[Deepblue]

Did I say that evolution was teh lies? No.

I merely pionted out this is not evidence of speciation, merely adaptation and natural selection.

And yeah, I do want evolution to work backwards, because that would be bloody funny.

[WeatherOp]

Dang, I'm feeling so stupid.

[aldo_14]

Did I say that evolutoin was teh lies? No.

I merely pionted out this is not evidence of speciation, merely adaptation and natural selection.

And yeah, I do want evolution to work backwards, because that would be bloody funny.

Nobody even mentioned it as an example of speciation.  Although adaptation and natural selection (plus mutation) are of course the key parts of the speciation process.

[Rictor]

'ats an odd name, I'd a called 'em Chazwazzers!

To investigate their worrying spread, scientists looked at cane toads invading the Northern Territory of Australia, at a site about 60km east of Darwin.

[Grug]

Right...

Hehehe The Simpsons. Funny how a cartoon show dedicated to making a mockery of stupidity managed to crawl its way into a discussion about darwinism.

[NGTM-1R]

Turn a frog into a mammal. Than you can slap creationists in the face.

Until then, ho hum.

Christ Almighty (and yes, I am a practicing Christian, I can say that), that's absolute crap. Evolution is by its nature a GRADUAL process. What you propose would be better evidence of God then of evolution.

[karajorma]

Yet the same stupid argument is continually trotted out as an argument against evolution because most of the people who are strongly against evolution don't have the faintest clue what it actually is.

[aldo_14]

Creationists, I think, know deep down that their arguement can only be supported by trying to twist evolutionary theory and present some bastardized form that directly contradicts all the evidence supporting the actual scientific theory.  I still remember when we had that big thread, and Stealth (IIRC - apols if it was someone else) was posting anti-evolution quotes that were a) made up and b) formed by removing specific words from the actual quoted passages to invert the meaning.  There's quite often a deliberate willingness to just ignore anything and everything that supports the theory and answers these purported 'failings', akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'nanananananananana'.

[WeatherOp]

'nanananananananana'.

It's nenenenenenenenene

You silly duck.

or lalalalalalalalalala

whatever floats or sinks your boat I guess.

[Janos]

Creationists, I think, know deep down that their arguement can only be supported by trying to twist evolutionary theory and present some bastardized form that directly contradicts all the evidence supporting the actual scientific theory.  I still remember when we had that big thread, and Stealth (IIRC - apols if it was someone else) was posting anti-evolution quotes that were a) made up and b) formed by removing specific words from the actual quoted passages to invert the meaning.  There's quite often a deliberate willingness to just ignore anything and everything that supports the theory and answers these purported 'failings', akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going 'nanananananananana'.

In a dumbed down public debate creationists can always win scientists.

How?

Creationist: micro not macro no speciation cat no dog no wings where be da intermediary fossils second law of thermodynamics.
Scientist: The difference between so-called "micro-" and "macroevolution" is just pure bull****, because small gradual changes over time...
Creationist: well what about pandas thumb and wings and eye
Scientist: Let me continue on your stupid assertion of micro and macro..
TIMES UP!
Synopsis: Creationist spouts out 8 stupid talking points, scientist doesn't have time to debunk even the first one - ERGO CREATIONIST WINS

gragragrahragrhagghaaaaagh

[karajorma]

In a dumbed down public debate creationists can always win scientists.

Only cause scientists let themselves be put on the defensive. The onus is on the creationist to prove that their theory is correct not simply rubbish the other theory. Because even if the creationist completely disproved evolution with the arguments you cited it wouldn't have provided one iota of proof that the creationist was correct either.

The funny thing is that when you flat out ask creationists to prove their theory instead of trying to rubbish evolution they tend to do a very bad job of it because they often lack a fundemental understanding of the science they claim is their proof.

Asking them about ID is even more amusing. I'm yet to debate someone on ID who actually understands what it actually is. All you get are creationist arguments which actually have very little to do with ID.

[Janos]

In a dumbed down public debate creationists can always win scientists.

Only cause scientists let themselves be put on the defensive. The onus is on the creationist to prove that their theory is correct not simply rubbish the other theory. Because even if the creationist completely disproved evolution with the arguments you cited it wouldn't have provided one iota of proof that the creationist was correct either.

The funny thing is that when you flat out ask creationists to prove their theory instead of trying to rubbish evolution they tend to do a very bad job of it because they often lack a fundemental understanding of the science they claim is their proof.

Asking them about ID is even more amusing. I'm yet to debate someone on ID who actually understands what it actually is. All you get are creationist arguments which actually have very little to do with ID.

Well that's not too surprising, seeing as how creationists' entire arguments are based on switching burden of proof, misunderstanding of entire scientific empiristic method, fallacies, simply ignoring evidence whenever they see fit et cetera ad nauseatum

[karajorma]

I know. It's just a shame then that so many people allow them do get away with switching the burden of proof like that.

[WMCoolmon]

we can't use this in an argument with a creationist untill we take an austrailian toad and a toad from there origonal population and try to inter-breed them and fail.

Does this mean that we can no longer discriminate between horses and donkeys?

[Deepblue]

The offspring must be able to reproduce as well to be classified as individual species. Durrr.

[vyper]

... Q.E.D lads.

[Taristin]

The offspring must be able to reproduce as well to be classified as individual species. Durrr.

Living up to that title well, eh?

This isn't evidence of a new species. This is evidence of an existing species evolving. (And you know that evolving means changing, not "OMG LEAP TO NEW SPECIES!") Open your mind and think about it unbiasedly, rather than acting like an infantile every chance you get.

[aldo_14]

NB: Was the 'durr' really necessary?

[WMCoolmon]

The offspring must be able to reproduce as well to be classified as individual species. Durrr.

That would disqualify a fair portion of the people on this planet from being part of the human species.

EDIT: That would be the 'homo sapiens' species, to be precise.

[Janos]

The offspring must be able to reproduce as well to be classified as individual species. Durrr.

Umm, actually no. The gene flow between the two taxa must irregural and low and the offspring must have impaired fitness. Quite a few species interbreed where their ranges overlap - examples of birds being Greater and Lesser Spotted Eagles, some North American warblers, entire Herring Gull supercomplex. This usually happens where either species is much rarer than another, and also requires species being quite closely related.