Its oh so quiet Shh Shh

[Stefan-A]

You tell me.

So you really intend to go through all their arguments?

[ConcinusMan]

No, just looking for you explain why they aren't valid.

[Stefan-A]

No, just looking for you explain why they aren't valid.

You make the claims, you explain why they are valid.

[ConcinusMan]

I would rather you explain why they are not since you seem to know so much more about it than I do. You seem to know something about how agriculture has dealt with it, I do not. You also say it has been observed in real time and it's been "conclusively demonstrated". Again, I know nothing about what you are referring to, or how it is incorrect that "examples are still the same species that they were before the changes that occurred".

Remember, I'm not denying it. I agree that evolution is real, but I can't provide any examples of it being observed or even occurring within the time frame of recorded history, other than morphological changes within a species or population, which is not the same as a species evolving into another.

Since I am wrong in that it hasn't been observed, then I want to know why that is wrong. You made the claim that it's wrong, so explain.

[Stefan-A]

I would rather you explain why they are not

I'm sure you would, but that's not how it works. You make a claim, it's your job to explain why it's valid.

If you don't put any effort into it, I'm not going to do it, either. That's my policy. And do you know why? Because it takes 10 times as long to explain why a baseless claim is wrong, than it takes to make a baseless claim in the first place.

You seem to know something about how agriculture has dealt with it, I do not. You also say it has been observed in real time and it's been "conclusively demonstrated". Again, I know nothing about what you are referring to, or how it is incorrect that "examples are still the same species that they were before the changes that occurred".

Remember, I'm not denying it. I agree that evolution is real, but I can't provide any examples of it being observed or even occurring within the time frame of recorded history, other than morphological changes within a species or population, which is not the same as a species evolving into another.

So in other words, you're deliberately wasting my time.

Here. Have at it. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Since I am wrong in that it hasn't been observed, then I want to know why that is wrong. You made the claim that it's wrong, so explain.

You made the claim that it hasn't been observed. So explain.

[ConcinusMan]

You make a claim, it's your job to explain why it's valid.

It wasn't my claim. I was just passing on the claim of those that don't believe in evolution. As far as I knew, the claim that it hasn't been observed, had yet to be proven wrong. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong, just that I thought it had yet to be proven wrong. Don't leave it to me to "explain why it's valid" because I don't believe that it is.

If you don't want to explain your original answers I will just have to assume that they are opinion because like I said, I wasn't aware that it had been proven wrong and I still am just being told that it is wrong, instead of being shown the evidence to support that it's wrong. I'm still only being shown examples that prove natural selection takes place and can be observed. Does that prove that evolution takes place? Not that I am aware of. A peppered moth is still a peppered moth, regardless of it's color.

[Stefan-A]

It wasn't my claim. I was just passing on the claim of those that don't believe in evolution.

So you're just wasting my time.

As far as I knew, the claim that it hasn't been observed, had yet to be proven wrong.

It has yet to be proven right.

If you don't want to explain your original answers I will just have to assume that they are opinion

Assume all you want.

I'm still only being shown examples that prove natural selection takes place and can be observed. Does that prove that evolution takes place? Not that I am aware of.

In any population, there is variation. Some of that variation is hereditary. Some hereditary traits cause a difference in how well the individual reproduces. Natural selection. If it's beneficial, it reproduces better than other members of the population. Since resources are limited and an area can only support a limited number of individuals, an increasing proportion of the population carries the trait with every generation. Over time, the population changes. Evolution.

Now imagine that you have two recently isolated populations of the same species (or subspecies, doesn't matter one bit). In population A, a hereditary trait appears (or an old one becomes more important eg. due to a climatic change) and spreads to all (or most) members of that population. Because there is no gene exchange between population A and B, you have two populations that have de facto split. That is what speciation is, and one way it happens.

A peppered moth is still a peppered moth, regardless of it's color.

It's not the same peppered moth.

[-MARWOLAETH-]

I think with dogs and other selectively bred species,apart from appearance there probably isn't much difference between their natural state we just allow them to display features that might not have been good for survival in the wild but suit our needs better or look nice to us.

[ConcinusMan]

So you're just wasting my time.

No, not really. The choice to participate or not to, was, and still is, your choice.

It's not the same peppered moth

Sure it is. As you have said yourself, dogs are wolves.

I have no doubt that speciation occurs just how you say it does. What I doubt is that it has conclusively been observed. After all the physical changes and tens of thousands of years, (even longer) a dog is still a wolf.

[Stefan-A]

No, not really. The choice to participate or not to, was, and still is, your choice.

You're still wasting my time by dragging up that bullcrap and defending it.

Sure it is.

It's not.

As you have said yourself, dogs are wolves.

Not the same wolves.

After all the physical changes and tens of thousands of years, (even longer) a dog is still a wolf.

What the hell else would it be? And try to answer that question this time. Would you expect them to stop being wolves? How about canids? Would you expect them to stop being canids? Mammals? Chordates? Animals? Come on, don't be scared.