3 ms·

You are trying to force the definition of evolution to be "speciation-by-random-mutation" and not a single credible person will tell you that's how it works. Be

by bena 2y ago

You are trying to force the definition of evolution to be "speciation-by-random-mutation" and not a single credible person will tell you that's how it works. Because it's not. It would be like me asking you to show me a leprechaun to prove Ireland exists. I don't say "hmmm interesting points you raise there" because you don't raise any interesting points. Instead you retread the same tired arguments Creationists trot out despite being answered years ago. Why does the lack of gene flow from end to end disqualify them. Just because genes from A can never make it to F, doesn't mean anything. And your second quote is filled with weasel words. Not to mention, the following statements are pretty much "and here's a list of them".

jdthedisciple 2y ago
> You are trying to force the definition of evolution to be "speciation-by-random-mutation" How did you infer that? I specifically said in another comment that I'm not negating evolution, just the part about speciation-by-random-mutation. > Why does the lack of gene flow from end to end disqualify them This has to do with the technicalities of ring species. I recommend this article by an evolutionist himself, which explains it extremely well: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/ https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-... In short, the hypothesized ring species don't solve the issue I raised because, let me quote that article: > The authors [...] found, contrary to previous information, that there are indeed some hybrids (fertile ones, since they backcross) produced where the ring closes at the top, so they aren’t really acting like full biological species. So we cannot be certain that where the ring closes, inter-breeding is impossible, because it has been shown to occur. Further: > In the end, the authors conclude [...]: there are no good examples of ring species in nature It was an interesting point about ring species that you raised however, and I learned something myself. So thanks.
- shellfishgene 2y ago
  > How did you infer that? I specifically said in another comment that I'm not negating evolution, just the part about speciation-by-random-mutation. So do you agree that species change by evolution, e.g. selection acting on random mutations?

by bena 2y ago

jdthedisciple 2y ago

> You are trying to force the definition of evolution to be "speciation-by-random-mutation" How did you infer that? I specifically said in another comment that I'm not negating evolution, just the part about speciation-by-random-mutation. > Why does the lack of gene flow from end to end disqualify them This has to do with the technicalities of ring species. I recommend this article by an evolutionist himself, which explains it extremely well: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-species/ https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2014/07/16/there-are-no-ring-... In short, the hypothesized ring species don't solve the issue I raised because, let me quote that article: > The authors [...] found, contrary to previous information, that there are indeed some hybrids (fertile ones, since they backcross) produced where the ring closes at the top, so they aren’t really acting like full biological species. So we cannot be certain that where the ring closes, inter-breeding is impossible, because it has been shown to occur. Further: > In the end, the authors conclude [...]: there are no good examples of ring species in nature It was an interesting point about ring species that you raised however, and I learned something myself. So thanks.

shellfishgene 2y ago
> How did you infer that? I specifically said in another comment that I'm not negating evolution, just the part about speciation-by-random-mutation. So do you agree that species change by evolution, e.g. selection acting on random mutations?