On Species
LOL let's just agree that you have dodged it...
I have NOT dodged it.
I answered your question, and provided a link to a scientific paper to support it.
Far more than you have managed to do for
anything, as far as I recall.
So tell us The Pixie: what makes a goatesbeards from europe a brand new species after it hybridizes into the 'american' goatsbeards? It is still a goatsbeards plant...not a cactus...not a mushroom..not a cat. Why you think it is a brand new species is beyond reason... mainly because you say that all humans are just one species...which goes against your reasoning of goatsbeards being different species..... spotlight on your inconsistency.
Did you not read the paper? I will quote it
But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.
LOL you linked to a hybridized plant that was always a goatsbeards... you should re-read it.
So your argument comes down to down it is
labelled?
It is a necessary consequence of evolution that once a species in in a clade, it is always in that clade. That is the nested hierarchy. All species descended from the first mammal species are still mammals. All species descended from the first primate species are still primated. All species descended from the first great ape species are still great apes.
So yes, it is still goatsbeard, but a new species.
It seems that even today the materialist framework is at a loss (as shown by The Pixie) of just what constitutes a 'species'... The Pix backs up a new species of rose being hybridized with another rose as a new species ( hence the hundreds of new rose 'species' in the last 50 years).. and The Pixie wants to believe that a goatsbeards that was hybridized after being moved from europe a hundred years ago is now a new species... (but it really is just yet another goatsbeards)... too funny. easily exposed.
The fuzzy definition of species is a consequence of evolution.
Martin's Preferred Definition Of Species
How are you doing on providing a better definition, Martin?
Oh wait, you dodged that question. As usual.
Strange how you start by falsely accusing me of dodging a question, and end up doing exactly that yourself.
The Gaps In The fossil Record Are Getting Smaller
Talking of you dodging the question, let is recall your previous claim:
massive gaps in the fossil records that keep getting wider
Shall we see how you substantiate that claim?
LOL and with most of the fossils found more gaps are discovered..... just more fossils. and even more challenges to evolution:
So now you have changed your tune. Not gaps getting wider, but gaps becoming more numerous.
And they are becoming more numerous
because the gaps are filling in. If there is a gap of four million years between fossils, and a fossil that fits neatly between them, then that confirms evolution, and directly contradicts your nonsense about widening gaps (how is that even possible!?!).
The fact is that more numerous gaps is confirmation evolution is true, because that is due to the fossil record increasing.
Your claim that the gaps are getting wide is therefore proven wrong. And you know that, given you changed the goalposts, you just refse to admit you were wrong.
Nothing in that article suggests evolution is wrong or that the authors reject evolution. There is disagreement about the details of how the great apes - including humans - evolved, but all agree they did evolve.
Co-option
Sadly ..not so your belief that co-option is a slow and blind and random process defies the definition of co-option. Busted Pix... you really don't understand your spinny spins to detach from evo theory only when it suits you....
You can't have Pre-adaptation and co-option with random blind processes
Of course, you cannot substantiate any of that, can you you?
In your opinion it "defies the definition of co-option", but science says otherwise.
Making stuff Up
Here is the deal..you stop making things up and then I'll believe you do care.
I do not make stuff up Martin, that is you. You have a long history of it in this debate.
- All those times you claim to have answered question you have not
- All those times you pretended I dodged a question. Your very first sentence in this post was "LOL let's just agree that you have dodged it." and that was simply not true. You made it up.
- This post, where you outright falsely accusing me of lying (now removed by mods).
- That time you falsely accused me of misrepresenting you because I said "100s", when the truth is that you had previously said just that.
- You repeatedly pretend I said evolution was proven, despite me being very clear that that is not the case.
- This post makes the ridiculous claim that I have been "caught being intellectually dishonest" fouyr times, none of which was actually true, as I showed in a subsequent post.
Again and again, Martin, you are making false accusations about me. And you are
still doing it.
Is creationism in such a bad shape it has to do this? Absolutely.
Rejecting Good Evidence
If you like to believe in creatures that are drawn by artists renditions base only on a hip bone or a jaw bone... then I'll paint you in the corner of the 'color me this' agenda crowd and 'just-so' story tellers.
The fact that you choose to reject the evidence in this way pretty much sums up creationism. Or ID as you like to label it.
Of course there is speculation about exactly what the creature looks like, but the point for this debate is the fossil fits evolution. And you reject it for that reason - it fits evolution
What is this "agenda crowd" Martin?
Evolutionists include Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews as well as atheists. What is there agenda do you think?
Another question you will undoubtedly dodge.
False Accusations
Martin earlier said:
you make silly claims but you can't back them up.
I earlier said:
See there you go. Another false accusation. You cannot go two paragraphs without doing so, can you?
When was the last time you provided any support for any of your claims Martin?
I think this sums up the huge difference between your creationism (or ID as you prefer to label it) and evolution.
Again and again I
do support my claims. Again and again you fail to support yours. Here you are once again demanding I substantiate a claim, but where do you substantiate your assertion about "silly claims".
There is none.
You seem to think that creationism (or ID as you prefer to label it) is somehow given a free pass. Why is that Martin? Because it is a religious belief. You believe it on faith, not on evidence.,
This is why it is creationism, however you choose to label it. People do not become IDists because of the evidence. We know that because time and time again you fail to produce any evidence. People do not become IDists because of the better explanations it provides. We know that because time and time again you fail to produce any explanations at all. They become IDists
because of their faith.
I am sure you are just the same, Martin.