In other words you can't produce any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. I realize that you're upset because your religious belief in evolution has been crushed. Gee, if only you could honestly put up some evidence. I know you'd feel better. Alas you'll do nothing because you haven't found any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Looks like that mountain of evidence has eluded you. Don't blame me.
LOL. All of the evidence produced has not produced any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. If you know something that evolutionist don't know you'd do them a favor by showing us.
Whoa! You're the pot calling the kettle black. If anyone has been snarky it's you. I've asked one question and you've done everything in your power to cut and run from providing an answer. What's embarrassing is you're refusing to answer a question that is the entire basis of evolution. Once again I'm asking for you to provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning in another species. That's all you need to do. Nothing tricky about this. Just provide the evidence.
But the answer was given to you, and you rejected it. We have mountains of evidence of species evolving into other species. If you haven't seen any, it's because you haven't looked or reject it when you see it. I am not going to waste my time or yours presenting the evidence of this that has managed to convince the scientific community, but doesn't tmove you, a person with no education or experience in this field. Why would anyone do this? You are not a child
Of course, there are mountains of such evidence in the fossil record, and we have even observed it happening. So that's false and would get you an f on a science test. Of course, that would be everyone else's fault, amiright?
The ONLY way you will het through to this one, is to bring an aquarium to his home and make a fish turn into a dog in front of him.....though he will probably say you used a magic trick anyway.
There can be no transitional species presented as it is in transition. You can either show what is was or go into the future to bring back what it will become.
Or, put another way ...EVERY species is a transitional species. Even the examples we see of long term stasis are likely fossils of "different species" after millions of years, with the more recent examples not being able to breed with their distant ancestors, despite apparently identical physiology. Genetic drift happens, mutations happen. It doesn't matter who believes in evolution and who does not....evolution cannot be stopped...
Don't need 'mountains!' ..how about one? Can you produce ONE example of an organism becoming a different organism, with changes in the genes & chromosome count? Not just some variation, like the oft given ecoli reference, but a clear example of a structural change in the dna that is asserted by universal common descent? 'Mountains!' is a fallacy, & a deflection, if you can't produce one example of what you believe can happen, or did happen.
..from the OP: 8. Circular Reasoning. This is the argument that evolution is true, because we see all the variety of living things that have evolved. It is using the assumption of evolution to prove itself. Taxonomic classifications are often used in this manner.
The alternate explanation (creation/ID) relies on this entirely and has no data to verify or back it.
Ah, then you are finally agreeing with me, that ALL such opinions/theories/beliefs about origins are philosophical opinions, with no empirical or testable science to verify them. That has been my point in this forum for years..
First of all, a new species does not require a change in chromosome count. Second of all, yes, we have observed speciation. Have you bothered to look this up yourself?
That's quite a bold claim, regarding the most robust scientific theory in history. Now it is incumbent upon you to present your argument as to why the reasoning is circular. Let me help you avoid an error before you begin: the diversity of species is not support for the explanation of the diversity of species, which is the theory of evolution. On the contrary, the similarities between species offer the strongest support. Now, you should president your argument. I look forward to reading it.
What is this nonsense? Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of species, not the origin of the first species.
You would have to ask them, as the two concepts are unrelated. That's like wondering if marathoners believe in multiple universes.
I cannot. I was just curious in regard to how current evolutionists explain how the first life came to be. Just a little clarification so I have my facts straight.
They don't. Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of species, not the origin of the first species.
Yes, true, but I'd like to know what the current theory is behind how life gets formed, specifically the first life (because there was first)
Pan troglodytes (apes) have 24 pair of chromosomes....homo sapiens(apes) have 23 pair chromosomes because two pair fused together the only way to deny evolution is being deliberately ignorant...