The code that is DNA

[John 6IX Breezy]

What's with the frustration lol. What is it you guys want to get across? If the forum wants falsify my position, all that's needed is a paper that either shows phylogenies are not hypotheses, that species are not poorly defined, or that micro/macroevolution are not terms used by biologists.

That's it. I'll go enjoy the new year while you guys gather those references.

[Yukon_Jack]

As for evolution itself, deep time gradualism is Darwin’s theory. Even paleontologists are quite aware of problems w abrupt appearance of new species , like new body plans coming on relatively suddenly as evidenced in the Cambrian explosion.or to put it another way, in the fossil record,  this forced Gould to propose punctuated equilibrium, so you can make it up as you go along

You do realise that the "relatively suddenly" you are referring to is still a large amount of time. between 13 and 25 million years.

And until you actually come up with an alternative that holds up to scrutiny evolution is the only game in town.

Well the relatively short time( and 25 million years is the high estimate ) got Gould pretty worried or he wouldn’t have conjured up his equilibrium theory to save face.
The abrupt “evolution” of diverse life forms all over the world at about the same time does cause you problems

[The Grand Nudger]

Not bored anymore John?

I have a better idea, why don't you do your own homework?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I did; that's why I'm confident and you're frustrated.

[The Grand Nudger]

Bad at biology and bad at reading people. Is there anything else you can't do for shit, that you'd like to share?

[Paleophyte]

What's with the frustration lol. What is it you guys want to get across? If the forum wants falsify my position, all that's needed is a paper that either shows phylogenies are not hypotheses, that species are not poorly defined, or that micro/macroevolution are not terms used by biologists.

That's it. I'll go enjoy the new year while you guys gather those references.

BoP: He who makes the whack-a-doodle claim provides the evidence. That means that you get to go find the papers substantiating your opinion.

First get your Bio 101 book and look up the definition of a species.

Now go get your 2nd year evolution text and look up the section on generating and testing phylogenetic trees.

There, wasn't that easy?

[LadyForCamus]

The trouble, for the umpteenth time, Yukon..is that we have observed speciation in the lab and in the field.  Not just speciation, and not just once, but cladogenesis as well, multiple times.  You can even produce this effect at home without any complicated equipment.  

Unless it's wholly unimportant to you for the things you post to be true, this complaint is DOA.  You could still field the objection, in a more accurate form, ofc.  We have yet to observe human speciation, for example.  We've seen that we came from something else - but not that something has come from us.  Maybe the thing that we know can happen, that has happened, won't happen.  Who knows why.  The same factors are in play - but this could be the one instance in which the ball falls up.

Ultimately, this is what creationists like you, or like John, believe.  It's not really the case that you don't believe in biology or facts.  Now is it.  There, cutting to the chase.

The greater point is that you haven’t observed or have the proof of one species turning into another completely different kind of creature.

Then I guess it’s a good thing that’s not evolution, lol. You see, your lack of understanding of evolution is not actually a problem for evolution.

[Paleophyte]

The lovely thing about science is that it doesn't care what you believe, what you misunderstand, or what you don't comprehend at all. So let's science this.

I'll need two volunteers from amongst the usual suspects to balance this, I'll take the first two that reply, and @Yukon_Jack and @John 6IX Breezy to answer a few quick questions that should sort this all out.

(1) Are the various different organisms that inhabit this planet related? If so how? In particular, how are humans related to all the rest?

 - e.g.: All canines are related and all felines are related but cats and dogs are not related to each other. Humans aren't related to either and merely serve as food providers, petters, and mobile scratching posts.

(2) With respect to your answer in #1 above, would you expect any similarities in the non-coding DNA of these organisms? If so, what patterns should we expect to observe and why?

 - e.g.: Dogs and all other canines share identical non-coding DNA. Similarly, cats and all other felines share identical non-coding DNA. However, the non-coding DNA of cats, dogs, and humans is completely different. This is why all dogs go to heaven, all cats go to hell, and humans are fucked up.

[The Architect Of Fate]

The greater point is that you haven’t observed or have the proof of one species turning into another completely different kind of creature.

The greater  point is your ignorant and the scientific community rejects your conclusion

---

As for evolution itself, deep time gradualism is Darwin’s theory. Even paleontologists are quite aware of problems w abrupt appearance of new species , like new body plans coming on relatively suddenly as evidenced in the Cambrian explosion.or to put it another way, in the fossil record, this forced Gould to propose punctuated equilibrium, so you can make it up as you go along

1. Cambrian explosion wasn't sudden 

2.H didn't invent it he observed it 

Again ignorance straight from creationist propaganda

---

Well the relatively short time( and 25 million years is the high estimate ) got Gould pretty worried or he wouldn’t have conjured up his equilibrium theory to save face.

The abrupt “evolution” of diverse life forms all over the world at about the same time does cause you problems

1.It's still a long time 

2.It didn't worry him and he observed something and proposed an explanation for it 

3. No it wasn't at the same time

---

What's with the frustration lol. What is it you guys want to get across? If the forum wants falsify my position, all that's needed is a paper that either shows phylogenies are not hypotheses, that species are not poorly defined, or that micro/macroevolution are not terms used by biologists.

That's it. I'll go enjoy the new year while you guys gather those references.

We already explained it to you a hundred times .Then you just recite the same nonsense again .How could that not be frustrating

---

I did; that's why I'm confident and you're frustrated.

No you didn't and that's what frustrating

---

Right back at ya

Nah it's just you

[Yukon_Jack]

The greater point is that you haven’t observed or have the proof of one species turning into another completely different kind of creature.

The greater  point is your ignorant and the scientific community rejects your conclusion

---

As for evolution itself, deep time gradualism is Darwin’s theory. Even paleontologists are quite aware of problems w abrupt appearance of new species , like new body plans coming on relatively suddenly as evidenced in the Cambrian explosion.or to put it another way, in the fossil record, this forced Gould to propose punctuated equilibrium, so you can make it up as you go along

1. Cambrian explosion wasn't sudden 

2.H didn't invent it he observed it 

Again ignorance straight from creationist propaganda

---

Well the relatively short time( and 25 million years is the high estimate ) got Gould pretty worried or he wouldn’t have conjured up his equilibrium theory to save face.

The abrupt “evolution” of diverse life forms all over the world at about the same time does cause you problems

1.It's still a long time 

2.It didn't worry him and he observed something and proposed an explanation for it 

3. No it wasn't at the same time

Obviously it did worry him. Your minimizing the issue is totally unconvincing especially when you gloss over the magnitude of what is at hand and ignore. You are the emperor w out clothes to anyone capable of critical thinking