Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: gore3000
. I asked you to back up your post, give pictures, tell us what the heck this species is and you start to turn it into a personal thing. Seems you cannot back anything you say Vade.

Actually, BMCDA's post I linked back for you earlier did have some nice pictures of the salamanders in the California ring species example. You have failed to comment and are still demanding same as if it were not on the thread already.

As ususal, you're not covering yourself with glory here.

BTW, just a reminder. When someone publishes a study or a summary of several studies that shows something you don't want to accept, you don't discredit it by demanding the broomstick of the Wicked Witch of the West be brought to you. If you don't accept the conclusions of the study, it's up to you to get out there and find something that refutes it.

1,077 posted on 03/21/2002 5:29:21 AM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1061 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
Actually, BMCDA's post I linked back for you earlier did have some nice pictures of the salamanders in the California ring species example.

They are not a new genus, they are not even a new species. From BMCDA's post to be found at #808 of this thread:

Yet the entire complex of populations belongs to a single taxonomic species, Ensatina escholtzii.

In summary, you have yet to give an example of macro-evolution on this thread. Keep trying though, maybe in another 150 years you will find one.

1,187 posted on 03/21/2002 5:50:05 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1077 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson