Replies

No it is not artificial, it means something. Matter of fact, lions and tigers are the same species they can interbreed. -me-

Dingbat science in action. Can I quote you? Lions and tigers are the same species?

They certainly are, they can interbreed and produce viable offspring. Dogs and wolves are also one species as are zebras and horses. Now if you want dingbat science, there is a famous example which your buddy Vade used to give. It was of these birds which the evos called a ring species but of course could not bother to check to see if they could mate even though they were supposedly observing for half a dozen years. They said that the ends of the ring were separate species because they had a couple of yellow stripes the others did not have and in addition sang somewhat different songs. As I pointed out quite a few times to your friend (and finally the laughter made him stop posting this ridiculous example) if that is what made a different species then Chinamen and Englishmen must be different species because they speak differently and have different coloring. It is evo 'science' which is ridiculous.

How does the fact that certain species can mate with each other support creationism? It escapes me. Lions and Tigers can produce live offspring this does not mean they have reproductive viability these offsrping are "Mules" that means that they cannot reproduce. I have stated that species is meaningless you keep saying it isn't. You are wrong it is that simple species means nothing again I restate species is a term created by scientists as a useful place marker to distinguish one creature from another its that simple. Quit lying to people you well know that species is meaningless.

I have already posted a refutation of Irreducible Complexity did you not read it. Of course you didn't remember the viral exchange of genetic information this completly negates Irreducible Complexity as it allows cross species genetic transfer. This allows different evolutionary lines to converge.

You continue to use a tired argument from the 19th century that modern genetic research has disproved time and again. I will not continue to argue when I give a proof and you just say "NO IT ISN'T!!" you sound like a monty python skit. You have given no evidence that there is even irreducible Complexity you merely state look at a flegellum it can't occur in nature. Of course it can actually it isn't even irreducibly complex There is nothing in Nature that is irreducibly complex thats the Creationist lie. It is a lie a very big lie they tell everytime someone argues with them. Do you even know what Irreducible Complexity means or you like our friend f.christian who says the word like a mantra.

Wouls you like me to give you the method that a flegellum can be created simply by natural selection even without viral intervention (Although viral intervention can speed the process along)

A single cell organism breaks from its parent cell. The new cell is slightly different than the parent and has a celluar defect on one wall. This defect is a slight protrubance. when the cell moves this protrubrance acts as a rudder letting the cell move in a more guided way. Each generation the cell with the larger thinner protrubrance is more effective in moving about. After a time we have a cell with a long thin tail. At this point a cell again experiences a defect part of the cellular membrane that allows the cell to move attaches itself to the tail. When this cell moves the tail moves slightly with it meaning not only does the rudder act like a rudder it can now be used for small amounts of movement itself. This slow progression is so simple to understand I don't even see that your Irreducible Complexity can even exist. By the definition of Irreducible Complexity there could be absolutely no evolution because all change would be impossible we know for a fact that that is incorrect as changes such as I describe do occur.

Do you have any evidence for your claims? I just showed how the flegellum can occur naturally do you want me to debunk the Irreducible Complexity of every single example that you can come up with.

You say evolutionists never give you proof. I gave you proof and even made it simple enough that someone like you could understand.

It was of these birds which the evos called a ring species but of course could not bother to check to see if they could mate even though they were supposedly observing for half a dozen years. They said that the ends of the ring were separate species because they had a couple of yellow stripes the others did not have and in addition sang somewhat different songs.

Herring gulls are a ring species, and they work exactly as advertised. Any adjascent group will interbreed with high success, but at the limits of North/South migration, where the opposite groups meet up, they rarely produce viable offspring. For how long, artful dodger, have you been riding on the refusal to recognize attenuation in mating success along a sliding scale? Speciation is not a binary event. There isn't a switch that turns on and off. How much cheese to we have to feed this mousetrap before a thought penetrates the mouse's noggin?