more straw? you must have a farm somewhere

flat earth is an obvious propaganda stunt


neither does knowing that the origin of species is not other species imply anything about geography

You have no rebuttals to anything I've said to you in the other threads, you might as well be a flat earther, you deny science and reality in favor of a religious view. I can't be the only person that notices your willful ignorance.

a reply to: Barcs

Ignorance of what?

Learn the meanings of words

"the origin of species" is just one man's rambling, the dictionaries are a consensus of scholars

a reply to: cooperton

There is nothing blind about what I have said. I have already made tons of valid arguments in these threads and they are all largely ignored blindly by trolls like you. Doesn't it get old repeating the same BS over and over again?

originally posted by: wisvol
a reply to: Barcs

Ignorance of what?

Learn the meanings of words

"the origin of species" is just one man's rambling, the dictionaries are a consensus of scholars

Respond to my posts in the other threads with facts and then we'll talk. You are the one rambling. I just don't understand the need to constantly attack science. If you want to live your life with your head in the sand, that's fine. Just stop telling everybody in the scientific community that their facts are wrong when you have nothing of substance to offer, just rhetoric. This is a troll thread. Hope you enjoy it while it lasts. I prefer to just sit back and laugh at everyone until it gets closed by mods.

a reply to: Barcs

You're persistent, but that's only one step

you also have to be right

a reply to: wisvol

I'm willing to be wrong, if somebody could for once offer something of substance (objective evidence) besides the same ol' debunked creationist rhetoric that relies on lies, fallacies and denial of science.

Where is your evidence? You've claimed evidence in several threads now, but when asked to post it you deflected and changed the subject. That is trolling 101 or blatant dishonesty. I'm still not sure which one.