₦airaland Forum

seunH:
But sir, you were the one who called them rats!!!!, you can cross check sir

how do I explain this to you now? Okay Toxonomy is from kingdom to phylum, to class to clade, to order, to family, to genus and then species.


For example, apes, ape is not a species, it's a "Family" of animals which included alot of genuses of organisms in the "order" primates which includes in tarsiers, lemurs, monkeys and great apes. In classification we move from kingdom, to phylum, to class, to order and then family. Ape is a family of animals from the order of primate, from the class of mammals, from the phylum of chordata and then kingdom animalia.

This also applies to rats. Rat is not a species, Rat is a "family" of several organisms. From kingdom animalia, to phylum chordata, to class mammalian and then order rodentia and then rat family. The family is rat and not the species.
The the family rats then have lot of genuses and the genuses have different species like whistar albino rats, naked mole rats, Norwegians rats, mice and even shrews.

These different genuses and species in the rat family cannot interbreed, just as different ape species cannot interbreed. On that basis, they are rats

Let's not deviate sir from our earlier submission, which is as summarized as follows;

You claim that evolution (Genetics mutation and Natural selection) explains the emergence of entirely new individuals i.e you and I, from Apes (Parent stock), infact you further added that we are just a version of Apes

I said No, that evolution (Genetic mutation and Natural selection) can not give rise to entirely new individuals, at most they can give rise to genetically distinct individuals but still related to their parent stock and can interbreed with their parents stock

You said fossil records of different apes and apelike creatures are evidence of evolution of human

I said No, that as an anatomist they don't point to anything and I gave instances of different dog breeds. I was like, if we were not alive and we saw their fossils we may claim they are different dog like creatures that gave rise to modern dogs not knowing they were all the same dogs of different breeds. Hence fossil records are not 100% accurate.
I further added now, that if evolution that could give rise to new individuals were to be real, fossil records would also show intermediate fossils which had not yet evolved properly but died along the line. And I challenge you, to show me an intermediate fossil now, that was not yet properly formed

You said genetic mutation can give rise to new individuals

I said No, that most genetic mutations are harmful, at most useless and arely useful hence not capable enough to give rise to new individuals

You said evolution occured randomly in nature without any supernatural intervention

I said, then why can't we repeat it with our modern technology and scientific advancement

You said the time is too short

I said our modern technology and scientific advances can initiate and complete processes that can take millions of years in an hour of which I gave examples

I finally said, the origin of man and other creatures is still a mystery, we can only hypothesize, because in science what you cannot repeat severally in a controlled environment remains in the annals of hypothesis

You said NO, that our origin is not a mystery and it's confirmed by science, which is via evolution

That is the summary of of discussion so far

seunH:
Let's not deviate sir from our earlier submission, which is as summarized as follows;

You claim that evolution (Genetics mutation and Natural selection) explains the emergence of entirely new individuals i.e you and I, from Apes (Parent stock)

Humans are apes, we didn't just evolve from apes, we are apes. That's not a claim, it's a fact

I said No, that evolution (Genetic mutation and Natural selection) can not give rise to entirely new individuals, at most they can give rise to genetically distinct individuals but still related to their parent stock and can interbreed with their parents stock

nope, we have evidence in galapafos finches that speciation is fact. We also have a lab experiment in lambda bacteriophage that proves this.

You said fossil records of different apes and apelike creatures are evidence of evolution of human

yes they are, do you want to explain why the fossil records are so consistent with radiometric dating and geological time-line and with the time the first modern human fossil has been recorded outside of the fact that we transitioned from them?

I said No, that as an anatomist they don't point to anything and I gave instances of different dog breeds. I was like, if we were not alive and we saw their fossils we may claim they are different dog like creatures that gave rise to modern dogs not knowing they were all the same dogs of different breeds. Hence fossil records are not 100% accurate.

×you being an anatomist doesn't make any difference here. You have genuinely shown that you don't understand the concept of speciation and claissification in biology. I also have a degree in biochemistry, masters in clinical biochemistry and a foreign certification in virology and evolutionary biology, it still doesn't make any sense if I do not understand the topic very well.

×^I further added now, that if evolution were to be real, fossil records would also show intermediate fossils which had not yet evolved properly but died along the line. And I challenge you, to show me an intermediate fossil now, that was not yet properly formed

Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus read about them.

You said genetic mutation can give rise to new individuals

No I said mutation can give rise to variation and genetic drift. I don't know where you brought individual into it, only reproduction can gives rise to new individuals.

I said No, that most genetic mutations are harmful, at most useless and arely useful hence not capable enough to give rise to new individuals

this is not evolution, you are thinking about magic. And mutations are not always harmful, especially those that occur in the gametes. They drive evolution

You said evolution occured randomly in nature without any supernatural intervention

I said, then why can't we repeat it with our modern technology and scientific advancement

I didn't say evolution occurred randomly, you made that up because evolution is not random. It's driven by natural selection.

You said the time is too short

I said our modern technology and scientific advances can initiate and complete processes that can take millions of years in an hour of which I gave examples

artificial process cannot escalate breeding of 50000 generations in the flies that you mentioned

I finally said, the origin of man and other creatures is still a mystery, we can only hypothesize, because in science what you cannot repeat severally in a controlled environment remains in the annals of hypothesis

The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming

You said NO, that our origin is not a mystery and it's confirmed by science, which is via evolution

That is the summary of of discussion so far

yes exactly

Workch:
Humans are apes, we didn't just evolve from apes, we are apes. That's not a claim, it's a fact

nope, we have evidence in galapafos finches that speciation is fact. We also have a lab experiment in lambda bacteriophage that proves this.

yes they are, do you want to explain why the fossil records are so consistent with radiometric saying and geological timelins and with the time the first modern human fossil has been recorded outside of the fact that we transitioned from them?

×you being an anatomist doesn't make any difference here. You have genuinely shown that you don't understand the concept of speciation and claissification in biology. I also have a degree in biochemistry, masters in clinical biochemistry and a foreign certification in virology and evolutionary biology, it still doesn't make any sense if I do not understand the topic very well.
Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus read about them.

No I said mutation can give rise to variation and genetic drift. I don't know where you brought individual into it, only reproduction can gives rise to new individuals.

this is not evolution, you are thinking about magic.

I didn't say evolution occurred randomly, you made that up because evolution is not random. It's driven by natural selection.

artificial process cannot escalate breeding of 50000 generations in the flies that you mentioned

The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming

yes exactly

"Humans are apes, we didn't just evolve from apes, we are apes. That's not a claim, it's a fact"

You are a scientist and I believe you understand the meaning of "fact". But in case you have forgotten let me assist you sir, " A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly, verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means and is accepted as true". Now with all sincerity devoid of any preconceived thought, can the above be said about evolution of man from Apes as a fact. Be truthful to yourself, you have nothing to lose sir.

"nope, we have evidence in galapafos finches that speciation is fact. We also have a lab experiment in lambda bacteriophage that proves this"

And I told you sir, that these same Galapagos finches are still finches capable of interbreeding with one another hence nothing new has been formed like saying s Chihuahua evolved from a Mongrel, same for the bacteriophage sir

"yes they are, do you want to explain why the fossil records are so consistent with radiometric saying and geological timelins and with the time the first modern human fossil has been recorded outside of the fact that we transitioned from them?"

That they are consistent within the geographical timeline, is not a slam dunk evidence that evolution occured, when even fossil record itself isn't a conclusive proof of evolution because everyday new fossils are been discovered. It should interest you sir, that even these so called radiometric dating is still a source of debate among scientist on its accuracy. So sir, you are building your argument on a shaky foundation

"you being an anatomist doesn't make any difference here. You have genuinely shown that you don't understand the concept of speciation and claissification in biology. I also have a degree in biochemistry, masters in clinical biochemistry and a foreign certification in virology and evolutionary biology, it still doesn't make any sense if I do not understand the topic very well"

Being an Anatomist goes a long way sir, I'll tell you why. All what you know about paleantology, fossil records and comparative anatomy (comparison of skull of various species) etc is probably via Google or maybe you read it somewhere, you were not taught. And also sir, if an Anatomist does not declare a skull a human skull, even in the court of law, it stands no matter what the fossil records say. So I think to a reasonable aspect I have a say on this issue. It's like me arguing Miller's experiment with you, won't I look stupid. NB, you saying I don't understand the concept of speciation is laughable, then how was I able to survive in both Med and Vet school (Taxonomy and Biological classification is an important aspect of parasitology). You choose to play with words although you understood what I was implying.

"Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus read about them"

As I said sir, we shouldn't just Google answers, we should understand what we are googling, All the above creatures you wrote, were there fully formed or party formed, which was what I asked. Also we have had intermediate fossils which were later found to be distinct creatures, with due respect sir, go back to google.


"No I said mutation can give rise to variation and genetic drift. I don't know where you brought individual into it, only reproduction can gives rise to new individuals"

With due respect sir, we are matured people and you understand what I mean, let's not play with words. Can genetic mutation give rise via reproduction of course to an entirely distinct individual different from the parent stock capable of interbreeding amongst themselves but not with parent stock.


"this is not evolution, you are thinking about magic"
You're joking right? or you're just saying this for the sake of argument?

"I didn't say evolution occurred randomly, you made that up because evolution is not random. It's driven by natural selection"

Tell me this is a joke. With due respect sir, I'm beginning to doubt if you really understand what evolution is about or you're just googling and pasting answers
Evolution is driven by 2 mechanism, a) Genetic mutation, is it random? YES
b) Natural selection, is it random? CAPITAL YES. Any random event can induce natural selection e.g war, famine, disease outbreak, environmental pollution etc. HENCE EVOLUTION IS A RANDOM EVENT

"artificial process cannot escalate breeding of 50000 generations in the flies that you mentioned"

Take time sir to google what I wrote. Science has gone past waiting for insects or experimental animals to reproduce conventionally till they are 50,000 generations !!!! when we have Tissue culture, Histochemistry etc

"The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming"

A very religious statement lol. Then repeat it under a controlled environment nah, at least it would prevent extinction of endangered species.

My learned brother, let's shed preconceived thoughts, we would see life more clearly

seunH:
"Humans are apes, we didn't just evolve from apes, we are apes. That's not a claim, it's a fact"

You are a scientist and I believe you understand the meaning of "fact". But in case you have forgotten let me assist you sir, " A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly, verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means and is accepted as true". Now with all sincerity devoid of any preconceived thought, can the above be said about evolution of man from Apes as a fact. Be truthful to yourself, you have nothing to lose sir.

I do, Huamns are not just apes, humans are animals. A little effort to observe a human cell under the microscope and analyze our metabolism bears all the hallmark of an animal by classification. Futher analysis to anatomical features puts us in mammalian and ape categories. We cannot say otherwise because we don't like how it sounds.

"nope, we have evidence in galapafos finches that speciation is fact. We also have a lab experiment in lambda bacteriophage that proves this"

And I told you sir, that these same Galapagos finches are still finches capable of interbreeding with one another hence nothing new has been formed like saying s Chihuahua evolved from a Mongrel, same for the bacteriophage sir

you told me this because you don't understand speciation after several attempts to explain it to you.

"yes they are, do you want to explain why the fossil records are so consistent with radiometric saying and geological timelins and with the time the first modern human fossil has been recorded outside of the fact that we transitioned from them?"

That they are consistent within the geographical timeline, is not a slam dunk evidence that evolution occured, when even fossil record itself isn't a conclusive proof of evolution because everyday new fossils are been discovered. It should interest you sir, that even these so called radiometric dating is still a source of debate among scientist on its accuracy. So sir, you are building your argument on a shaky foundation

it is, evolution is the only reasonable explanation for that unless you want to insert magic into it.

"you being an anatomist doesn't make any difference here. You have genuinely shown that you don't understand the concept of speciation and claissification in biology. I also have a degree in biochemistry, masters in clinical biochemistry and a foreign certification in virology and evolutionary biology, it still doesn't make any sense if I do not understand the topic very well"

Being an Anatomist goes a long way sir, I'll tell you why. All what you know about paleantology, fossil records and comparative anatomy (comparison of skull of various species) etc is probably via Google or maybe you read it somewhere, you were not taught. And also sir, if an Anatomist does not declare a skull a human skull, even in the court of law, it stands no matter what the fossil records say. So I think to a reasonable aspect I have a say on this issue. It's like me arguing Miller's experiment with you, won't I look stupid. NB, you saying I don't understand the concept of speciation is laughable, then how was I able to survive in both Med and Vet school (Taxonomy and Biological classification is an important aspect of parasitology). You choose to play with words although you understood what I was implying.

no sir, you don't understand speciation. You didn't learn that part properly in school. I have biochemist friends who don't understand evolution like you do. So being an anatomist is not a guarantee that you know evolution. You at still struggling to understand speciation. You want a bacteria to be me a dog before you call it speciation.

"Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus read about them"

As I said sir, we shouldn't just Google answers, we should understand what we are googling, All the above creatures you wrote, were there fully formed or party formed, which was what I asked. Also we have had intermediate fossils which were later found to be distinct creatures, with due respect sir, go back to google.

read about it first. You can learn if you are allergic to reading. Arguing cannot make you Learn, you have to get information from credible sources and you can only do that by reading. So go read what I posted. It doesn't hurt

"No I said mutation can give rise to variation and genetic drift. I don't know where you brought individual into it, only reproduction can gives rise to new individuals"

With due respect sir, we are matured people and you understand what I mean, let's not play with words. Can genetic mutation give rise via reproduction of course to an entirely distinct individual different from the parent stock capable of interbreeding amongst themselves but not with parent stock.

mentioned where I said mutations leads to new individuals. That's not science

"this is not evolution, you are thinking about magic"
You're joking right? or you're just saying this for the sake of argument?

"I didn't say evolution occurred randomly, you made that up because evolution is not random. It's driven by natural selection"

Tell me this is a joke. With due respect sir, I'm beginning to doubt if you really understand what evolution is about or you're just googling and pasting answers
Evolution is driven by 2 mechanism, a) Genetic mutation, is it random? YES
b) Natural selection, is it random? CAPITAL YES. Any random event can induce natural selection e.g war, famine, disease outbreak, environmental pollution etc. HENCE EVOLUTION IS A RANDOM EVENT

"artificial process cannot escalate breeding of 50000 generations in the flies that you mentioned"

Take time sir to google what I wrote. Science has gone past waiting for insects or experimental animals to reproduce conventionally till they are 50,000 generations !!!! when we have Tissue culture, Histochemistry etc

"The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming"

A very religious statement lol. Then repeat it under a controlled environment nah, at least it would prevent extinction of endangered species.

My learned brother, let's shed preconceived thoughts, we would see life more clearly

You are the person who doesn't understand evolution. You have sciolistic view on it and you dont understand the mechanism obviously and most of all you are not willing to listen.
You do not understand taxonomy as well why you cannot differentate a species from a family.
You inferred that finch becomes another species of finch is not soeciation because you lack the basic understanding that finch is a common name for a specific family of bird and not a species.

You are the same person who doesn't understand that rat is not a species but a family of animals with various species. Even after so many attempt to explain to you, you either didn't read my post or you don't understand.
Finch is not a species, saying that finches are still finches even when they are different species hence not speciation is not scientific. You can read up on that.
And yes the origin of human is not a mystery, it's well documented that we evolved from prehistoric apes.

Workch:
we didn't evolve from apes, we are apes.
Try and read the articles, you won't die. Reading cures ignorance

So what happened to the other apes that still live amongst us? Slow evolution ? Don’t read to reply but read to understand

gabrielto:
So what happened to the other apes that still live amongst us? Slow evolution ? Don’t read to reply but read to understand

which of the apes? Humans?

Workch:
I do, Huamns are not just apes, humans are animals. A little effort to observe a human cell under the microscope and analyze our metabolism bears all the hallmark of an animal by classification. Futher analysis to anatomical features puts us in mammalian and ape categories. We cannot say otherwise because we don't like how it sounds.

you told me this because you don't understand speciation after several attempts to explain it to you.

it is, evolution is the only reasonable explanation for that unless you want to insert magic into it.

no sir, you don't understand speciation. You didn't learn that part properly in school. I have biochemist friends who don't understand evolution like you do. So being an anatomist is not a guarantee that you know evolution. You at still struggling to understand speciation. You want a bacteria to be me a dog before you call it speciation.

read about it first. You can learn if you are allergic to reading. Arguing cannot make you Learn, you have to get information from credible sources and you can only do that by reading. So go read what I posted. It doesn't hurt

mentioned where I said mutations leads to new individuals. That's not science


You are the person who doesn't understand evolution. You have sciolistic view on it and you dont understand the mechanism obviously and most of all you are not willing to listen.
You do not understand taxonomy as well why you cannot differentate a species from a family.
You inferred that finch becomes another species of finch is not soeciation because you lack the basic understanding that finch is a common name for a specific family of bird and not a species.

You are the same person who doesn't understand that rat is not a species but a family of animals with various species. Even after so many attempt to explain to you, you either didn't read my post or you don't understand.
Finch is not a species, saying that finches are still finches even when they are different species hence not speciation is not scientific. You can read up on that.
And yes the origin of human is not a mystery, it's well documented that we evolved from prehistoric apes.

The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming

Huamns are not just apes, humans are animals. A little effort to observe a human cell under the microscope and analyze our metabolism bears all the hallmark of an animal by classification. Futher analysis to anatomical features puts us in mammalian and ape categories. We cannot say otherwise because we don't like how it sounds.

Sincerely sir, you argue like a religious person (someone whose mind is already made up and is blinded by faith)
You said humans are a type of Ape that evolved from a parent stock of Ape like creatures, is a statement of fact, I defined what a scientific fact is and asked you to correlate the above statement in line with the definition I gave, rather you are telling me human are animals based on metabolic analysis


you told me this because you don't understand speciation after several attempts to explain it to you.

You keep hanging on the word speciation as if it's rocket science. I tried to explain it layman's term, you said I didn't understand it and that's the only thing you've been hanging on. Now let me say it in pigin English. Finches na type of bird, Galapagos finches na type of finch, tell us how new type of bird take evolve, and stop playing with words


it is, evolution is the only reasonable explanation for that unless you want to insert magic into it.

So because I saw bones of different species with similar shapes and sizes within a specific geological period, voila!!! Evolution has been proven despite alternative evidence I gave, which I doubt you understood due to preconceived thoughts. As I said earlier sir, you argue religiously with faith


no sir, you don't understand speciation. You didn't learn that part properly in school. I have biochemist friends who don't understand evolution like you do. So being an anatomist is not a guarantee that you know evolution. You at still struggling to understand speciation. You want a bacteria to be me a dog before you call it speciation.

Straw man's fallacy, infact you seem to be the one confused about speciation, that's why you contradicted yourself in your last post. Now let's agree to disagree that I do understand speciation. Now I ask, please explain in layman's terms how a new organism (capable of interbreeding with each other but not with parent stock) can originate via evolution? simple!!!

read about it first. You can learn if you are allergic to reading. Arguing cannot make you Learn, you have to get information from credible sources and you can only do that by reading. So go read what I posted. It doesn't hurt

My dear senior, let me burst your bubble, those creatures you listed above were fully formed with functional systems, well adapted to their environment, capable of independent existence without any evidence of disability in your supposed "course of transition to another specie"

mentioned where I said mutations leads to new individuals. That's not science

This statement you made made me doubt if you understand the theory of evolution at all. So if mutation does not give rise to genetic diversity, how will natural selection isolate well adapted genes to "drive evolution". I guess you typed that out of impulse to reply and I'll assume I didn't see that.


You are the person who doesn't understand evolution. You have sciolistic view on it and you dont understand the mechanism obviously and most of all you are not willing to listen.
You do not understand taxonomy as well why you cannot differentate a species from a family.
You inferred that finch becomes another species of finch is not soeciation because you lack the basic understanding that finch is a common name for a specific family of bird and not a species.

I think the above statement should be redirected to you sir as proven above, you don't seem to understand the theory of evolution that why you are hanging on speciation as if it's the only thing I wrote. If you understood evolution, you wouldn't doubted me when I told you that, mutation is going to be one of the drivers if evolution is "to supposedly lead to new individuals"

You are the same person who doesn't understand that rat is not a species but a family of animals with various species. Even after so many attempt to explain to you, you either didn't read my post or you don't understand.
Finch is not a species, saying that finches are still finches even when they are different species hence not speciation is not scientific. You can read up on that.

same same, straw man's fallacy.


And yes the origin of human is not a mystery, it's well documented that we evolved from prehistoric apes.

THEN REPEAT IT UNDER A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT AND LET THIS ARGUMENT DIE A NATURAL DEATH

Sincerely sir I'm getting bored, you are not used to be challenged when you attempt to bamboozle people with scientific theories you don't really have a firm grasp at. For the record I believe in evolution as a scientist. But evolution capable of bringing about new individuals like rats (your favorite specie !!! ), humans, insects etc is a joke taken too far and it requires faith, just as you are exhibiting

seunH:
The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming

Huamns are not just apes, humans are animals. A little effort to observe a human cell under the microscope and analyze our metabolism bears all the hallmark of an animal by classification. Futher analysis to anatomical features puts us in mammalian and ape categories. We cannot say otherwise because we don't like how it sounds.

Sincerely sir, you argue like a religious person (someone whose mind is already made up and is blinded by faith)
You said humans are a type of Ape that evolved from a parent stock of Ape like creatures, is a statement of fact, I defined what a scientific fact is and asked you to correlate the above statement in line with the definition I gave, rather you are telling me human are animals based on metabolic analysis

can you differentiate the erythromycyte of a goat, gorilla and Huamns if I present the images from a microspe? If no, it means I know what I am saying you are the present presenting religous argument.

you told me this because you don't understand speciation after several attempts to explain it to you.

You keep hanging on the word speciation as if it's rocket science. I tried to explain it layman's term, you said I didn't understand it and that's the only thing you've been hanging on. Now let me say it in pigin English. Finches na type of bird, Galapagos finches na type of finch, tell us how new type of bird take evolve, and stop playing with words

That's because you don't think it's speciation until a bacteria turns to a goat.

it is, evolution is the only reasonable explanation for that unless you want to insert magic into it.

So because I saw bones of different of similar shapes and sizes within a specific geological period, voila!!! Evolution has been proven despite alternative evidence I gave, which I doubt you understood due to preconceived thoughts. As I said earlier sir, you argue religiously with faith

God did not do it, the only reasonable explanation with evidence is evolution

no sir, you don't understand speciation. You didn't learn that part properly in school. I have biochemist friends who don't understand evolution like you do. So being an anatomist is not a guarantee that you know evolution. You at still struggling to understand speciation. You want a bacteria to be me a dog before you call it speciation.

Straw man's fallacy, infact you seem to be the one confused about speciation, that's why you contradicted yourself in your last post. Now let's agree to disagree that I do understand speciation. Now I ask, please explain in layman's terms how a new organism (capable of interbreeding with each other but not with parent stock) can originate via evolution? simple!!!

You need peoroe education in philosophy. How's that strawman?

read about it first. You can learn if you are allergic to reading. Arguing cannot make you Learn, you have to get information from credible sources and you can only do that by reading. So go read what I posted. It doesn't hurt

My dear senior, let me burst your bubble, those creatures you listed above were fully formed with functional systems, well adapted to their environment, capable of independent existence without any evidence of disability in the course of transition to another specie. [ /quote] creatures don't exist, nothing was created. No evidence for that

[quote]mentioned where I said mutations leads to new individuals. That's not science

This statement you made made me doubt if you understand the theory of evolution at all. So if mutation does not give rise to genetic diversity, how will natural selection isolate well adapted genes to "drive evolution". I guess you typed that out of impulse to reply and I'll assume I didn't see that.

again, mention where I stated that mutation leads to new individuals, you haven't done thtat. Quote a post where I said that.

You are the person who doesn't understand evolution. You have sciolistic view on it and you dont understand the mechanism obviously and most of all you are not willing to listen.
You do not understand taxonomy as well why you cannot differentate a species from a family.
You inferred that finch becomes another species of finch is not soeciation because you lack the basic understanding that finch is a common name for a specific family of bird and not a species.

I think the above statement should be redirected to you sir as proven above, you don't seem to understand the theory of evolution that why you are hanging on speciation as if it's the only thing I wrote. If you understood evolution, you wouldn't doubted me when I told you that, mutation is going to be one of the drivers if evolution is "to supposedly lead to new individuals"

You are the same person who doesn't understand that rat is not a species but a family of animals with various species. Even after so many attempt to explain to you, you either didn't read my post or you don't understand.
Finch is not a species, saying that finches are still finches even when they are different species hence not speciation is not scientific. You can read up on that.

same same, straw man's fallacy.


And yes the origin of human is not a mystery, it's well documented that we evolved from prehistoric apes.

THEN REPEAT IT UNDER A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT AND LET THIS ARGUMENT DIE A NATURAL DEATH

Sincerely sir I'm getting bored, you are not used to be challenged when you attempt to bamboozle people with scientific theories you don't really have a firm grasp at. For the record I believe in evolution as a scientist. But evolution capable of bringing about new individuals like rats (your favorite specie !!! ), humans, insects etc is a joke taken too far and it requires faith, just as you are exhibiting

I think if you drop you ego, I can lecture you on evolution. You don't understand it and I ma dame sure about this

Workch:
which of the apes? Humans?

Are you an ape now ?

gabrielto:
Are you an ape now ?

yes, all Humans are apes including you

Workch:
yes, all Humans are apes including you

I am lord of the drapes
Quit saying that.
Apes =A
Humans=H
If apes~humans
Humans~apes
Workch = apes + human

Workch is x

Find X
X=A+H