[CottShop]

I only use Cps lock to streess the key words that are most pertinent to the discussion- don’t infere anythign else from them.

Again- I don’t care what their unsupported theoretical pressupositions are- again- I care only about facts- not assumptions on this issue. They could beleive we all came from icecream if they like- their facts are all I’m itnerested in.

[[Macroevolution is species-level change. Everyone agrees with that.]]

You are welcome to your opinion, but that is simply wrong- there is absolutely NO evidence for MACROevolution- none- only for MICROEvolution

[[And there are some living examples of that change. They are called ring species. And the really neat thing about ring species is that the transitional or intermediate forms are still living and can be readily examined!]]

No- I’m sorry- but htis is nothing more than the discontinuity in the KINDS and not a NEW species KIND.

[[Now I know you can’t accept any of this—it goes against your religious belief, but don’t try to con others into thinking you either know anything, or care, about science. Its dishonest.]]

Wow- getting petty now are we? I expected more from you- but alas- it’s a common evo arguing tactic- so I guess I should have seen that coming.

As for your ring species (Just slight MICROEvolutionary adaptations of information ALREADY present) this has been refutted quite thoroughly- here’s one link

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/bird.asp

Now, either we can dissagree while being civil, or I can ignore any further posts from you as all you’ve presented so far are examples of MICROEvolution and are tryign to intentionally confuse the two totally different terms of evoltuion. You’ve also demanded precision while engaging in obscurities and generalities yourself. I give you precise explanations so that thgere won’t be any confusion, yet you ignore the precision and insist on labelling one term, MACROEvolution as something it is not- it’s a distinct biological hypothesis that has absoltuely no support in the records or testings for over 150 years and billions and billions of dollars spent trying to show it. The fact is that it can’t be shown, and to counter this biological impossibility, folks repeatedly try to insinuate that hte more simple process of MICROEvolution is the same thing. While you are welcomed to your preferred beleive, don’t expect others to accept such a simplification of the much more complex process of MACROEvolution. Genetic variation is indeed fascinating and can produce some wild subspecies, but trying to pass off a ring species as a NEW KIND is simply dishonest. I’ll be bakc later, but I really don’t expect anythignbmore than the same insinuations to which I’ve already replied.

[Coyoteman]

Now, either we can dissagree while being civil, or I can ignore any further posts from you as all you’ve presented so far are examples of MICROEvolution and are tryign to intentionally confuse the two totally different terms of evoltuion. You’ve also demanded precision while engaging in obscurities and generalities yourself. I give you precise explanations so that thgere won’t be any confusion, yet you ignore the precision and insist on labelling one term, MACROEvolution as something it is not- it’s a distinct biological hypothesis that has absoltuely no support in the records or testings for over 150 years and billions and billions of dollars spent trying to show it. The fact is that it can’t be shown, and to counter this biological impossibility, folks repeatedly try to insinuate that hte more simple process of MICROEvolution is the same thing. While you are welcomed to your preferred beleive, don’t expect others to accept such a simplification of the much more complex process of MACROEvolution. Genetic variation is indeed fascinating and can produce some wild subspecies, but trying to pass off a ring species as a NEW KIND is simply dishonest. I’ll be bakc later, but I really don’t expect anythignbmore than the same insinuations to which I’ve already replied.

More obfuscation.

Kind is a biblical term, not a scientific one. Macroevolution is clearly defined as species-level change. Check it out! (Avoid the creationist sites though; they lie.)

Ring species deal with species, not kinds, or NEW KINDS (whatever they are). And as an additional benefit, ring species preserve all of those "transitionals" or "intermediates" that creationists claim could never exist. No wonder you don't like ring species!

And the link you provided to Answers in Genesis is worthless. They are an avowed anti-science, pro-creationist website. To write for them you must agree to their Statement of Faith. (For the lurkers, please take a look at this and ask yourselves if agreeing to this kind of a statement seems consistent with doing science. Most all of the large creationist organizations have such a statement required for membership. One even requires that that statement be renewed each year!)

Not surprisingly, given the Statement of Faith required for AiG membership, their article "refuting" ring species, which you linked to, deals with religion, not science. For example:

Many have been misled into thinking this is evidence for evolution and against biblical creation. However, some thought reveals otherwise. The key to understanding this is to consider the vast amounts of complex information in all living things, coding for functionally useful structures and processes.

Creation as described in the book of Genesis implies that virtually all the genetic information in today’s world was present in the beginning, contained in separate populations (the original created kinds).

This information would not be expected to increase, but could decrease with time—in other words, any genetic changes would be expected to be informationally downhill. Source

Get back to us when you have something that actually argues against ring species or any of the other well-established principles in science.