Creationist actually, had a think over it and yeah....but not a Christian one though.


<quote="PrinceThrakhath">1. If fossils are not evidence to you then what is? How do you "assume" a fossil? I suppose a dead body with bullet holes is not evidence either, but merely an assumption?

No I mean actually being there to witness the whole process (doesn't have to be me but whoever...).

I know that's impossible, so therefore making use of fossils as "evidence" would be an assumption.

I think that if it was true then species through artificial insemination would produce ofspring, as all species that have produced hybrids (candidates for proof of full seperation), have been compatible with each other through this process, therefore making it false.


<quote="PrinceThrakhath">2. "No new genetic material can be formed"? What kind of empty statement is that? Genetic material is formed every time a cell splits into two. That is genetic material is formed billions of billions of times around the world every second.

I mean like a new feature, that doesn't already exist in the line of species.


<quote="PrinceThrakhath">3. Species is a term used to classify animals. How you define a species is not as important as how two individuals of two different species are related. It is through their genes and body plans that we see traces of evolution. It has nothing to do with whether we can agree on a definition of a certain species. For inconvenience sake we might as well give every single fossil sample or animal we find a separate name just to make things more unintelligible and confusing.
We can also deny that there is such a thing as ethnicities, but that would not be very helpful in understanding why the Malaj tribe become so much taller than other populations around the world, would it?
Species and ethnicities are patterns, and patterns are best understood by grouping them and naming them as separate patterns. It is that simple.


I agree with micro-evolution, like them becoming taller etc.

Don't get the misconception that I disagree with all of eveolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I

Fine , do you believe this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

http://tin
yurl.com/5qa68h

And explain why .

Very well. Once more into the breach.

Artificial insemination has nothing whatsoever to do with how a species is defined. Largely because inability to impregnate is hardly ever the sole barrier to cross-species fertilisation.

There are a large number of observed, published examples of speciation. They can be found in the link below (along with a thorough run-down of both older and more up-to-date species concepts), which you flat-out ignored the last time I posted it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Maybe this time you'll even read it. But I doubt it, since creationists hate learning.

There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution besides scale. There is no barrier of any kind that would prevent many instances of microevolution adding up to become macroevolution. No creationist has ever even attempted to hypothesise how such a barrier might function.

Your main fault, though, is that you're clinging to an outdated, demonstrably wrong idea of what a species is. You think species can be rigidly classified - divided into clearly defined groups. This is not the case at all, since species are nought but interacting populations of genes with bodies attached to facilitate their exploitation of their environment.

For fuck's sake, I must have been over this shit a hundred times with you. Learn what a ring species is. Buy "The Selfish Gene" and "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins. Look up speciation methods. Find out what population genetics is. Read that sodding link.

Don't come back until you can tell me why I'm right.

I just used the species bit because it was easier to word, now I'm going to have to break it down a little...

A = Tiger
B = Lion
C = Liger/Tion

When A is crossed with B you get C.

A = Cat
B = Dog
C = Cog/Dat (lol)

When A is crossed with B you don't get C.


If they all had a common ancestor they would all be compatible, otherwise no physical splits happened.

(Btw, I'm not arguing the definition of species).


@LithanianLabourer

Both links are just evidence of micro-evolution. I don't have a problem with that...