The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[Cyberman]

The first step in the scientific method is observation, as I said one species evolving into a completely different species (meaning unable to produce offspring) has never been observed.

Observation in a scientific context does not mean "I have to see it happen in order for it to be true". A scientific observation is the identifying of a phenomenon - apples fall to the ground, exposure to this substance causes sickness, species alive today are different to ones now extinct yet similar enough to be related etc. Having made the observation, the next step is to create tentative hypotheses to account for the phenomenon and devise experiments to test them against the observed reality.

C'mon, man, you really don't want to be Hovind or GMan.

[Ravenshire]

C'mon, man, you really don't want to be Hovind or GMan.

No trying to steal the man's dream, Stimbo.

Besides, I think he's aspiring to Ham.

[Cyberman]

That's like aspiring to be what pond scum scrapes off its shoes.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Never mind the fact that we have indeed observed speciation over time.

[Esquilax]

Never mind the fact that we have indeed observed speciation over time.

Just not in a way that satisfies the strawman of evolution that Huggy insists on using instead of the actual definition.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Never mind the fact that we have indeed observed speciation over time.

Just not in a way that satisfies the strawman of evolution that Huggy insists on using instead of the actual definition.

Crap, I totally forgot that he is the judge of all that is sound and scientific. And it's too late to edit!

[Fidel_Castronaut]

It's so utterly ridiculous That I'm fairly sure he's trolling here.

I respectfully disagree; he really is a fucking simpleton.

Sorry but is he a simpleton, yes or no?

Oh...wait...

[Huggy Bear]

---

from your link



How is this different from what i said?

Here's what you said:

meaning "speciation" is just a genetic variation of the same species, that are isolated from breeding with each other.

Here's what my link wrote:

noun, Biology
1. the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

British Dictionary definitions for speciation Expand
speciation
/ˌspiːʃɪˈeɪʃən/
noun
1.
the evolutionary development of a biological species, as by geographical isolation of a group of individuals from the main stock

You had to dig past the primary definition to select a dialectical definition that is not a scientific understanding in order to "make your point". You tried to pretend to the members in this thread that the first definition did not exist. You're a liar; you practice deceit by omission.

It must gall you to know that you have to practice deceit in order to protect your faith. Your every lie proclaims your doubt, little buddy. It's neat to watch your spiritual insecurities flailing away as you try to dance to the tune of eight or ten seasoned fiddlers. Your faith will tire out, you will collapse, and one day this board will be free of your bullshit, because you're running on fumes and cannot hide it.

Let me know when you want another spanking, boy. I'll happily oblige your spiritual insecurities.

Dumbfuck.

---

Seriously? you Muppet....
Here is what I said.

meaning "speciation" is just a genetic variation of the same species, that are isolated from breeding with each other.

And your definition.

noun, Biology
1. the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

According to YOUR definition, to be considered a new species interbreeding must be prevented by one of four factors, geographic, ( polar and brown bears) OR physiological, OR anatomical(Great Dane and Chihuahua) OR behavioral (tree frog example). It doesn't even require the caveat of differing genetically. Again how is that different from what I said?

I, on the other hand I've made it very clear that I DO NOT consider that to define a different species, because by that same definition a Masai warrior in Africa is isolated from intermixing GEOGRAPHICALLY, with the hill tribes of Vietnam, yet they aren't considered a different species. Also you could make a case for different groups of people not intermixing behaviorally. So explain how YOUR definition excludes Humans?

[Mr Greene]

ROFL!

I have a day off and miss this? Anyone wondering how deep a hole this moron can dig himself into?
The world according to Huggy:

[Cato]

According to YOUR definition, to be considered a new species interbreeding must be prevented by one of four factors, geographic, ( polar and brown bears) OR physiological, OR anatomical(Great Dane and Chihuahua) OR behavioral (tree frog example). It doesn't even require the caveat of differing genetically. Again how is that different from what I said?

I, on the other hand I've made it very clear that I DO NOT consider that to define a different species, because by that same definition a Masai warrior in Africa is isolated from intermixing GEOGRAPHICALLY, with the hill tribes of Vietnam, yet they aren't considered a different species. Also you could make a case for different groups of people not intermixing behaviorally. So explain how YOUR definition excludes Humans?

You are real close to understanding Huggy. Look at the variety within the human species that resulted from geographic isolation in a relatively short amount of time. Is it really inconceivable to you that continuing the population isolation for a couple million years would result in speciation?