"The word "species" was fabricated by evolutionists ..."

Every time you write, you become more idiotic. Species is an extremely old word. If you want to shit someplace, get your ass to a bathroom. No-one's accepting your asshattery here.

spĕcĭes , ēi (
I. gen. sing. specie or specii, Matius ap. Gell. 9, 14, 15; gen. and dat. plur. were not in use in Cicero's time, but formarum, formis were used instead; cf. Cic. Top. 7, 30.—At a later period were introduced: “specierum,” Pall. Oct. 14, 15; Cod. Just. 1, 2, 10; Cael. Aur. Tard. 1, 5, § 151; cf. Charis. p. 18 P.; and Diom. p. 281 P.: “speciebus,” App. ad Asclep. p. 92, 25; Cod. Just. 11, 9, 1 al.; Dig. 28, 2, 29, § 10), f. specio.
I. Act., a seeing, sight, look, view (rare; cf. “aspectus): speciem quo vortimus,” Lucr. 4, 242; so id. 4, 236 (for which, a little before, visus); 5, 707; 5, 724; Vitr. 3, 2 fin.; 5, 9: “si tantis intervallis nostra species potest id animadvertere,” id. 9, 4: “qui sensus nostros specie primā acerrime commovent,” Cic. de Or. 3, 25, 98: “qui doloris speciem ferre non possunt,” id. Tusc. 2, 23, 54.—
II. Pass., prop. that which is seen in a thing, i. e. the outward appearance, outside, exterior; shape, form, figure, mien, etc. (freq. and class.; syn. forma).
A. Lit.: “praeter speciem stultus,” Plaut. Most. 4, 2, 49: “quod speciem ac formam similem gerit ejus imago,” Lucr. 4, 52; cf.: “quae species formaque pugnae, qui motus hominum non ita expictus est, ut, etc.,” outlines, contours, Cic. Tusc. 5, 39, 114: “esse aliquem humanā specie et figurā,” id. Rosc. Am. 22, 63: “hominis esse specie deos confitendum est,” id. N. D. 1, 18, 48: “edepol specie lepida mulier!” Plaut. Rud. 2, 4, 2; cf.: “bellan' videtur specie mulier?” id. Bacch. 4, 7, 40; id. Most. 1, 3, 23; id. Mil. 4, 2, 10; 4, 6, 20: “urbis speciem vidi,” id. Pers. 4, 4, 2; so, “species praeclara oppidi,” Cic. Rep. 3, 32, 44; Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 58, § 129: “sphaerae (Archimedeae), etc.,” id. Rep. 1, 14, 21: “navium,” Caes. B. G. 4, 25; cf.: “nova atque inusitata,” id. ib. 2, 31: “horribilis,” id. ib. 7, 36: “agro bene culto nihil potest esse specie ornatius,” Cic. Sen. 16, 57: “horum hominum species est honestissima,” id. Cat. 2, 8, 18: “ad speciem magnifico ornatu,” as to outward appearance, Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 22, § 58: “populi,” id. Rep. 3, 33, 45: “nec ulla deformior species est civitatis, quam illa, in quā opulentissimi optimi putantur,” id. Rep. 1, 34, 51: speciem honesti habere, the look or semblance of what is right, id. Off. 3, 2, 7: “turba majorem quam pro numero speciem ferens,” Curt. 3, 2, 3; cf.: “fallaces sunt rerum species, quibus credimus,” Sen. Ben. 4, 34, 1.—
2. Something seen, a spectacle, sight, appearance: “ponite itaque ante oculos miseram quidem illam ac flebilem speciem,” Cic. Phil. 11, 3: “non tulit hanc speciem furiatā mente Coroebus,” Verg. A. 2, 407 (cf. I. supra).—
3. Trop., that which is seen by the mind, an idea, notion: hanc illi ἰδέαν appellabant: “nos recte speciem possumus dicere,” Cic. Ac. 1, 8, 30; cf. id. Top. 7, 30: “insidebat in ejus mente species eloquentiae,” id. Or. 5, 18: “excellentis eloquentiae speciem et formam adumbrabimus,” id. ib. 14, 43: “species, forma et notio viri boni,” id. Off. 3, 20, 81; cf.: “prima sit haec forma et species et origo tyranni,” id. Rep. 2, 29, 51: “qui species alias veri scelerisque capiet,” Hor. S. 2, 3, 208: “utinam non inanes species anxio animo figuraret,” Curt. 7, 1, 36.—
B. In partic.
1. A look, show, seeming, appearance, semblance, pretence, cloak, color, pretext, etc. (opp. that which is real, actual, etc.).
a. In gen.: “obiciuntur saepe formae, quae reapse nullae sunt, speciem autem offerunt,” Cic. Div. 1, 37, 81: “ista securitas specie quidem blanda sed reapse, etc.,” id. Lael. 13, 47: “cujus rei species erat acceptio frumenti,” Sall. J. 29, 4: “fraudi imponere aliquam speciem juris,” Liv. 9, 11: “specie liberā ... re verā, etc.,” id. 35, 31; cf.: “litteras inanis vanā specie libertatis adumbratas esse,” id. 33, 31, 2 Weissenb. ad loc.: “plurimi ibi a fallaci equitum specie agasonibusque excepti sunt,” id. 7, 15, 7: “si dux primam speciem adpropinquantis terroris sustinuisset,” id. 44, 6, 6 Weissenb. ad loc.: “quae (nomina) primā specie admirationem, re explicatā risum movent,” Cic. Fin. 4, 22, 61: “quaedam humanitatis habent primam speciem ut misericordia,” id. Tusc. 4, 14, 32: “similitudinem quandam speciemque sapientium gerere,” id. Off. 3, 4, 16: “si speciem utilitatis voluptas habere dicetur,” id. ib. 3, 33, 120.— Hence,
b. Esp. with gen. of that which is assumed or pretended, under pretext of, under pretence of, etc.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text...%3Dspecies

(May 14, 2012 at 12:12 pm)Epimethean Wrote: Every time you write, you become more idiotic:

No she doesn't become more idiotic, she is a fundamentalist christian, so she is already supremely idiotic. It's just that her level of idiocy can't be fully revealed within any finite amount of time.

Seriously, whenever someone colors in a whole paragraph I make a point not to bother to read it.
Everytime I have its turned out that the color has been the only bright thing about the statement they've made.
Is this a similar case? I'm betting it is.

You are correct, Raphiel.

(May 7, 2012 at 8:06 am)Jovian Wrote: Alter2Ego, the vast majority of scientists agree that the evidence is overwhelming. It is only the Creationist disinformation campaign that has been propagating the idea there is no evidence.

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
Am I supposed to take your word for it? Or are you going to present evidence of the "vast majority of scientists" that are lying about "overwhelming evidence." What evidence? They have none. That's why evolution remains a theory and can't graduate into "fact."

(May 7, 2012 at 8:06 am)Jovian Wrote: You really need to take a look at fossils like Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and say to yourself, are all these scientists really wrong about these fossils?

ALTER2EGO -to- JOVIAN:
I read up on Ambulocetus and Acanthostega and was not impressed. The language used in describing Ambulocetus is so speculative that it amounts to science fiction writing.

Scientists find fossilized bones of creatures that have been dead for extended periods of time. They then proceed to invent how the animal looked when it was alive to the point of describing it was covered with fur. Mind you, all they have is fossilized bones—along with their vivid imaginations.

Below is a depiction of how someone IMAGINED Ambulocetus might have looked, including its fur-covered body. The depiction is followed by a brief quotation describing the creature.



Keep your eyes on the bolded and red text within the quotation below, and you will see they're doing nothing but speculating/giving their personal opinions.

Quote:Its body was rather like that of an otter or crocodile and it could move on land as well as in water. It was probably not as fast and agile as an otter though, and palaeontologists think that it hunted more like a crocodile - ambushing and then using its large, puncturing teeth to hold struggling prey underwater until they drowned.

http://www.abc.net.au/beasts/evidence/prog1/page7.htm

Did you notice that almost the entire paragraph is nothing but speculations? Now, explain to me how paleontologists could possibly know anything about this creature's hunting methods (ambushing and puncturing prey with its teeth and drowning its prey). That's your idea of evidence for macroevolution?

(May 21, 2012 at 4:46 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: Am I supposed to take your word for it? Or are you going to present evidence of the "vast majority of scientists" that are lying about "overwhelming evidence." What evidence? They have none. That's why evolution remains a theory and can't graduate into "fact."

Don't be ignorant. You don't understand the terminology being used, and an afternoon on wiki-fucking-pedia won't kill you.

Stephen Jay Gould, 1981 Wrote:Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away while scientists debate rival theories for explaining them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air pending the outcome.

Now, do you understand why your answer is meaningless?

(May 21, 2012 at 4:46 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: Did you notice that almost the entire paragraph is nothing but speculations? Now, explain to me how paleontologists could possibly know anything about this creature's hunting methods (ambushing and puncturing prey with its teeth and drowning its prey). That's your idea of evidence for macroevolution?

You're right, maybe they used sharp pointy teeth to chew seaweed... wouldn't be very good at it.. but who knows eh?

Maybe fish don't swim, but flop along the ground using their fins to inch forward.

Maybe woolly mammoths were aquatic and used their tusks to catch shrimp.. again, not very well suited for the job...

Again, the structure of an animal, the way its teeth curve, the shape, their bone structure showing where they are strong, and weak, combined with knowledge of more modern creatures that we can observe, allows for some reasonable assumptions.

Would you look at a skeleton of a sabre-tooth tiger and assume it ate grass?
Would you ever look at an alligator and think, oh yes, that body shape is most suitable for consuming plankton.

These things are certainly a lot of educated guesswork, but the reasoning in all cases is sound.. by no means claimed as definite, but the bone structures themselves are practically indisputable.

(May 21, 2012 at 4:46 am)Alter2Ego Wrote:

Quote:Its body was rather like that of an otter or crocodile and it could move on land as well as in water. It was probably not as fast and agile as an otter though, and palaeontologists think that it hunted more like a crocodile - ambushing and then using its large, puncturing teeth to hold struggling prey underwater until they drowned.

http://www.abc.net.au/beasts/evidence/prog1/page7.htm

Did you notice that almost the entire paragraph is nothing but speculations? Now, explain to me how paleontologists could possibly know anything about this creature's hunting methods (ambushing and puncturing prey with its teeth and drowning its prey). That's your idea of evidence for macroevolution?

This is why we have real scientists doing this kind of work, and not you. You don't seem to understand how much information can be drawn from fossils. You can tell from the feet and the fact that it had lungs that it is definitely capable of moving on land, but you can tell from the position of the nostrils more toward the top of the skull that it spent probably most of its time in the water. Frankly, the bone structure is all that matters for its evidence for transition between mammals and whales, its hunting methods aren't important. The point is: this, combined with the other fossils in the series show clear transition from land mammals to whales. You can see the nostrils move further back to where the whale's are today, and you can see arms and legs become more adaptive for swimming, and eventually disappear as mammals became fully aquatic.
The hunting methods can be, usually, determined accurately from a fossils bones. He was obviously a carnivore (you can tell from his teeth.) You can tell he spent time in and out of the water (I described this before) and since he shares some similarities with a crocodile, we can think of what methods of hunting would be the best for the body type. In this case, it would be what was described, or something similar.

What is the point of talking to any half witted examples of Christian narcissism like this alter2ego?, A person needs to conceed she doesn't know to learn.

This half baked backwoods preachette shows at every turn she knows just about nothing about just about everything, yet despite the fact that evidence for her ignorance is practically glued to her nose, she remain far too conceited to admit the world can be bigger and different from what can be grasped by an infantile mind rotten by biblical garbage such as hers.

Talking with a creationist for the benefit of an audience can be productive, for the audience. Talking to a creationist simply squanders time.

(May 21, 2012 at 8:20 am)libalchris Wrote: This is why we have real scientists doing this kind of work, and not you. You don't seem to understand how much information can be drawn from fossils.

Creationists often demand to know where the information in the genetic 'code' came from. The answer is 'the environment'. That is why we can tell so much about an animal's environment and lifestyle by studying its bones.

I know that, by definition, it's hard to tell; but I have the feeling our friend is having us on. She seems to be going out of her way to live up to every fundamentalist YEC stereotype available. I think she may just be here to kindly provide us with sport.

All the oxygen in the air we breath is a direct result of evolution. People who deny evolution shouldn't breathe. Then again, they can get an MRSA infection and take Penecillin since Staph couldn't have evolved.