Mathematician destroy Evolution in 5 Min

[Gadawg73]

Show me ANY scientist that refutes the theory of evolution on anything other than their religous beliefs.

 

[antagon]

I've noticed that the anti-evolution crowd tends to have a very simplistic view of evolution as some linear process with clearly defined specialization events in which the offspring is suddenly a different species than the parent.

They fail to understand the gradient that results from genetic drift and interbreeding between populations.

Perhaps Frazzled should look at a few gradients or rainbows to see how each photon/colour/pixel can be the same colour [for all intents and purposes] as its neighbor yet a very different colour than the other end.

it is caricature, and based on poor education. basically take the parts you dont understand, and blow them out of proportion to ground an argument. they are unaware of the extent that that method betrays their misunderstanding, rather than some real criticism of the theory.

i've not found any sincerity among detractors of evolution theory. sincere criticism is over the mechanisms within it and the implications of the evidence supporting it as it guides our understanding of the general premise. what the detractors run with is a misguided attempt to champion their religious beliefs in a scientific sphere. i dont see why. i could respect an amish guy who says, "are you kidding? i dont look into microscopes, i look at the Word of God", and leaves it at that.

this other shit of hoping to defend the bases of ID and purporting that their faith is superior by virtue has reduced to a joke that cant stand on either leg.

'You' have been asked to back up your statements, and will not do it, aren't you 'projecting' onto people that are asking legitimate questions? Or do you feel unable to answer the questions and have to resort to 'intellectual snobbery'?
This doesn't require a high school diploma. Either there is absolute proof that 'evolution' occurred as men say it did or there isn't (in which it makes an entertaining 'story'). Do not show us 'where it could happen' and then tell us it did, show us. Leave your feeling out of it, don't go emotional on us, just present the facts.

ignoring is the root of ignorance, logic. ive espoused bible verses, linked to transitional fossils and educated confused folks like frazzled that they've misunderstood what they feel is the way genetics works when it doesnt. not being able to absorb that and make a specific argument related to what i've presesnted, such as neither you nor your frazzled have managed, is, perhaps, compromised by your lacking education, whether at school or specific to the bible or evolution.

what say you that God created all of us and everything long after the creation story ps:139? what say you that he created the garden after He rested gen:3?

those are simple questions which challenge your nonsense about God 'finishing' or whatever that argument is worth.

_________

what say you about eryops megacephalus, and fossils of this creature which are termed transitional, not by some make-believe creationist definition which disavows the way genes work, but this one, which incidentally comes from my highschool biology textbook:

Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of life that demonstrate the retention of plesiomorphic or primative traits and the presence of unique derived phenotypes, or traits.

this is the best definition i could find from the term. the wiki one uses the term 'evolution' in it, while this one does not. can you argue that there are no transitional fossils without changing the definition? can you challenge the definition itself?

_________

lastly, can you answer these questions or would you ignore their implications?

 

[antagon]

as I said before:

I hate math.

I'll have to dig up some old books and torture myself. I still don't get how we can say that increased mass doesn't increase the acceleration caused by gravitational attraction when it clearly took...


wait...

I wonder....

Anyone ever measured...

No, if the astronauts fell faster after achieving a higher jump, then should the result impact (since their mass remained unchanged you're saying the acceleration was also unchanged) have been the same as if they landed from such a height on Earth? That didn't appear to be the case from what I remember.

It doesn't make sense...


wait... has anyone timed (using something more accurate than a wristwatch) the time the objects took to fall on the moon and compared it the time they take on Earth?

the over the head thing is funny. i'll keep explaining this till it makes sense. going the succinct route:

the mass is not unchanged. thats where the energy goes. it is stored in inertial mass, not in velocity.

place a brick on your foot. no problem.
drop a feather on your foot. no problem.
drop a brick on your foot...

if that energy was stored in acceleration, the brick will fall faster in a vacuum, but the inertial mass would render the impact the same as the brick placed on the foot, no worse. bizarro world.

instead, the mass of objects increases with velocity, although velocity is not increased by the the mass. that mass is what registers when you jump on a bathroom scale instead of stepping on, or if a brick is thrown or dropped, instead of placed.

ok, so not succinct, but the mass does increase, not static mass, but inertial mass.

 

[antagon]

stuff falls slower on the moon. compared to the mass of the moon, other object's mass express more inertia against its gravitation, so they fall slower aka they prefer to stay still or moving in their current direction more. zero gravity and the brick doesn't fall at all. moon gs and it falls slowly, earth g and you need steel-toe boots to work with them.

on the moon the lower velocity makes the inertial mass of bricks lower when it hits the foot. maybe you can do masonry in sandals on the moon.

 

[JBeukema]

I linked you a video on that earlier.

It's there in the whole feather and hammer drop.

That video proves only that the difference, if any, is smaller than can be measured with the naked eye. It does not address the question of whether they truly experience the same acceleration.

 

[JBeukema]

I've noticed that the anti-evolution crowd tends to have a very simplistic view of evolution as some linear process with clearly defined specialization events in which the offspring is suddenly a different species than the parent.

They fail to understand the gradient that results from genetic drift and interbreeding between populations.

Perhaps Frazzled should look at a few gradients or rainbows to see how each photon/colour/pixel can be the same colour [for all intents and purposes] as its neighbor yet a very different colour than the other end.

Again, leave your feelings of how 'you think' it happened and show us the evidence of a group of species (plant and animal) changing (evolving) from one species to another at the same time in the same area (theoretically, there should be ALL kinds of fossils laying around to 'prove' this. Still, waiting.....

What're you babbling about?

Quick science lesson: fossils are rare because fossilization requires rather convenient conditions.

 

[JBeukema]

1. If a liger and a tion cannot reproduce, then they do not meet the definition of being the same species.

They can. Hence the aforementioned ligers.

Do try to keep up.


And once again I throw out something to confuse those with a simplistic conception:

According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tiglons were long thought to be sterile: In 1943, however, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[8]

Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A few female mules have produced offspring when mated with a purebred horse or donkey.[9] Since 1527 there have been more than 60 documented cases of foals born to female mules around the world.[9]

Mule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mules, ligers, etc are rare

Mules aren't really all that rare

Your arguement would have more 'bite' if the animals you use in your examples weren't 'freaks', but a viable combination of two species that could reproduce more of the same

They have bred back into the parent species.


Why do you antievolutionst religious idiots refuse to gain any comprehension of the subject before making fools of yourselves?

 

[JBeukema]

stuff falls slower on the moon.

Meaning that more massive objects fall more quickly. Consider if the moon and the hammer were the only bodies in existence [then only the moon and the feather].

Then imagine the same scenario with Earth instead of Luna.

When we say that the objects 'fall' towards Luna or Earth, we are observing their attraction to eachother, yes? [Real world, Earth and Luna have much more inertia, due o their mass, in their orbits, making it require more energy to have any meaningful effect on their travel than the hammer or feather yes?]

So that objects 'fall' more slowly on Luna means that the objects and Luna 'fall' (are attracted to eachother) more slowly (experience less acceleration) as a result, ultimately of the lesser mass of one of the objects in play (Luna, our moon).

Is that not an object (Earth, which actually stays still due to its inertia in orbit) 'falling' more quickly towards another object (the hammer, which has much less inertia and is seen to overcome its inertia and move towards Earth) because of its greater mass and the resulting increase in gravitational attraction?

Does this not mean that the statement 'heavier [more massive] objects fall faster', while said, is true as we understand the statement and the claim that more massive objects do not not fall faster is false?

If more massive bodies didn't experience/cause greater acceleration when attracting other bodies, then wouldn't the objects fall as quickly on Luna as on Earth?

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out how 50+50 = 100 with head-on collisions (relative speed = 100?!) on the last mythbusters.

 

[rikules]

There is NO evidence that any animal has ever mutated into existence from another totally different animal.

Exactly as evolutionary theory predicts should be the case.

When a dog gives birth to a whale that grows legs and becomes a human being, you will have disproven evolutionary theory.

Once again the theory claims men evolved from an ape like creature. And that other animals evolved from other totally different species. YET there is absolutely NO evidence of these claims. NOT a single one.

There is no evidence of god, either

that doesn't seem to bother you.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

First you say they fall at an equal rate, then you say I am correct and they fall at slightly different rates do to their difference in mass and the resulting difference in gravitational attraction and, in turn, acceleration.

Which is it? You're making two mutually exclusive assertions while trying to insult me as a 'science daydreamer' simply because I do better with the conceptual than with the mathematical.'

I think you said it best when you mentioned you are horrible at math, which is how any physicist would reconcile the difference. Again, complete this sentence: negligible differences in mass are __________. (answer: negligible)

When we write out the calculation of gravitational force on something like the earth, it comes out to be:

= (6.673 × 10^−11) * (5.9742 × 10^24 kg) * (mass of the hammer/feather) / (6,378.1 km)^2
=9.8^6 * (mass of the hammer/feather)

Now compare the order of magnitude between the masses. Earth has a magnitude of 24 (that's 24 zeros after the number). Both a hammer and a feather have a magnitude of <1. Despite there being an actual measurable difference in masses between the two objects, it is absolutely negligible when factored into the product with the mass of the world. This is why we can generally say gravity is 9.8 meters per second squared, and don't need to recalculate it for heavier objects - the differences are mathematically there, but in every other way negligible.

Again, you should avoid getting so nitpicky about possibilities which have no relevance, and focus more on practical reasoning.

If a liger and a tion cannot reproduce, then they do not meet the definition of being the same species.

ligers can reproduce

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out how 50+50 = 100 with head-on collisions (relative speed = 100?!) on the last mythbusters.

Physics is relative. If one car is moving 50mph at another car moving 50mph, their speeds can sum. Think of it this way. If you run towards your sitting friend at a rate of 5 units/second, and he is 10 units away, you'll get to him in 2 seconds (10U / (5U/s)). But if your friend now is running towards you at 5U/s as well, then you're going to reach him a lot faster, right? You'll meet in the middle of where you would have met him if he were just standing still.

There is no evidence of god, either

that doesn't seem to bother you.

What are you talking about? Maybe you haven't heard, but there's this best selling book that has tons of evidence. [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Harry-Potter-Prisoner-Azkaban-Book/dp/0439136350"]Here's a link to it. [/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

complete this sentence: negligible differences in mass are __________. (answer: negligible)

significant under some circumstances

the differences are mathematically there, but in every other way negligible.

So I was right: more massive objects 'fall' faster.

The difference is merely negligible, as I said.

Your assertion that the hammer and feather fall at the same speed was false. I was right on the point when I said the difference was merely to small to be measured using Galileo's experiment and the naked eye.

You spent all that time trying to insult me only to declare me correct in the end.

Physics is relative

Which is why I was thinking of the relative speed of the vehicles to eachother resembling the relative speed of the 100 mp/h car and the wall.

If you run towards your sitting friend at a rate of 5 units/second, and he is 10 units away, you'll get to him in 2 seconds (10U / (5U/s)). But if your friend now is running towards you at 5U/s as well, then you're going to reach him a lot faster, right? You'll meet in the middle of where you would have met him if he were just standing still.

But running into him at 5 u/s does not result in the same impact as both of you running at 2.5 u/ upon impact, as the experiment showed.

 

[antagon]

stuff falls slower on the moon.

Meaning that more massive objects fall more quickly. Consider if the moon and the hammer were the only bodies in existence [then only the moon and the feather].

Then imagine the same scenario with Earth instead of Luna.

When we say that the objects 'fall' towards Luna or Earth, we are observing their attraction to eachother, yes? [Real world, Earth and Luna have much more inertia, due o their mass, in their orbits, making it require more energy to have any meaningful effect on their travel than the hammer or feather yes?]

So that objects 'fall' more slowly on Luna means that the objects and Luna 'fall' (are attracted to eachother) more slowly (experience less acceleration) as a result, ultimately of the lesser mass of one of the objects in play (Luna, our moon).

Is that not an object (Earth, which actually stays still due to its inertia in orbit) 'falling' more quickly towards another object (the hammer, which has much less inertia and is seen to overcome its inertia and move towards Earth) because of its greater mass and the resulting increase in gravitational attraction?

Does this not mean that the statement 'heavier [more massive] objects fall faster', while said, is true as we understand the statement and the claim that more massive objects do not not fall faster is false?

If more massive bodies didn't experience/cause greater acceleration when attracting other bodies, then wouldn't the objects fall as quickly on Luna as on Earth?

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out how 50+50 = 100 with head-on collisions (relative speed = 100?!) on the last mythbusters.

that is a negative, ghostrider.

the difference in mass is conserved (because nothing comes from nothing, nor becomes nothing from something). it is conserved in inertia. the inertia, in proportion to the force of attraction expressed between them, is what constitutes the resistance of the moon and brick from attracting. thus the mass of the moon exerts overwhelming influence(inertia) on the attraction relative to the brick (although that is still exerted (insert your negligible here)) and the brick exhibits that same effect vs the moon, but in the time before it hits the surface, has done most (all but a negligible amount) of the moving.

because of the conservation at work, a feather exerts less force between the moon and the brick, but its inertial resistance is less by the same factor...

ouala... it falls at the same rate entirely, with no negligible factor involved whatsoever.

this conservation is not shared between velocity and mass. it is only conserved in mass. you mention the negligibility to have its acute application, and this fact about the roll of inertia (the conservation of force in mass) has held up in quantum chemistry/physics, and is the basis of a lot of work at that molecular level.

because the conservation defers 100% to mass, what think you of the bizarro-world conservation in a 100% velocity alternative? in bizarro, when a heavy object falls, it does so faster, but because inertia is not enabled, and no mass is associated with bodies based on their relative velocity, dropping a brick off a building will undergo remarkable acceleration, but would have the same effect on the skulls below as harmlessly placing the mass of the brick on top of their heads. these are the basic implications of what you have proposed.

 

[antagon]

But running into him at 5 u/s does not result in the same impact as both of you running at 2.5 u/ upon impact, as the experiment showed.

you've not played rugby.

 

[JBeukema]

stuff falls slower on the moon.

Meaning that more massive objects fall more quickly. Consider if the moon and the hammer were the only bodies in existence [then only the moon and the feather].

Then imagine the same scenario with Earth instead of Luna.

When we say that the objects 'fall' towards Luna or Earth, we are observing their attraction to eachother, yes? [Real world, Earth and Luna have much more inertia, due o their mass, in their orbits, making it require more energy to have any meaningful effect on their travel than the hammer or feather yes?]

So that objects 'fall' more slowly on Luna means that the objects and Luna 'fall' (are attracted to eachother) more slowly (experience less acceleration) as a result, ultimately of the lesser mass of one of the objects in play (Luna, our moon).

Is that not an object (Earth, which actually stays still due to its inertia in orbit) 'falling' more quickly towards another object (the hammer, which has much less inertia and is seen to overcome its inertia and move towards Earth) because of its greater mass and the resulting increase in gravitational attraction?

Does this not mean that the statement 'heavier [more massive] objects fall faster', while said, is true as we understand the statement and the claim that more massive objects do not not fall faster is false?

If more massive bodies didn't experience/cause greater acceleration when attracting other bodies, then wouldn't the objects fall as quickly on Luna as on Earth?

Then again, I'm still trying to figure out how 50+50 = 100 with head-on collisions (relative speed = 100?!) on the last mythbusters.

that is a negative, ghostrider.

the difference in mass is conserved (because nothing comes from nothing, nor becomes nothing from something). it is conserved in inertia. the inertia, in proportion to the force of attraction expressed between them, is what constitutes the resistance of the moon and brick from attracting. thus the mass of the moon exerts overwhelming influence(inertia) on the attraction relative to the brick (although that is still exerted (insert your negligible here)) and the brick exhibits that same effect vs the moon, but in the time before it hits the surface, has done most (all but a negligible amount) of the moving.

because of the conservation at work, a feather exerts less force between the moon and the brick, but its inertial resistance is less by the same factor...

ouala... it falls at the same rate entirely, with no negligible factor involved whatsoever.

That almost makes sense to me except for one nagging thing: if we repeat the tests in different sequence, shouldn't Earth and the feather fall towards eachother at the same rate as the moon and the feather fall towards eachother, per the forces you mentioned above?

Yet you said yourself that the feather (or the hammer) will and the moon gravitate towards eachother more slowly than the feather (or the hammer) and earth.

I just don't see how they can fall faster on the moon than on earth unless the increase in mass causes the increased acceleration or how if this is the case how this does no translate to 'more massive objects accelerate towards eachother more quickly' or 'more massive objects fall faster'.

Every time you get into to it, it sounds like that's exactly what you're saying and that you merely try to treat the negligible difference as the same as zero difference.

I think it's going to take more than a thread on this forum...

this conservation is not shared between velocity and mass

because the conservation defers 100% to mass, what think you of the bizarro-world conservation in a 100% velocity alternative?

you lost me

in bizarro, when a heavy object falls, it does so faster

Didn't you just say this is the case, when you said that Earth and hammer attract more quickly than Luna and hammer?

'Falls' = 'gravitates towards', no?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

So I was right: more massive objects 'fall' faster.

The difference is merely negligible, as I said.

Your assertion that the hammer and feather fall at the same speed was false. I was right on the point when I said the difference was merely to small to be measured using Galileo's experiment and the naked eye.

You spent all that time trying to insult me only to declare me correct in the end.

eh, I think antagon explained more of this.

But running into him at 5 u/s does not result in the same impact as both of you running at 2.5 u/ upon impact, as the experiment showed.

I have not seen this experiment, but I would ask that you be specific in their findings. What do you mean by "impact"? Are you talking about impulse? What was the precise conclusion?

I just don't see how they can fall faster on the moon than on earth unless the increase in mass causes the increased acceleration or how if this is the case how this does no translate to 'more massive objects accelerate towards eachother more quickly' or 'more massive objects fall faster'.

Perhaps I am misreading here, but it appears as if you are neglecting to take into account that the forces associated between the objects are still reliant on their masses, whereas the earth mass causes a larger force. So you are right in stating an increase in mass causes an increase in acceleration, which is why gravity (a force proportional to acceleration) is higher on earth

 

[JBeukema]

I have not seen this experiment, but I would ask that you be specific in their findings. What do you mean by "impact"? Are you talking about impulse? What was the precise conclusion?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GuqiAHGGT4&feature=related]YouTube - MythBusters - Mythssion Control: Crash Force part 1 of 2[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-JGIYLZZUg]YouTube - MythBusters - Mythssion Control: Crash Force part 2 of 2[/ame]

. So you are right in stating an increase in mass causes an increase in acceleration,

Hence, more massive objects do, in fact, gravitate towards eachother ('fall') at with greater acceleration and speed (faster)

 

[logical4u]

it is caricature, and based on poor education. basically take the parts you dont understand, and blow them out of proportion to ground an argument. they are unaware of the extent that that method betrays their misunderstanding, rather than some real criticism of the theory.

i've not found any sincerity among detractors of evolution theory. sincere criticism is over the mechanisms within it and the implications of the evidence supporting it as it guides our understanding of the general premise. what the detractors run with is a misguided attempt to champion their religious beliefs in a scientific sphere. i dont see why. i could respect an amish guy who says, "are you kidding? i dont look into microscopes, i look at the Word of God", and leaves it at that.

this other shit of hoping to defend the bases of ID and purporting that their faith is superior by virtue has reduced to a joke that cant stand on either leg.

'You' have been asked to back up your statements, and will not do it, aren't you 'projecting' onto people that are asking legitimate questions? Or do you feel unable to answer the questions and have to resort to 'intellectual snobbery'?
This doesn't require a high school diploma. Either there is absolute proof that 'evolution' occurred as men say it did or there isn't (in which it makes an entertaining 'story'). Do not show us 'where it could happen' and then tell us it did, show us. Leave your feeling out of it, don't go emotional on us, just present the facts.

ignoring is the root of ignorance, logic. ive espoused bible verses, linked to transitional fossils and educated confused folks like frazzled that they've misunderstood what they feel is the way genetics works when it doesnt. not being able to absorb that and make a specific argument related to what i've presesnted, such as neither you nor your frazzled have managed, is, perhaps, compromised by your lacking education, whether at school or specific to the bible or evolution.

what say you that God created all of us and everything long after the creation story ps:139? what say you that he created the garden after He rested gen:3?

those are simple questions which challenge your nonsense about God 'finishing' or whatever that argument is worth.

_________

what say you about eryops megacephalus, and fossils of this creature which are termed transitional, not by some make-believe creationist definition which disavows the way genes work, but this one, which incidentally comes from my highschool biology textbook:

Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of life that demonstrate the retention of plesiomorphic or primative traits and the presence of unique derived phenotypes, or traits.

this is the best definition i could find from the term. the wiki one uses the term 'evolution' in it, while this one does not. can you argue that there are no transitional fossils without changing the definition? can you challenge the definition itself?

_________

lastly, can you answer these questions or would you ignore their implications?

Are these the Bible verses you say are 'proof' that God didn't complete His work?
.... how much more convincing must 1:28-30 be?

there is plenty about evolution which could be understood from the bible, and which i find quite satisfying as a christian. i certainly don't look at the bible with the same fundamental interpretation which you do. i dont feel Jesus did either, as evidenced by His life and teachings recorded in the new testament. notwithstanding, i would caution that, because the bible wasnt written in english, that you have to study deeper into the meaning you've taken for in My/our image in 1:27. the relationship, of course, is not a physical simile, but a metaphor of the powers of God, and over creation as espoused directly thereafter in the verses i'd referenced.

Note the hebrew words for God and image/likeness which were used for those passages (also later in Gen) which vary from physical identity and which term God for his powers, not for His identity.

the key to your seeing evolution and nature for what it is, is in seeing the bible for what it is.

follow me with this concept: were adam and eve modern humans before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge? does this incident not chronicle the rise of modern man alongside the fall of humanity? in the sense that ignorance is bliss, humanity is cursed by our knowledge (having eaten from the tree). 2400 years or so later, science can demonstrate our emergence from the rest of the animal kingdom and primitive hominids, and quantify our potential for knowledge with a study of our brain capacity.

paleontologists today have established that man was the first/only such hominid to farm and work the earth, but had that not been established thousands of years prior in gen 3:17-19?

my perspective on what i've read in the bible has it proclaiming evolution millenia before chuck darwin. follow me up to that point, there is more to what i feel the bible reveals on evolution.

Genisis 1:28
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Sounds like those critters were complete to me. The Lord did not say be fruitful and multiply and when these blobs of life become something, then rule over whatever it becomes.

Genisis 3:17-19
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

Those plants don't sound like they are evolving. It sounded like they were well defined to Adam and Eve before leaving the garden.

Do you have any other 'proof' of where the Lord did not 'finish' his creation, but left it on its own?

"eryops megacephalus", thanks, I needed a laugh. You are going to tell me (with absolute) confidence that a lizard like animal proves evolution. They are still discovering 'new' species of reptiles.

At least I admit that my belief is because there is a lack of scientific proof, and because I believe in the Biblical Lord. Your 'belief' is because scientist use descriptive terms, like "transitional" LOL.

The other big words you use, I don't really pay much attention. The eras of time don't seem that important to me either. If evolution was absolutely true, there would be fossils of animals and plant life changing, and totally new species appearing at the same time, while many of the old stopped living (not by a meteor strike to the earth, not by a world flood), because the food source (plants) would have evolved at the same time. It wouldn't take long scientific words to explain it, there would be a 'clear' fossil record to demonstrate the event over a range of species. This 'record' is being refuted with most fossil finds. The animals are not evolving, they are the same species now as they were before men walked the earth. Tomorrow is mother's day, you should see your mom, maybe she will tell you that she thinks you are smart.

 

[logical4u]

1. If a liger and a tion cannot reproduce, then they do not meet the definition of being the same species.

They can. Hence the aforementioned ligers.

Do try to keep up.


And once again I throw out something to confuse those with a simplistic conception:

According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tiglons were long thought to be sterile: In 1943, however, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[8]

Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mules, ligers, etc are rare

Mules aren't really all that rare

Your arguement would have more 'bite' if the animals you use in your examples weren't 'freaks', but a viable combination of two species that could reproduce more of the same

They have bred back into the parent species.


Why do you antievolutionst religious idiots refuse to gain any comprehension of the subject before making fools of yourselves?

If they can't breed as a 'new' species..... evolution has not happened. Because, rarely, one can breed back with the 'parent' species, implies that they cannot breed with an animal the same as them (another liger or mule, etc).

While you are calling us 'fools', you are not providing conclusive, absolute evidence that evolution ever happened. It is a myth, made by men, to 'fool' men into thinking they are smart enough to survive without the Lord. I fear, it will be those that believe in men that will be the 'fools' in the end.

 

[JBeukema]

If they can't breed as a 'new' species..... evolution has not happened

You're an idiot. Evolution doesn't predict that two creatures are ever born that suddenly reproduce as a new species.

Why do you antievolutionst religious idiots refuse to gain any comprehension of the subject before making fools of yourselves?

While you are calling us 'fools', you are not providing conclusive, absolute evidence that evolution ever happened.

Oh?


I give you mutation and genetic drift

 

[JBeukema]

Let me google that for you