No, I'm just invoking common sense. Dogs come from Dogs. We witness that and expect that to be so. Until someone can prove otherwise, the bottom line assumption that does stand as reasonable is that the ancestor was a dog. If you wish to offer something as otherwise reasonable, you need to establish that - which is the subject of our current discussion. I've seen a dog give birth to pups that grew up into "dogs" (gasp). I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog though I have witnessed the birth of many many kittens. So have a great cross-section of our population. They haven't seen cats or dogs produce other than cats or dogs either. Guess they're all just blind, dumb and misinformed.. your argument as it were.
No, I'm just invoking common sense.
Yeah, that's what the Church claimed when it imprisoned Galileo for stating that the Earth went around the Sun, instead of the "common sense" view that the Sun went around the Earth. Things are not always as "common sense" would indicate.
Dogs come from Dogs. We witness that and expect that to be so.
And yet, over vast numbers of generations, that naive presumption turns out not to hold.
Until someone can prove otherwise, the bottom line assumption that does stand as reasonable is that the ancestor was a dog.
The vast evidence, which you keep refusing to learn anything about, has established beyond any reasonable doubt that your *assumption* is incorrect.
If you wish to offer something as otherwise reasonable, you need to establish that
I have, and so has 100+ years of biolical science. Deal with it, or not. You apparently enjoy your ignorance so much that you refuse to learn anything to the contrary of what you wish to believe, so go for it.
- which is the subject of our current discussion.
It's not a "discussion" when you just keep stamping your feet and making multiple claims which are contrary to established fact. It's just you being ignorantly stubborn.
I've seen a dog give birth to pups that grew up into "dogs" (gasp). I've never seen a cat give birth to a dog though
Nor is that kind of thing necessary for macroevolution to occur, as you would already know if a) you had bothered to learn anything about biology before spouting off about it, or b) if you had bothered to read any of the many informative posts on that very subject.
They haven't seen cats or dogs produce other than cats or dogs either.
Nor is that what evolutionary biology requires.
Guess they're all just blind, dumb and misinformed..
They are if they're stupid enough to think that this *is* what evolutionary biology is about. I don't think *they're* that stupid, although *you* clearly are, as you demonstrate at nearly every opportunity. You argue against a bizarre, distorted, cartoon-version of evolution instead of the real thing, because you haven't the first clue what the real thing actually entails.