I ant tell you are not the most intellectual person in the world simply due to the fact that you appear to be getting angry and abusive. As I said I genuinely found the conversation interesting and have responded in a civil way. Despite what many on here think, I dont think you 'win' anything on forums. Now back to the issue. I accept evolution as fact. The issue is what people see evolution as. I think over time (and we HAVE observed this and I mentioned the mixed race kids) everything evolves. It has to to fit into it surroundings, but also things like better diet etc has meant an increase in human size etc What is NOT proven in any shape or form is one species becoming another. Now there maybe an understanding issue with regards to the definition of species. What I mean by this in simple terms is a cat is 1 species and a dog another. So in your example, although biologists dont believe woves were the parents of dogs, i would see the wolf and the jack russel as being the same species but (and this is just to explain my example) have evolved over time due to certain factors including being specifically bred.
Reading up on Ligers, they are the spawn of two different species and they are infertile - so they can't breed with their original species. I'm finding loopholes obviously, but your point about breeding is pretty irrelevant anyway - so I've disproved your statement, we have seen a different species before evolve our eyes, albeit a pretty useless one. If we want to go further, HIV didn't exist a few years ago, now it does, it evolved before our eyes.
Minor species changes which have been observed and are not disputed are not proof that a species A can change into a species B which cannot breed with A.
You are the one telling me that I was born with religion, whether I like it or not, and then makes moves to replace scientific facts (and I don't think I'm being at all unreasonable in stating that theses are facts) with religion. To any reasonable mind open to logic one species becoming another (evolution, ya know) has absolutely been proven.
I'm not sure whether an infertile hybrid should be considered a species, defining a species is a whole debate in itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem I'm going by Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".
Again, I give you Drosphila: An experiment demonstrating allopatric speciation in the fruit fly (Drosophila pseudoobscura) conducted by Diane Dodd. A single population of flies was divided into two, with one of the populations fed with starch-based food and the other with maltose-based food. After the populations had diverged over many generations, the groups were again mixed; it was observed that the flies would mate only with others from their adapted population. Dodd, D.M.B. (1989) "Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura." Evolution 43:1308–1311.
ears on rat isnt evolution . It was carried out in labs. If you think mutations engineered in labarotories is proof of evolution then you need some time off wolves and dogs is interesting as the 'domestication' of dogs is thought to have happened 10-20k years ago, yet DNA shows the dog and wolf lineage had seperated 100,000 years ago. Add in factors like the other species from around the world that have similar characteristics as the common dog (dingo, coyote etc) and we reach the 'good guess' but dont really know thing again Apart from that a wolf and dog is not changing of species, neither is a lion and tiger or liger. In fact the emergence of the liger or tigon is seen as cross breeding by people wishing to make money form the emerging 'freaks'. A liger will be bigger than its parents and the tigress will need a C section for delivery, rather than a normal birth (even though this can happen) Apart from that tthese 'hybrids' are still the same species, big cat if you will
Yet there is NOT a shred of evidence for this. evolution is NOT one species becoming another ALL of the examples cited are a species evolving, but ultimately staying the same and if you read what I wrote I said the parents make the child a Jew, christian etc but dont let fact get in the way
course it does so you cite the person responsible for seperating them , Dodd cite what was done, fed on starchy foods then your proof is they wouldn shag the other ones and this has somehow PROVEN without a shadow of a doubt that one species became a totally different one and i am stupid for suggesting they are still flies
How about modern day birds being the descendants of dinosaurs? I mean it's only a theory, a very strong theory, with lots of evidence (as in lots of shreds of evidence, which you claim are none). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds but unfortunately I can't provide you with the same certainties that those random middle eastern people, 1500 or whatever years ago, can so obviously provide I'm not really qualified to chuck all the bits of proof I can google at you, you could just go and read up from someone who is qualified (Dawkins being the populist example, read The Blind Watchmaker [a horrendously boring book unfortunately] or The Greatest Show On Earth [a little bit easier on the mind] to get **** loads of shreds of evidence).
After many generations, the flies were tested to see which flies they preferred to mate with. Dodd found that some reproductive isolation had occurred as a result of the geographic isolation and selection for different food sources in the two environments: "maltose flies" preferred other "maltose flies," and "starch flies" preferred other "starch flies." Although, we can't be sure, these preference differences probably existed because selection for using different food sources also affected certain genes involved in reproductive behavior. it seems they were in fact still shagging each other, when they could It seems the experiment 'affected certain genes innvolved in reproductive behaviour' so those that didnt COULDNT another scientific experiment that has jumped to conclusions it seems
You really are an embarrassingly stupid and ignorant ****. You have absolutely no clue about biology, speciation, genetic variation etc. yet you try and pass yourself off as someone with such knowledge, even though it's clear to everyone reading this you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You read a few paragraphs on a subject on the internet and think you're an expert. You're not. You're a ****ing embarrassment with a high opinion of yourself as some sort of intellectual, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You made a complete **** of yourself yesterday, showing you cannot even google a word despite claiming to have been IT teacher You're a ****ing embarrassment and an insult to the human race.
Ok lets take this as fact for one second descendents of dinosaur 'birds' right? not T-rex Not all scientists agree with this anyway As for Dawkin he fits the profile. ex christian now anti god a zoologist by trade, who refuses to openly debate, Have you seen his video on youtube where he is shown up for the liar he is? I have read some of his stuff and TBH its easily refuted
