Ligers are real and usually are part of a circus or are a curiosity at a zoo.
:
|
where exactly is the line that stops speciation from occuring?What evidence do you have that says adaption, over time, can't lead to a new species?
|
An evolutionist would say that there is no line right? I say that the line depends on the situation. A worm does not carry the genes for feathers. This means that a worm could never become a bird, no matter what. Which evolution would require, even if not directly. No matter what a worm could become, it doesn't carry genetically whatever would make a bird.
I know you are going to say that I don't understand evolution. I KNOW that evolutionists are saying that worms have magically become birds. Worms became early vertebrates, became fish, became early reptiles, eventually became birds. No matter how much the intermediate stages make since, how obvious a slow progression may be, the results are still the same. The worm, is somehow becoming a bird. No matter what path it takes, evolutions believe that it is possible. HOW? I might not have given you any scientific evidence, but neither can an evolutionist. You haven't given any sceintific evidence either. Science does not show that it is possible. Evolution requires faith in the unknown. It cannot be tested.
:
|
What does this kind of continuity suggest if not the chronological progression of intermediate forms?
|
It could easily suggest that all the creatures were created by the same person (God), who used the same basic guidlines in the skeletal structure. That is what it suggests to me. Like I said, it is all in the interpretation of the facts. You choose to believe that your example is evidence of evolution, but it is not any any more scientifically factual than my arguments.
Similarities between parts of different animals is not PROOF that evolution has occured. I might suggest, but it is not a testable scientific fact. Evolution is NOT science, it is a belief. And since there is no real science to evolution, it is hard to scientifically argue with it, especially since your only response to all my evidence is "You don't understand evolution. You are wrong because I say you are confused."
I'm tired of arguing with you, since I know you aren't really listening to me. You already made it clear you don't think I know what I'm talking about. Why should I continue this discussion?
If anyone really cares to learn more of what I have to say (read: if you agree with me and are willing to listen to evidences of an alternative to evolution) please PM. I really do have a lot of good information, if you are open minded. Hopefully some of you understand that what I am saying is true, even if Sydney thinks I'm just stupid.