Science against evolution

reply to post by JameSimon


Dogs and wolves don't even have the same anatomy, how can you say they are from the same family?

reply to post by itsthetooth


THIS...statement of yours seems to be the problem you are having.

There is plenty of evidence that backs Evolution as being a fact.

There is evidence in the Fossil records. There is evidence in the Genetics to such a comprehensive and extensive level that this evidence alone is proof positive.

The Evolutionary process...that being Natural Selection forced by Enviromental Condition or Predator Prey conflicts or Forced Adaptation caused by Enviromental Chemical reaction and Solar Radiation which causes Mutation....is a self evident and proven process responsible for the variety of species both living and extinct existing on Earth.

No matter how many times or how many different ways you try to say something that in your mind...will disprove Evolution to exist...it will never be so.

Split Infinity

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by JameSimon

 

Dogs and wolves don't even have the same anatomy, how can you say they are from the same family?

Okay, captain obvious now your just trying to be a flaming troll.

Is this a dog or wolf?








Try both!

The Czechoslovakian Wolfdog is a cross between a German Shepherd and a Eurasian wolf.
Wiki

Almost forgot!

Cabbits

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by SplitInfinity

 

That was a poor example, people can see and feel the sun so we know its there.

This process of evolution has no proof to tell us that its there, only that there are changes, that isn't proof that they are evolution.

The proof is the diversity we see, the evidence is all the things you deny.

So explain diversity in more detail than 'Aliens used recycled parts' Explain it in the depth and detail that evolution can and does.

cabbits

reply to post by itsthetooth

It doesn't matter if cabbit are real or not,

Doesn’t it? You were claiming the cabbit as proof positive science is wrong so of course it matters and you still have not posted that link that describes the cabbit

you just totally ignore dog / wolf and mules because you know your wrong, and you have to emphasize on cabbits so that you have something to hide behind while you ditch the other two with no answer.

But you totally ignored my answer to that post with supporting links, so you even cherry pick what answers you will accept, don’t read links supplied and then lie about people avoiding answering while avoiding answering yourself. Classic tooth ache

They are NOT the same species and in fact have many identifiable features.

What are not the same species? Cabbits?

A peacock and a peahen have different identifiable features; does that mean they are different species to each other?

So its one of two things, either we don't know how to properly classify species, or they really aren't the same species and Gametic Isolation has nothing to do with proving a species to be different from one another.

Nope there is a third option. You have not got a clue what you’re talking about and don’t intend to correct that ignorance. That is firmly your problem

Now where is that link for the desctiption of cabbit

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by stereologist

 

The liger is a poor example as he was a man made hybrid through DNA.

Yet you claim the cabbit is a great example that shows science wrong.. Where is that link I asked for?

cabbits

reply to post by itsthetooth

The liger is a poor example as he was a man made hybrid through DNA.

You're clueless. Ligers do not require human intervention except for getting the animals together.

en.wikipedia.org...

I should point out to tooth who refuses to read links that ligers were reported as early as 1825 and DNA was not discovered until 1869. So your claim above about DNA and hybrids is the typical rubbish you spout. It's wrong. You spout rubbish and do you actually think that others cannot see that?

Could you supply us with a few cabbits; serving cabbit stew to my guests and I've run out of cabbits

reply to post by colin42


Even if I'm wrong, there is still dog / wolf and mules.

The bottom line is speciation is assumed when a species can no longer breed with its group, not by physical differences. So if thats the case why do scientists make claims that species are different based on physical properties?

In lab tests durring speciation, they never find physical differences that they could claim the species to be different. Yet we still identify physical differences to determine species. In the lab, these subjects never show signs of physical difference yet they can't breed. In life, the wolf and dog do show signs of physical difference, yet they still can breed. The horse and donkey also show signs of difference and can still breed.

There is only one conclusion, physical differences can't be used to determine if a species is different.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

THIS...statement of yours seems to be the problem you are having.

There is plenty of evidence that backs Evolution as being a fact.

There is evidence in the Fossil records. There is evidence in the Genetics to such a comprehensive and extensive level that this evidence alone is proof positive.

The Evolutionary process...that being Natural Selection forced by Enviromental Condition or Predator Prey conflicts or Forced Adaptation caused by Enviromental Chemical reaction and Solar Radiation which causes Mutation....is a self evident and proven process responsible for the variety of species both living and extinct existing on Earth.

No matter how many times or how many different ways you try to say something that in your mind...will disprove Evolution to exist...it will never be so.

There is no evidence in the fossil records that is pure speculation. Fossil records can't prove evolution.

Natural selection is nothing more than extinction at work. There is nothing that proves natural selection to be part of evolution, thats only speculation, just like how all changes are also part of the network called evolution. Someone just connected a bunch of dots and the only thing holding the theory together is the author.

There is MORE evidence that humans were placed here, and MORE evidence then evolution, that our proper food is not here for us.

reply to post by itsthetooth

The bottom line is speciation is assumed when a species can no longer breed with its group, not by physical differences. So if thats the case why do scientists make claims that species are different based on physical properties?

Not true. Several people have already pointed out this is not true.

Just to show you a little more about species and interbreeding here is ring species.
en.wikipedia.org...

Ring species also present an interesting case of the species problem, for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species' distal populations will be recognized as two distinct species.

The problem, then, is whether to quantify the whole ring as a single species (despite the fact that not all individuals can interbreed) or to classify each population as a distinct species (despite the fact that it can interbreed with its near neighbours). Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.

Use of color is my alteration to highlight the text.

reply to post by itsthetooth

There is no evidence in the fossil records that is pure speculation. Fossil records can't prove evolution.

Natural selection is nothing more than extinction at work. There is nothing that proves natural selection to be part of evolution, thats only speculation, just like how all changes are also part of the network called evolution. Someone just connected a bunch of dots and the only thing holding the theory together is the author.

There is MORE evidence that humans were placed here, and MORE evidence then evolution, that our proper food is not here for us.

A logical fallacy called an appeal from personal ignorance.

cabbits

reply to post by itsthetooth

Even if I'm wrong, there is still dog / wolf and mules.

Go back and read the post from me you ignored

The bottom line is speciation is assumed when a species can no longer breed with its group, not by physical differences. So if thats the case why do scientists make claims that species are different based on physical properties?

Tooth, you have been spoon fed all this and chose many times to ignore it. Why do you think I will supply it again knowing you will again ignore it.

When you start showing you have taken time to actually read and understand what you have been shown I will try to answer your questions. Alas the above shows you have not bothered and are repeating the same old tosh. I suggest you stop wasting your time repeating the same nonsense and read the replies you have been given many times already

In lab tests durring speciation, they never find physical differences that they could claim the species to be different. Yet we still identify physical differences to determine species. In the lab, these subjects never show signs of physical difference yet they can't breed. In life, the wolf and dog do show signs of physical difference, yet they still can breed. The horse and donkey also show signs of difference and can still breed.

Nope. Cant decode that nonsense

There is only one conclusion, physical differences can't be used to determine if a species is different.

What? But here you say they can just a few posts up

They are NOT the same species and in fact have many identifiable features.

So again nothing you say makes sense and your story changes with near every word you type

Your whole post shows you have no idea what you are on about so how do you expect others to know?

reply to post by stereologist


Being able to interbreed or not makes no difference on determining that its a new species, as proven through the examples of dog wolf and mule. On the other side, there are sometimes problems with the species that could prevent breeding, and there is no way to rule out all the possibilities so there is no way to claim its evolution by default.

reply to post by colin42


What I'm saying is you have to pick one, and only one, because the other is false.
Is it true that if a species has enough physical differences that its a different species, if so then gametic isolation obviously is not the way to determin this.

Or...

Is it true that gametic isolation is the means to determin when a species is different, if it is, then your admitting that our label and understanding of dog/ wolf being different species, is obviously false, and the difference between horse and donkey would have to be false as well.

If so, then why is it that some species can breed, like the dog and wolf while others can't?
Also why is it that we only ever see ONE set of species being able to do this as though there is no common ancestor branch with another species. For example why can't dogs and wolves mate with Dingos, they should be just as close.

reply to post by SplitInfinity

THIS...statement of yours seems to be the problem you are having.

There is plenty of evidence that backs Evolution as being a fact.

There is evidence in the Fossil records. There is evidence in the Genetics to such a comprehensive and extensive level that this evidence alone is proof positive.

The Evolutionary process...that being Natural Selection forced by Enviromental Condition or Predator Prey conflicts or Forced Adaptation caused by Enviromental Chemical reaction and Solar Radiation which causes Mutation....is a self evident and proven process responsible for the variety of species both living and extinct existing on Earth.

No matter how many times or how many different ways you try to say something that in your mind...will disprove Evolution to exist...it will never be so.

Split Infinity

But that same evidence also totally supports the idea of intervention. The only difference is we also have a book thats telling us thats how it happened.

A creators, or even several could have used recycled sections of DNA to create an ongoing list of life, just like how humans do today in all of their creations.

As an example Cars are fitted with many things that make them work, there are chairs inside the car, and chairs would have been made prior to the automobile, they just implamented them into he creation, like using recycled DNA. The wheel might have been made for something else when it was first made, other than an automobile, but now its a major component. So just like recycled DNA the wheel was added to the car and is a prime feature. The engine probably started out with a different purpose in mind, and someone thought about adding this invention to the car. Just like using recycled DNA again just adding onto the overall creation of things.

It doesn't matter if you feel that there is so much evidence about evolution, I promise you, there is tons more evidence in intervention.

One thing that would totally toss evolution out the window is if people started looking at the actuall age of the DNA from each species. With some effort you would see that the whole idea of claiming that certain species either branched off from certain species, would not fit. As an example, you would learn that the timeline to transition from whales to reptiles wouldn't jive.

reply to post by itsthetooth
So you chose not to take the time to read the information you have been gifted or to do a google search?

We dont do the repeat game remember.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Being able to interbreed or not makes no difference on determining that its a new species, as proven through the examples of dog wolf and mule. On the other side, there are sometimes problems with the species that could prevent breeding, and there is no way to rule out all the possibilities so there is no way to claim its evolution by default.

The case of dog and wolves interbreeding or the existence of mules has no bearing on the meaning of species as many people have been trying to tell you. Anything after this false claim is thus false thinking.

What you need to do is to learn something about biology and the meanings of terms used in science. The way you use the terms sounds like you learned them from some crank creationist.

So let's help you out of this morass. You act as if you found something new and interesting to rant about. It's a well known issue.
en.wikipedia.org...

A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem.

We've all left you to bask in the silliness of cabbits and such. All but you tooth are well aware of the issue. If you had taken a basic biology you'd be aware of this.

If you bother to read the link you will see that nothing in the species problem affects evolution in the slightest way.

What the heck

cabbits

reply to post by itsthetooth

But that same evidence also totally supports the idea of intervention. The only difference is we also have a book thats telling us thats how it happened.

What book would that be?

It doesn't matter if you feel that there is so much evidence about evolution, I promise you, there is tons more evidence in intervention.

You have posted zero evidence and made these unsubstantiated claims for a while.

There is no evidence for intervention. In fact, the fossil evidence and genetics and anatomy all say otherwise.

One thing that would totally toss evolution out the window is if people started looking at the actuall age of the DNA from each species. With some effort you would see that the whole idea of claiming that certain species either branched off from certain species, would not fit. As an example, you would learn that the timeline to transition from whales to reptiles wouldn't jive.

Let me give you a hint. Earlier we all told you that cabbits are not real. Now I'll let you that:

whales did not give rise to reptiles

You should have stuck with cabbits. You're making me laugh so hard

reply to post by itsthetooth

But that same evidence also totally supports the idea of intervention. The only difference is we also have a book thats telling us thats how it happened.

That same book that you base your ever changing claims on. The book that is based on what you called an imposter but everyone else that reads it calls the one true god. That book?

A creators, or even several could have used recycled sections of DNA to create an ongoing list of life, just like how humans do today in all of their creations.

As an example Cars are fitted ............................... (meaningless drivel) ................

You're just recycling the same old rubbish and to quote you 'I am not buying it'

One thing that would totally toss evolution out the window is if people started looking at the actuall age of the DNA from each species. With some effort you would see that the whole idea of claiming that certain species either branched off from certain species, would not fit.

More nonsense which you finish with:

As an example, you would learn that the timeline to transition from whales to reptiles wouldn't jive.

Whales did not evolve into reptiles. You have been given so much information on whales that even if you do not accept it you should at least know what evolution says about how a whale evolved. A two second search would show how ridiculous yet another claim you make is not just wrong but very very very wrong

Even you should have learned something by now but you intend to live in a world where a man can live inside a whale and cats and rabbits can produce cabbits

cabbits

What do you get out of this posting this nonsense?

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by colin42

 

For example why can't dogs and wolves mate with Dingos, they should be just as close.

Seriously...Google is your friend. The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) breeds freely with other domestic dogs.

Dingo hybrids Main article: Interbreeding of dingoes with other domestic dogs A "dingo" with an unusual color pattern The dingo (Canis lupus dingo) breeds freely with other domestic dogs. This is now so widespread that in some areas, dingoes are now mostly mixed-breed dogs, crossed in recent times with dogs from other parts of the world. However, DNA study shows that "the dingo originates from domesticated dogs, originally from East Asia"[8] (which reverted to the wild) and so interbreeding between dingos and other domestic dogs is also not a hybridization in the same sense as an interbreeding between different species of Canidae.

Dingo/dog hybrids

Do yourself a favour, everytime you type a statement that you think is a fact, quickly pop on to google and check!

You're an idiot....stop it.

Cabbits