Galapagos study finds that new species can develop in as little as two generations

[Syriusly]

So, is that a yes or a no? Is there one common ancestor in your theory?

The evidence appears to show that almost all current life on Earth descended from a common ancestor. That does not necessarily imply that there was only one original single cell life. That parent cell line was the one that was most successful.

Now that we've eliminated the demagogue, you've acknowledged you believe in the common ancestor, can you explain how one species transitioned into another?

"can you explain how one species transitioned into another?"

Of course he can, as can anyone who knows anything at all about evolution. It's literally the day one topic in any study of evolution. The fact that you DON'T know the answer is more notable than anyone knowing the answer, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your laziness and ignorance in not having looked this up yourself.

Yeah- until he responds to questions as to what alternate theory he believes in, he is not interested in a dialogue- he is just spewing the usual Evolution deniers talking points.

It's not incumbent upon me to provide an alternate theory. The absence of one does not automatically make you right. You have come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever. Until you can prove that happens, your theory is nothing but a fantasy, no matter HOW many times you scream "It's a fact".

Of course not. I can't force you to have the cojones to say what theory you believe in.

Meanwhile- 'my theory'- is the theory that not only is accepted by the vast majority of actual scientists- it is the theory that is being used in science right now- for vaccine development

Influenza, an ever-evolving target for vaccine development

Science will never convince you- nothing will ever convince you.

And I cannot force you to have the cojones to stand up for what you believe.

 

[Syriusly]

There's one pattern that keeps repeating itself when discussing the theory of evolution. Those who push the theory are unable to provide anything more than speculation. .

There is indeed one pattern that keeps repeating itself.

An Evolution denier makes a bunch of whacked out claims- most are false assumptions about the theory of Evolution- and demand that their false assumptions be disproved.

Rational people respond rationally with answers- the Evolution deniers refuse to accept any of the rational answers.

Which is why it is generally just a waste of time to try to have a dialogue with all of you.

 

[S.J.]

I said one ancestor has lead to current life on earth (more or less), yes. In Precambrian times, I believe there were lots of pre-life experiments going on and ours was more successful. All the others were less successful or quickly failed. This is a conclusion from the data that almost all current life is biochemically similar.

Thank you for your answer (minus an insult). I agree about the biochemically similarities in life. But I think you admitted in your second sentence when you said "I believe" that it is still speculation.

You already know the answer to this cuz it is very general biology 101. Once a population separates into two non-interacting populations for whatever reason, their population gene frequencies become different. While still interacting, they evolve together. When separated, they do not. Eventually their genotypes become so different, they will be given different names, speciation has occurred.

Examples? Based on fact, under controlled conditions, not speculation and deductions.

 

[S.J.]

There's one pattern that keeps repeating itself when discussing the theory of evolution. Those who push the theory are unable to provide anything more than speculation. .

There is indeed one pattern that keeps repeating itself.

An Evolution denier makes a bunch of whacked out claims- most are false assumptions about the theory of Evolution- and demand that their false assumptions be disproved.

Rational people respond rationally with answers- the Evolution deniers refuse to accept any of the rational answers.

Which is why it is generally just a waste of time to try to have a dialogue with all of you.

I'm sorry, but you really need to fuck off. I have no interest in any kind of serious discussion with someone who can't discuss something without throwing out an endless barrage of adolescent name calling and personal attacks. Please get lost, you're polluting the atmosphere and making it difficult for others to address this topic.

 

[MarkDuffy]

I said one ancestor has lead to current life on earth (more or less), yes. In Precambrian times, I believe there were lots of pre-life experiments going on and ours was more successful. All the others were less successful or quickly failed. This is a conclusion from the data that almost all current life is biochemically similar.

Thank you for your answer (minus an insult). I agree about the biochemically similarities in life. But I think you admitted in your second sentence when you said "I believe" that it is still speculation.

You already know the answer to this cuz it is very general biology 101. Once a population separates into two non-interacting populations for whatever reason, their population gene frequencies become different. While still interacting, they evolve together. When separated, they do not. Eventually their genotypes become so different, they will be given different names, speciation has occurred.

Examples? Based on fact, under controlled conditions, not speculation and deductions.

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

and the link in the OP of course. You know, the reason this thread is here?

 

[S.J.]

I said one ancestor has lead to current life on earth (more or less), yes. In Precambrian times, I believe there were lots of pre-life experiments going on and ours was more successful. All the others were less successful or quickly failed. This is a conclusion from the data that almost all current life is biochemically similar.

Thank you for your answer (minus an insult). I agree about the biochemically similarities in life. But I think you admitted in your second sentence when you said "I believe" that it is still speculation.

You already know the answer to this cuz it is very general biology 101. Once a population separates into two non-interacting populations for whatever reason, their population gene frequencies become different. While still interacting, they evolve together. When separated, they do not. Eventually their genotypes become so different, they will be given different names, speciation has occurred.

Examples? Based on fact, under controlled conditions, not speculation and deductions.

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

and the link in the OP of course. You know, the reason this thread is here?

I think the theory of evolution claims much more than evolution within a species. Birds are still birds, even the subspecies. I don't see how you make the leap, however, that all species evolved from the same ancestor but I'm willing to listen to what you have to say about it.
The link you provided is pretty long, with a lot of other links, so I'll have to look at it as time allows but just skimming over it, it seems like most of it is still just speculation. But I won't dismiss all out of hand.

 

[Syriusly]

There's one pattern that keeps repeating itself when discussing the theory of evolution. Those who push the theory are unable to provide anything more than speculation. .

There is indeed one pattern that keeps repeating itself.

An Evolution denier makes a bunch of whacked out claims- most are false assumptions about the theory of Evolution- and demand that their false assumptions be disproved.

Rational people respond rationally with answers- the Evolution deniers refuse to accept any of the rational answers.

Which is why it is generally just a waste of time to try to have a dialogue with all of you.

I'm sorry, but you really need to fuck off. I have no interest in any kind of serious discussion with someone who can't discuss something without throwing out an endless barrage of adolescent name calling and personal attacks. Please get lost, you're polluting the atmosphere and making it difficult for others to address this topic.

LOL- run away, run away. Typical evolution denier. Same tired old rote claims. Same old denials of any evidence.

 

[Syriusly]

I said one ancestor has lead to current life on earth (more or less), yes. In Precambrian times, I believe there were lots of pre-life experiments going on and ours was more successful. All the others were less successful or quickly failed. This is a conclusion from the data that almost all current life is biochemically similar.

Thank you for your answer (minus an insult). I agree about the biochemically similarities in life. But I think you admitted in your second sentence when you said "I believe" that it is still speculation.

You already know the answer to this cuz it is very general biology 101. Once a population separates into two non-interacting populations for whatever reason, their population gene frequencies become different. While still interacting, they evolve together. When separated, they do not. Eventually their genotypes become so different, they will be given different names, speciation has occurred.

Examples? Based on fact, under controlled conditions, not speculation and deductions.

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 5

and the link in the OP of course. You know, the reason this thread is here?

I think the theory of evolution claims much more than evolution within a species. Birds are still birds, even the subspecies. .

Birds are not a species- different species of birds are species- Bald Eagles are a different species than Golden Eagles for example. Eagles are all part of the same family- not the same species. And they are all part of the class of 'Aves'- or birds.

Just as different species of fruit flies are different species of fruit flies- while still being part of the same family.

Now within the Galapagos there are various species of giant tortoise. All unique to the Galapagos- most of them unique to a separate island of the Galapagos- each of them adapted to that island. They are all tortoises- but they are not the same species.

Evolution happens- when there is enough divergent evolution so that the two different populations either can no longer reproduce together- or will no longer chose to reproduce together- they are considered seperate species. As they evolve along farther on separate paths- they will usually become more apparently divergent.

But you know all this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There's one pattern that keeps repeating itself when discussing the theory of evolution. Those who push the theory are unable to provide anything more than speculation. They often don't agree with each other on many aspects of it, yet they all claim to be experts and they all claim it is fact, but when challenged to prove any of their points, it always ends the same way. They get frustrated, duck and dodge the questions, and finish the conversation with insults and personal attacks. This thread is no different.

As if any of that has any bearing on the truth of the theory of evolution, as supported by mountains of empirical evidence.
You are a charlatan, attempting to appeal to emotion and employing specious reasoning, and nothing more.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, is that a yes or a no? Is there one common ancestor in your theory?

The evidence appears to show that almost all current life on Earth descended from a common ancestor. That does not necessarily imply that there was only one original single cell life. That parent cell line was the one that was most successful.

Now that we've eliminated the demagogue, you've acknowledged you believe in the common ancestor, can you explain how one species transitioned into another?

"can you explain how one species transitioned into another?"

Of course he can, as can anyone who knows anything at all about evolution. It's literally the day one topic in any study of evolution. The fact that you DON'T know the answer is more notable than anyone knowing the answer, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your laziness and ignorance in not having looked this up yourself.

Yeah- until he responds to questions as to what alternate theory he believes in, he is not interested in a dialogue- he is just spewing the usual Evolution deniers talking points.

It's not incumbent upon me to provide an alternate theory. The absence of one does not automatically make you right. You have come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever. Until you can prove that happens, your theory is nothing but a fantasy, no matter HOW many times you scream "It's a fact".

"Youhave come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever."

This is a riduclois lie uttered by a person who clearly knows less than nothing about evolution.

No, your internet squawking presents no actual challenge tobthe theory of evolution. Given that there are mountains of empirical evidence (deapite your absurd claim that this evidence does not exist), you would only present a real challenge by publishing mountains of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Syriusly]

The evidence appears to show that almost all current life on Earth descended from a common ancestor. That does not necessarily imply that there was only one original single cell life. That parent cell line was the one that was most successful.

Now that we've eliminated the demagogue, you've acknowledged you believe in the common ancestor, can you explain how one species transitioned into another?

"can you explain how one species transitioned into another?"

Of course he can, as can anyone who knows anything at all about evolution. It's literally the day one topic in any study of evolution. The fact that you DON'T know the answer is more notable than anyone knowing the answer, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your laziness and ignorance in not having looked this up yourself.

Yeah- until he responds to questions as to what alternate theory he believes in, he is not interested in a dialogue- he is just spewing the usual Evolution deniers talking points.

It's not incumbent upon me to provide an alternate theory. The absence of one does not automatically make you right. You have come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever. Until you can prove that happens, your theory is nothing but a fantasy, no matter HOW many times you scream "It's a fact".

"Youhave come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever."

This is a riduclois lie uttered by a person who clearly knows less than nothing about evolution.

No, your internet squawking presents no actual challenge tobthe theory of evolution. Given that there are mountains of empirical evidence (deapite your absurd claim that this evidence does not exist), you would only present a real challenge by publishing mountains of evidence to the contrary.

He is just another idiot evolution denier who runs away when he runs out of his usual rote talking points.

 

[S.J.]

The evidence appears to show that almost all current life on Earth descended from a common ancestor. That does not necessarily imply that there was only one original single cell life. That parent cell line was the one that was most successful.

Now that we've eliminated the demagogue, you've acknowledged you believe in the common ancestor, can you explain how one species transitioned into another?

"can you explain how one species transitioned into another?"

Of course he can, as can anyone who knows anything at all about evolution. It's literally the day one topic in any study of evolution. The fact that you DON'T know the answer is more notable than anyone knowing the answer, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your laziness and ignorance in not having looked this up yourself.

Yeah- until he responds to questions as to what alternate theory he believes in, he is not interested in a dialogue- he is just spewing the usual Evolution deniers talking points.

It's not incumbent upon me to provide an alternate theory. The absence of one does not automatically make you right. You have come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever. Until you can prove that happens, your theory is nothing but a fantasy, no matter HOW many times you scream "It's a fact".

"Youhave come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever."

This is a riduclois lie uttered by a person who clearly knows less than nothing about evolution.

No, your internet squawking presents no actual challenge tobthe theory of evolution. Given that there are mountains of empirical evidence (deapite your absurd claim that this evidence does not exist), you would only present a real challenge by publishing mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Eat shit. If I discuss this topic with anyone it sure as shit won't be with either one of you flame baiting trolls. You can't make a case for your theory (you can't even agree on what it is), you're only here to engage in name calling and insults so fuck off.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Now that we've eliminated the demagogue, you've acknowledged you believe in the common ancestor, can you explain how one species transitioned into another?

"can you explain how one species transitioned into another?"

Of course he can, as can anyone who knows anything at all about evolution. It's literally the day one topic in any study of evolution. The fact that you DON'T know the answer is more notable than anyone knowing the answer, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your laziness and ignorance in not having looked this up yourself.

Yeah- until he responds to questions as to what alternate theory he believes in, he is not interested in a dialogue- he is just spewing the usual Evolution deniers talking points.

It's not incumbent upon me to provide an alternate theory. The absence of one does not automatically make you right. You have come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever. Until you can prove that happens, your theory is nothing but a fantasy, no matter HOW many times you scream "It's a fact".

"Youhave come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever."

This is a riduclois lie uttered by a person who clearly knows less than nothing about evolution.

No, your internet squawking presents no actual challenge tobthe theory of evolution. Given that there are mountains of empirical evidence (deapite your absurd claim that this evidence does not exist), you would only present a real challenge by publishing mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Eat shit. If I discuss this topic with anyone it sure as shit won't be with either one of you flame baiting trolls. You can't make a case for your theory (you can't even agree on what it is), you're only here to engage in name calling and insults so fuck off.

"You can't make a case for your theory"

Of course we can, idiot. It is the prevailing scientific theory in and foundation of all of biology. It is the most well-supported scientific theory in the history of the planet. Literally any 8th grader can state the basic case for evolution. What kind of idiot convinces himself that, just because two strangers on the internet won't spoonfeed him the most basic, elementary-school info on this topic, it means they can't or that it does not exist? You are embarrassing yourself.

You say wildly incorrect things that nobody who knows fact one about evolution would ever say. Then, once your errors are corrected and you are shown why they are errors, you repeat the same, stupid errors anyway. So spare us any attempt to characterize yourself as an honest person seeking honest discussion of this topic. Clearly you are not.

 

[S.J.]

"can you explain how one species transitioned into another?"

Of course he can, as can anyone who knows anything at all about evolution. It's literally the day one topic in any study of evolution. The fact that you DON'T know the answer is more notable than anyone knowing the answer, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your laziness and ignorance in not having looked this up yourself.

Yeah- until he responds to questions as to what alternate theory he believes in, he is not interested in a dialogue- he is just spewing the usual Evolution deniers talking points.

It's not incumbent upon me to provide an alternate theory. The absence of one does not automatically make you right. You have come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever. Until you can prove that happens, your theory is nothing but a fantasy, no matter HOW many times you scream "It's a fact".

"Youhave come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever."

This is a riduclois lie uttered by a person who clearly knows less than nothing about evolution.

No, your internet squawking presents no actual challenge tobthe theory of evolution. Given that there are mountains of empirical evidence (deapite your absurd claim that this evidence does not exist), you would only present a real challenge by publishing mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Eat shit. If I discuss this topic with anyone it sure as shit won't be with either one of you flame baiting trolls. You can't make a case for your theory (you can't even agree on what it is), you're only here to engage in name calling and insults so fuck off.

"You can't make a case for your theory"

Of course we can, idiot. It is the prevailing scientific theory in and foundation of all of biology. It is the most well-supported scientific theory in the history of the planet. Literally any 8th grader can state the basic case for evolution. What kind of idiot convinces himself that, just because two strangers on the internet won't spoonfeed him the most basic, elementary-school info on this topic, it means they can't or that it does not exist? You are embarrassing yourself.

You say wildly incorrect things that nobody who knows fact one about evolution would ever say. Then, once your errors are corrected and you are shown why they are errors, you repeat the same, stupid errors anyway. So spare us any attempt to characterize yourself as an honest person seeking honest discussion of this topic. Clearly you are not.

Which word did you not understand, troll? "Fuck" or "Off"?

 

[Syriusly]

Yeah- until he responds to questions as to what alternate theory he believes in, he is not interested in a dialogue- he is just spewing the usual Evolution deniers talking points.

It's not incumbent upon me to provide an alternate theory. The absence of one does not automatically make you right. You have come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever. Until you can prove that happens, your theory is nothing but a fantasy, no matter HOW many times you scream "It's a fact".

"Youhave come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever."

This is a riduclois lie uttered by a person who clearly knows less than nothing about evolution.

No, your internet squawking presents no actual challenge tobthe theory of evolution. Given that there are mountains of empirical evidence (deapite your absurd claim that this evidence does not exist), you would only present a real challenge by publishing mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Eat shit. If I discuss this topic with anyone it sure as shit won't be with either one of you flame baiting trolls. You can't make a case for your theory (you can't even agree on what it is), you're only here to engage in name calling and insults so fuck off.

"You can't make a case for your theory"

Of course we can, idiot. It is the prevailing scientific theory in and foundation of all of biology. It is the most well-supported scientific theory in the history of the planet. Literally any 8th grader can state the basic case for evolution. What kind of idiot convinces himself that, just because two strangers on the internet won't spoonfeed him the most basic, elementary-school info on this topic, it means they can't or that it does not exist? You are embarrassing yourself.

You say wildly incorrect things that nobody who knows fact one about evolution would ever say. Then, once your errors are corrected and you are shown why they are errors, you repeat the same, stupid errors anyway. So spare us any attempt to characterize yourself as an honest person seeking honest discussion of this topic. Clearly you are not.

Which word did you not understand, troll? "Fuck" or "Off"?

LOL- another Evolution denier snowflake who can't stand to be challenged.

Maybe he can find a safer place to promote his mumbo jumbo? A good safe creationist blog?

 

[Syriusly]

Now that we've eliminated the demagogue, you've acknowledged you believe in the common ancestor, can you explain how one species transitioned into another?

"can you explain how one species transitioned into another?"

Of course he can, as can anyone who knows anything at all about evolution. It's literally the day one topic in any study of evolution. The fact that you DON'T know the answer is more notable than anyone knowing the answer, and you should be ashamed of yourself for your laziness and ignorance in not having looked this up yourself.

Yeah- until he responds to questions as to what alternate theory he believes in, he is not interested in a dialogue- he is just spewing the usual Evolution deniers talking points.

It's not incumbent upon me to provide an alternate theory. The absence of one does not automatically make you right. You have come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever. Until you can prove that happens, your theory is nothing but a fantasy, no matter HOW many times you scream "It's a fact".

"Youhave come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever."

This is a riduclois lie uttered by a person who clearly knows less than nothing about evolution.

No, your internet squawking presents no actual challenge tobthe theory of evolution. Given that there are mountains of empirical evidence (deapite your absurd claim that this evidence does not exist), you would only present a real challenge by publishing mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Eat shit. If I discuss this topic with anyone it sure as shit won't be with either one of you flame baiting trolls. You can't make a case for your theory (you can't even agree on what it is), you're only here to engage in name calling and insults so fuck off.

Poor little trolling snowflake. Maybe you will find a safe echo chamber where you all nod and agree that evolution is stupid.

 

[S.J.]

It's not incumbent upon me to provide an alternate theory. The absence of one does not automatically make you right. You have come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever. Until you can prove that happens, your theory is nothing but a fantasy, no matter HOW many times you scream "It's a fact".

"Youhave come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever."

This is a riduclois lie uttered by a person who clearly knows less than nothing about evolution.

No, your internet squawking presents no actual challenge tobthe theory of evolution. Given that there are mountains of empirical evidence (deapite your absurd claim that this evidence does not exist), you would only present a real challenge by publishing mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Eat shit. If I discuss this topic with anyone it sure as shit won't be with either one of you flame baiting trolls. You can't make a case for your theory (you can't even agree on what it is), you're only here to engage in name calling and insults so fuck off.

"You can't make a case for your theory"

Of course we can, idiot. It is the prevailing scientific theory in and foundation of all of biology. It is the most well-supported scientific theory in the history of the planet. Literally any 8th grader can state the basic case for evolution. What kind of idiot convinces himself that, just because two strangers on the internet won't spoonfeed him the most basic, elementary-school info on this topic, it means they can't or that it does not exist? You are embarrassing yourself.

You say wildly incorrect things that nobody who knows fact one about evolution would ever say. Then, once your errors are corrected and you are shown why they are errors, you repeat the same, stupid errors anyway. So spare us any attempt to characterize yourself as an honest person seeking honest discussion of this topic. Clearly you are not.

Which word did you not understand, troll? "Fuck" or "Off"?

LOL- another Evolution denier snowflake who can't stand to be challenged.

Maybe he can find a safer place to promote his mumbo jumbo? A good safe creationist blog?

Hey asshole, you're the one who couldn't answer basic questions about the theory on which you claim to be an expert.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"Youhave come far from providing any convincing evidence that one species became another - ever."

This is a riduclois lie uttered by a person who clearly knows less than nothing about evolution.

No, your internet squawking presents no actual challenge tobthe theory of evolution. Given that there are mountains of empirical evidence (deapite your absurd claim that this evidence does not exist), you would only present a real challenge by publishing mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Eat shit. If I discuss this topic with anyone it sure as shit won't be with either one of you flame baiting trolls. You can't make a case for your theory (you can't even agree on what it is), you're only here to engage in name calling and insults so fuck off.

"You can't make a case for your theory"

Of course we can, idiot. It is the prevailing scientific theory in and foundation of all of biology. It is the most well-supported scientific theory in the history of the planet. Literally any 8th grader can state the basic case for evolution. What kind of idiot convinces himself that, just because two strangers on the internet won't spoonfeed him the most basic, elementary-school info on this topic, it means they can't or that it does not exist? You are embarrassing yourself.

You say wildly incorrect things that nobody who knows fact one about evolution would ever say. Then, once your errors are corrected and you are shown why they are errors, you repeat the same, stupid errors anyway. So spare us any attempt to characterize yourself as an honest person seeking honest discussion of this topic. Clearly you are not.

Which word did you not understand, troll? "Fuck" or "Off"?

LOL- another Evolution denier snowflake who can't stand to be challenged.

Maybe he can find a safer place to promote his mumbo jumbo? A good safe creationist blog?

Hey asshole, you're the one who couldn't answer basic questions about the theory on which you claim to be an expert.

Of course he can, even though he didn't claim to be an expert, which is just a whiny lie you made up. You need to come to terms with the facts that you deniers are the aberration in your denial and uignorance, and that most people have a basic grasp of evolutionary theory.

And whether or not he could or does answer your questions has zero bearing on the truth of the theory. You could stump him all day every day with your incoherent, absurd questions, and evolution would still be a fact.

 

[S.J.]

Eat shit. If I discuss this topic with anyone it sure as shit won't be with either one of you flame baiting trolls. You can't make a case for your theory (you can't even agree on what it is), you're only here to engage in name calling and insults so fuck off.

"You can't make a case for your theory"

Of course we can, idiot. It is the prevailing scientific theory in and foundation of all of biology. It is the most well-supported scientific theory in the history of the planet. Literally any 8th grader can state the basic case for evolution. What kind of idiot convinces himself that, just because two strangers on the internet won't spoonfeed him the most basic, elementary-school info on this topic, it means they can't or that it does not exist? You are embarrassing yourself.

You say wildly incorrect things that nobody who knows fact one about evolution would ever say. Then, once your errors are corrected and you are shown why they are errors, you repeat the same, stupid errors anyway. So spare us any attempt to characterize yourself as an honest person seeking honest discussion of this topic. Clearly you are not.

Which word did you not understand, troll? "Fuck" or "Off"?

LOL- another Evolution denier snowflake who can't stand to be challenged.

Maybe he can find a safer place to promote his mumbo jumbo? A good safe creationist blog?

Hey asshole, you're the one who couldn't answer basic questions about the theory on which you claim to be an expert.

Of course he can, even though he didn't claim to be an expert, which is just a whiny lie you made up. You need to come to terms with the facts that you deniers are the aberration in your denial and uignorance, and that most people have a basic grasp of evolutionary theory.

And whether or not he could or does answer your questions has zero bearing on the truth of the theory. You could stump him all day every day with your incoherent, absurd questions, and evolution would still be a fact.

Yeah, that's why they still call it "The Theory Of Evolution", idiot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"You can't make a case for your theory"

Of course we can, idiot. It is the prevailing scientific theory in and foundation of all of biology. It is the most well-supported scientific theory in the history of the planet. Literally any 8th grader can state the basic case for evolution. What kind of idiot convinces himself that, just because two strangers on the internet won't spoonfeed him the most basic, elementary-school info on this topic, it means they can't or that it does not exist? You are embarrassing yourself.

You say wildly incorrect things that nobody who knows fact one about evolution would ever say. Then, once your errors are corrected and you are shown why they are errors, you repeat the same, stupid errors anyway. So spare us any attempt to characterize yourself as an honest person seeking honest discussion of this topic. Clearly you are not.

Which word did you not understand, troll? "Fuck" or "Off"?

LOL- another Evolution denier snowflake who can't stand to be challenged.

Maybe he can find a safer place to promote his mumbo jumbo? A good safe creationist blog?

Hey asshole, you're the one who couldn't answer basic questions about the theory on which you claim to be an expert.

Of course he can, even though he didn't claim to be an expert, which is just a whiny lie you made up. You need to come to terms with the facts that you deniers are the aberration in your denial and uignorance, and that most people have a basic grasp of evolutionary theory.

And whether or not he could or does answer your questions has zero bearing on the truth of the theory. You could stump him all day every day with your incoherent, absurd questions, and evolution would still be a fact.

Yeah, that's why they still call it "The Theory Of Evolution", idiot.

I have to think you are trolling. I find it hard to believe that, after so many people have explained to you why that statement is an error on your part, you don't understand why it is an error. You just either don't care or are saying false things for attention. Or both.