According to science, how does a new species develop?

[sealybobo]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?

So you think we came from dinosaurs?

I thought I was helping you. We still have the common ancestor theory.

What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers. The layers are where creatures died. That's it. No time associated with it. I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor. Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds. I don't think it did. Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.

Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development. What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures. Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.

Using the tree for classification

When you hiccup that goes back to when we crawled out of the water.

Ever look at a new fetus? Can’t tell a human from a aligator

 

[sealybobo]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?

So you think we came from dinosaurs?

I thought I was helping you. We still have the common ancestor theory.

What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers. The layers are where creatures died. That's it. No time associated with it. I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor. Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds. I don't think it did. Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.

Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development. What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures. Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.

Using the tree for classification

A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.

Mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).

See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously. You have a problem with way too many facts.

 

[james bond]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?

So you think we came from dinosaurs?

I thought I was helping you. We still have the common ancestor theory.

What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers. The layers are where creatures died. That's it. No time associated with it. I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor. Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds. I don't think it did. Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.

Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development. What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures. Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.

Using the tree for classification

A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.

Mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).

See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously. You have a problem with way too many facts.

I'll keep it in mind.

Is it me who has too many facts or is it you? Even if we have the same facts, it depends on how we interpret them. It goes back to my saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." You have to determine which side is lying in these situations. My answer to that is I don't know for every question or situation (trying to leave God out of this). However, I can look at historical data to help me decide and what we saw was that humans from apes or chimps were lies.

We also saw that Darwin lived in a period where there was pseudoscientific racism. So, if we're looking at atheist science, then we are comparing Ardipithecus (which has much more information) vs. your dinosaur(s).

 

[Syriusly]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?

So you think we came from dinosaurs?

I thought I was helping you. We still have the common ancestor theory.

What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers. The layers are where creatures died. That's it. No time associated with it. I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor. Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds. I don't think it did. Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.

Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development. What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures. Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.

Using the tree for classification

A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.

Mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).

See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously. You have a problem with way too many facts.

I'll keep it in mind.

Is it me who has too many facts or is it you? However, I can look at historical data to help me decide and what we saw was that humans from apes or chimps were lies.

).

And as a demonstration of 'facts' you have a cartoon from a Christianist website?
Human Family Tree

LOL How about we go to a real source- like the Smithsonian

 

[Syriusly]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?

So you think we came from dinosaurs?

I thought I was helping you. We still have the common ancestor theory.

What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers. The layers are where creatures died. That's it. No time associated with it. I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor. Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds. I don't think it did. Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.

Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development. What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures. Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.

Using the tree for classification

A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.

Mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).

See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously. You have a problem with way too many facts.

I'll keep it in mind.

Is it me who has too many facts or is it you? Even if we have the same facts, it depends on how we interpret them. It goes back to my saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." .

Well lets talk about lies and liars:

Here is what you claimed- lets examine the 'truthiness' of these claims:

Even Prof Owen Lovejoy who put Lucy, the first ape-human, together thinks apes evolved from humans.

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/krigbaum/proseminar/Lovejoy_1988_SA.pdf
In this article Prof. Lovejoy discusses bipedalism and how Lucy has so much more in common with modern humans than with apes. No mention of 'apes evolving from humans'

Nor does Prof Owen mention any 'ape-humans'.

"One effect of chimpanzee-centric models of human evolution has been a tendency to view Australopithecus as transitional between an apelike ancestor and early Homo. Ardipithecus ramidus nullifies these presumptions," wrote C. Owen Lovejoy, a Kent State University anthropologist, in Science. "No ape exhibits an even remotely similar evolutionary trajectory to that revealed by Ardipithecus.

So where does Lovejoy say that 'apes evolved from humans?"

So

Richard Leakey, famed paleoanthropologist, thinks Lucy is from three different species

"Echoing the criticism made of his father's Homo habilis skulls, he (Richard Leakey) added that Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was 'imagination, made of plaster of paris,' thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to."

This is the supposed quote by Richard Leakey- that he supposedly made in 1983 in an Australian newspaper. But there is no image of this article- so we really don't know what Leakey actually said.

You have a real source other than just a reference from a Christianist website declaring it to be so?

Because I can't find any primary source to support this claim.

 

[Syriusly]

Some of the 'greatest hits' from Bond:

• On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus.

So what were dinosaurs and when did they exist? Why do we not have skeletons of Adam and Ever?

• Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation.

We are still waiting for how the 'facts' are explained by creation.

• Fish started walking is what evolutionists teach, so it is part of evolution science.

And again- which you run away from- no 'evolutionist' teaches that fish started walking- so you are just lying about evolution and those who prefer science.

• Creation is plausible and more scientific

There is absolutely no science that supports the idea that a fairy in the sky poofed all life into existence nor any scientific evidence that for instance- that plants were created before the sun.

• The horshoe crab is evidence for creation. There are many living fossils that evolutionists thought died millions of years ago, but nothing of the sort. They are still alive today and have not changed, i.e. no evolution.

Prove that the horseshoe crab today is identical to our fossil horseshoes (3 different species)

• OTOH those who believe in evolution are surprised when they find a living fossil such as the coealacanth and Wollemi pine tree. In this context, "because it works well" does not follow the ToE. Evolution is based on change over time and there are many "living fossils" that have not changed over time

Who was 'surprised'? Surprised that a species we had seen no living examples of- only fossils was found? Sure. Surprised that the living coealacanth is so similar to the fossils of millions of years ago- nope.

• Another living fossil would be the ape and chimpanzee.

What 'ape'? LOL. So to the Christianist- any species which we have fossil evidence of similar creatures going back- what 100,000 years- is a 'living fossil'- when you only believe the world is 6,000 years old?

 

[Marion Morrison]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

 

[Syriusly]

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

List the new species that have developed in recorded history.

 

[Syriusly]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Only a Christianist donkey fucker could be as ignorant as you are.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species

 

[Syriusly]

Some simple questions Bond:
a) How old do you think that the earth is?
b) Do you think that plant life on earth is older than the sun?
c) Do you believe in the general theory of evolution- that all current species evolved from earlier life forms-
d) or do you believe that all current species were poofed into existence around when the Earth was created.

List the new species that have developed in recorded history.

Here is one. This is the 8th time I have posted this in this thread.
Reading comprehension is not strong with the donkey fuckers.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species

 

[Marion Morrison]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Only a Christianist donkey fucker could be as ignorant as you are.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species

Ooo..1 species of flower did a reproducable hybrid thing. Anything else? BTW, I know someone who "made" their own flower.

That's not a new species, it's interbreeding for hybridization.

Anything else? Because that's still variants on the same species.

 

[Syriusly]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Only a Christianist donkey fucker could be as ignorant as you are.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species

Ooo..1 species of flower did a reproducable hybrid thing. Anything else? BTW, I know someone who "made" their own flower.

That's not a new species, it's interbreeding for hybridization.

Anything else? Because that's still variants on the same species.

They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species

 

[sealybobo]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?

So you think we came from dinosaurs?

I thought I was helping you. We still have the common ancestor theory.

What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers. The layers are where creatures died. That's it. No time associated with it. I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor. Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds. I don't think it did. Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.

Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development. What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures. Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.

Using the tree for classification

A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.

Mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).

See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously. You have a problem with way too many facts.

I'll keep it in mind.

Is it me who has too many facts or is it you? Even if we have the same facts, it depends on how we interpret them. It goes back to my saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." You have to determine which side is lying in these situations. My answer to that is I don't know for every question or situation (trying to leave God out of this). However, I can look at historical data to help me decide and what we saw was that humans from apes or chimps were lies.

We also saw that Darwin lived in a period where there was pseudoscientific racism. So, if we're looking at atheist science, then we are comparing Ardipithecus (which has much more information) vs. your dinosaur(s).

You know what I love? I love how the right now suggests that the global warming scientists are the ones who are lying because they want to keep their jobs.

It couldn't possibly be the corporations who are going to have to pay more to go green. No. Somehow the Republicans have convinced you guys that it's the scientists who are lying.

We all know why evolution bothers theists. They can't stand the idea that humans are just animals. They/you want to believe you/we are special. Well we are but we aren't so special that god made all this for us. We just happen to be at the top of the food chain and we are smart enough to wonder. That's it. We aren't even that evolved yet. Hell most of us are just 2 generations away from our ancestors living the exact same way they did 3000 years ago. Were your parents farmers? Then they aren't that evolved.

I think you have all kinds of things confused. And that makes you confusing. Pseudoscientific racism? What the hell does that mean or have to do with our discussion?

Sorry but you're going to have to re explain this one: You said, "We also saw that Darwin lived in a period where there was pseudoscientific racism. So, if we're looking at atheist science, then we are comparing Ardipithecus (which has much more information) vs. your dinosaur(s). HUH?

 

[sealybobo]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?

So you think we came from dinosaurs?

I thought I was helping you. We still have the common ancestor theory.

What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers. The layers are where creatures died. That's it. No time associated with it. I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor. Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds. I don't think it did. Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.

Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development. What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures. Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.

Using the tree for classification

A very early ancestor to humans originated before dinosaurs went extinct.

Mammals evolved from a group of reptiles called the synapsids. These reptiles arose during the Pennsylvanian Period (310 to 275 million years ago). A branch of the synapsids called the therapsids appeared by the middle of the Permian Period (275 to 225 million years ago).

See, we know way too much for us to take anything a guy like you says seriously. You have a problem with way too many facts.

I'll keep it in mind.

Is it me who has too many facts or is it you? Even if we have the same facts, it depends on how we interpret them. It goes back to my saying, "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure." You have to determine which side is lying in these situations. My answer to that is I don't know for every question or situation (trying to leave God out of this). However, I can look at historical data to help me decide and what we saw was that humans from apes or chimps were lies.

We also saw that Darwin lived in a period where there was pseudoscientific racism. So, if we're looking at atheist science, then we are comparing Ardipithecus (which has much more information) vs. your dinosaur(s).

I looked up Ardipithecus and it says

Originally described as one of the earliest ancestors of humans after they diverged from the chimpanzees

Behavioral analysis showed that Ardipithecuscould be very similar to chimpanzees, indicating that the early human ancestors were very chimpanzee-like in behaviour.

 

[sealybobo]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Since the dawn of time? What year is that?

P.S. We are all related. Take a look at how similar you are to other animals until you grow up

 

[sealybobo]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history. You are correct no new species have developed since then. So what? What do you think that proves?



Would you like to make Marsupials another species? Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?

 

[Marion Morrison]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history. You are correct no new species have developed since then. So what? What do you think that proves?



Would you like to make Marsupials another species? Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?

Of course you were there to document this, right?

 

[sealybobo]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

Only a Christianist donkey fucker could be as ignorant as you are.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species

Ooo..1 species of flower did a reproducable hybrid thing. Anything else? BTW, I know someone who "made" their own flower.

That's not a new species, it's interbreeding for hybridization.

Anything else? Because that's still variants on the same species.

They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species

I think what he wants to see is an entirely new species pop up. So we would have

Mammals
Fish
Bird
Reptiles
Insects
Amphibians
Forfignugens

If no forfignugens pop up he will continue to be stupid.

 

[sealybobo]

No new species have ever developed since the dawn of time. So sorry, atheist Darwin faggots, that's life.

We had 5 main species develop early in our planets history. You are correct no new species have developed since then. So what? What do you think that proves?



Would you like to make Marsupials another species? Can a Marsupial fuck a dog and have a baby?

Of course you were there to document this, right?

That's what my dad says when I try to explain science to him. He gets loud and says, "WERE THEY THERE? WERE YOU THERE?"

Shut up you stupid old man. LOL

Did OJ kill his wife?