Quote:You showed nothing. If you think you did, please post any part of any of the articles you posted where this published work was supposedly refuted and include the citation. I'll be waiting.

Sorry were not playing that game . The articles are there they refute your propaganda . Get over it .

---

Quote:Yes, I read the opinion piece from Forbes magazine too. It proves nothing, it is not published science and it is just one journalists opinion. Obviously, what they have discovered still has to be corroborated. To me, the most important part of their findings was that species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. That alone speaks volumes.

Same answer here

---

Quote:Yes, I read the opinion piece from Forbes magazine too. It proves nothing, it is not published science and it is just one journalists opinion. Obviously, what they have discovered still has to be corroborated. To me, the most important part of their findings was that species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. That alone speaks volumes.

Same answer here

(November 28, 2018 at 3:38 pm)Amarok Wrote:

Quote:You showed nothing. If you think you did, please post any part of any of the articles you posted where this published work was supposedly refuted and include the citation. I'll be waiting.

Sorry were not playing that game . The articles are there they refute your propaganda . Get over it .

Everena: Playing a game? Nothing refutes it. I challenged you to find one part of any article that refutes it and you have nothing. They are published scientific discoveries.

Here is the Scientific Journal Human Evolution that it is published in. Live with it.

  https://phe.rockefeller.edu/docs/Stoeckl...0final.pdf



Yes, I read the opinion piece from Forbes magazine too. It proves nothing, it is not published science and it is just one journalists opinion. Obviously, what they have discovered still has to be corroborated. To me, the most important part of their findings was that species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there's nothing much in between. That alone speaks volumes.

(November 28, 2018 at 3:46 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

Funnier still that her "important part is anything but "

Quote:Everena: Playing a game? Nothing refutes it. I challenged you to find one part of any article that refutes it and you have nothing. They are published scientific discoveries.


Here is the Scientific Journal Human Evolution that it is published in. Live with it.

You are playing a game . It has been refuted . Your challenge is invalid. I already refuted it . Yes published science that got wrong . 

Read the article and already posted responses that show you are wrong . Live with it

---

Macroevulation has not been refuted

(November 28, 2018 at 4:03 am)Everena Wrote:

(November 28, 2018 at 3:51 am)Amarok Wrote: Nope it just fine the way it is and will continue long after the Fad of ID and it's pop science books fade into nothing .

They are having to change the entire foundation due to findings in the past decade. It's on it's way out.

Nice.

(November 28, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Everena Wrote: Because they included mold spores, bacteria, plants, and fungi into that 5 billion species, and they are not even conscious life.

---

But according to YOU, your fool god went to all the trouble to design them, now didn't she ?
Still waiting for you to point to where in the articles it says what you claim.