Quote:
It says they prefer not to interbreed, evidently they can interbreed, BUT since both Dr. Jones and the article claim this is a new species, evidently whilst they can interbreed their young are not fertile
If that is true, then it would appear that there are some differing opinions.
Quote:
Hendry does offer a word of caution: "Despite our findings of rapid adaptation and reproductive isolation, I don't necessarily presume these two salmon populations will evolve into what would be recognized as separate species. We have simply used new populations to demonstrate the same processes that lead to new species."
http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/arch...900salmon.html
Note that he does not presume that they will evolve into separate species. I should think that it would be fairly obvious that they are not now separate species? Damn, I forgot to include the "lookie lookie" part, thereby showing the conclusiveness of my argument.
Quote:
IF he believes that there is no evidence then why exactly does he PROCLAIM the huge amouts of evidence in his book: "The Triumph of Evolution, and the Failure of Creationism"??
I'll tell you why, because either that quote is fabricated (which publication does it come from?)...
I am astounded. I gave you the complete context! As to your question, how would I know why he proclaims the huge amounts of evidence? Perhaps he is what some would deem a hypocrite. Perhaps he is emotionally attached to Darwinism as a sort of "religion." BTW, I believe the quote is from "Time Frames." I'll try to find out for you, if it really matters.
Quote:
1) The Middle Ages were a time where science was dominated by religion, totally screwing it up.
2) The argument that: science has been wrong in the past where man-kind knew little about the world therefore we shouldn't listen to scientists in the present is so comical it barely deserves a counter; scientists say that (close to the surface of the Earth) mass accelerates towards the Earth at 9.81 ms^-2 but hey! They've been wrong before! LOL.
Except for the slight difference that darwinism is not an empirical fact, as is the acceleration of matter towards earth. I'm not saying that we shouldn't to listen to scientists-I am saying that because they back up a theory does not make it fact.
Quote:
IF as you say the fossil record does not show evolution (which is blatently does as I keep pointing out)...
Every single resource you have shown me uses evolution to prove evolution! I think there is a technical term for this type of logical fallacy...begging the question? They are saying that "because evolution happened, evolution happened."
Quote:
Mammals evolved from reptiles, a group of reptiles were geographically seperated, from then they adapted to whatever environment they were in gradually altering: at the point where they are no longer compatable with the group they split from they are a new species, that does not stop them changing though, as long as their is selective pressure they will continue to adapt, so in their case their skull gradually changed into a more mammalian skull, their teeth gradually changed to more mammalian teeth, they began to regulate their own temperature, etc. etc. And a few million years later we have modern mammals.
Exactly my point. I asked you to explain evolution, and you give me, basically, a description of how it happened if it did happen. Maybe we should use the same tactic in out judicial system!
Quote:
For a full debunking of him go here:
To debunk the paper mentioned, you rely upon two things: Ad hominem and a book review of a book none of us (probably) have ever read, and is thus free to take quotes out of context, fabricate, and misconstrue (i'm not saying that did happen).
So the paper is invalid because Wells does not like the idea of evolution and some review says that his book is unreliable? I have to give you full marks for that one, Clyde.
Quote:
Speciation is INEVITABLE from microevolution
You are still providing no proof and precious little evidence.
Quote:
If you do not believe in creationism then it doesn't matter whether or not there are problems with evolution (which there aren't as i keep pointing out) it would still be the best theory available. Since from style of your posts it seemed you did not believe evolution occured the only rational conclusion would be that you believed in an alternative, the only alternative to evolution that has been cited so far is creationism.
My God, Clyde. Read what I posted. It is clear that I think evolution is a reasonable theory, considering that I have stated it directly at least once.
Quote:
Errm name one theory other than evolution that does account for the imperfections, you can't because there isn't one.
Okay...here is one. God created existence and guided the evolutonary process. God created existence and provided evidence for evolution. Martians are conducting research on genetics. Invisible unicorns periodically introduce new species bred in laboratories with defects to study natural selection/microevolution. Reasonable or not, they still explain the imperfections.
Since when did you answer my objection to the Nilsson eye model? I must have missed it.
That's all for now, folks. I'll be busy cramming for AP tests this week, so I probably will not post on this thread, thus letting it fade back into blessed oblivion.