The code that is DNA

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yes, each successive representative in a line could likely mate with the previous one. This has already been addressed...repeatedly...and is not an objection to speciation, or the definition of species.

Do you have an objection to speciation, an event that we have observed in the lab and the field...or not?

See this is what I mean lol. You asked what the issue is, I told you, and then it doesn't matter unless the issue is specifically what you want it to be.

---

To expand on my previous post, the idea of species seems strangely unnecessary. It almost seems a byproduct of creationism, which does have the idea of kinds to which individuals belong embedded in it. Either that or we're dealing with a psychological predisposition to group things together, projecting categories into nature, where nature has not placed them.

The idea of species seems incompatible with evolution, which is ironic since evolution is almost the front-runner of the idea. The whole "notion of phylogeny," as you say, starts off with species. But common descent and gradual change ought to blur all boundaries between organisms, such that speaking of this or that species no longer makes sense.

Specially since you're also fond of genetic similarity representing relatedness. If I share 5% of my genome with mushrooms, the idea that I'm a different species from mushrooms ought to be reduced by 5%.

[Abaddon_ire]

And let us roll that out for a moment. The christians are already christians. You are clearly not addressing them.

The atheists frankly dont care much about your idiotic position.

So to whom are you addressing your spurious baloney?

I suggest that your target audience is yourself. Your "faith" is so fragile that you have to somehow shore it up. By any means. Is it not sad that one's beliefs are so utterly weak? Do you never question those beliefs?

Of course not, because your "god" is watching your every move, indeed your very thoughts.

Guess what. So is santa.

That is how trivial your faith really is.

---

Yes, each successive representative in a line could likely mate with the previous one.  This has already been addressed...repeatedly...and is not an objection to speciation, or the definition of species.

Do you have an objection to speciation, an event that we have observed in the lab and the field...or not?

See this is what I mean lol. You asked what the issue is, I told you, and then it doesn't matter unless the issue is specifically what you want it to be.

Feet to the flames. Is it your position that no speciation has ever been observed. Yes or no.

(You will dodge that, I know)

[The Grand Nudger]

You didn't describe any issue with speciation or the definition of species. I expect the box to contain the items advertised.

Is there a problem with speciation, an observed phenomena, or is there a problem with your comprehension? Is your objection to speciation that you don't understand it?

[John 6IX Breezy]

You didn't describe any issue with speciation or the definition of species. I expect the box to contain the items advertised.

Is there a problem with speciation, an observed phenomena, or is there a problem with your comprehension? Is your objection to speciation that you don't understand it?

I'll start a separate thread on it then.

[Abaddon_ire]

You didn't describe any issue with speciation or the definition of species.  I expect the box to contain the items advertised.

Is there a problem with speciation, an observed phenomena, or is there a problem with your comprehension?  Is your objection to speciation that you don't understand it?

I'll start a separate thread on it then.

Since you are unable to defend one, what persuades you that you would be capable of defending two?

[The Grand Nudger]

The answer is clearly no - making another thread is pointless. You don't have any objections to speciation beyond how it makes your head hurt to think about it.

-and that's a good thing!

[John 6IX Breezy]

Since you are unable to defend one, what persuades you that you would be capable of defending two?

It helps with organization. Plus Gae, and perhaps others, have an interesting obsession with breaking some kind of page/replies record. Starting new threads when they get lengthy helps discourage bloat posts.

[The Grand Nudger]

You misunderstand the record. It's for you, not us, lol.

[LadyForCamus]

I don’t see what is so hard to understand about the idea that enough small changes from generation to generation will eventually render the “first” and the “last” generation in the series reproductively incompatible. That the changes are small and slow doesn’t render them insignificant, because they’re cumulative.

[Abaddon_ire]

Since you are unable to defend one, what persuades you that you would be capable of defending two?

It helps with organization.

No it doesn't. If you could defend your claims, you would. Right here, right now.

Trying to subdivide them into separate threads is merely evidence that you cannot.

Plus Gae, and perhaps others, have an interesting obsession with breaking some kind of page/replies record.

Nope. That is in your head. And is irrelevant. Either you can, or cannot support your nonsense. What anyone else thinks is irrelevant. Can you support your crap? And as usual, the answer is NO.

Disagree? Then pony up with the evidence. But we all know you wont.

Starting new threads when they get lengthy helps discourage bloat posts.

So does avoiding questions for lack of any evidence. Your tapdance carries no weight of evidence.

Is there some god, and what evidence have you for it?

Put up or shut up.