Wasn’t this all everything here already? It’s kind of spam, isn’t it? 😈

But anyway, about the last part. The evolution is consequent process. You don’t just get now new species B, which never before occured.
Instead, you have species A, which slowly changes, e.g. in one isolated area. In this area, some mutations (read quality/feature) is prefered due to enviroment. This is how subspecies arise and when these subspecies are too different, they just become two independent species.

Anyway, all the classifications and definitions and everything are just human-made, but that doesn’t mean, that it kind of describes the nature and unless you don’t have better description, be silent. If you have one, why don’t we and all people around the world know it? 😆 🙄

You got it a little messed 🙄

Anyway, we don’t want nature to fit our concept, but we are trying to fit our concept to the nature, but as you are obviously not scientist, you will never understand…

don’t feed the troll.

😆

The octopus, assuming it was a scientific octopus, would have the same understanding of population growth as we do, after all we can observe and measure populations. He/she/it would have the same understanding of genetics, again it’s an observable measurable process. He/she/it would be able to measure/observe the effect of limited resources on populations and eventually a talented octupus would put all this together to come up with a theory of evolution through natural selection… it’s just observation, measurement and logic. Of course he would write it in octopus language which I guess might sound different to human language.

Dougal

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think, that repeating one post (or just some parts) all the time again and again is actually spam, isn’t it? Maybe stuff for moderators?

I’m saying, that you repeat some boring stuff all again and again and again.

If not evolution, what is than true in accordance to you? Everyone can criticise, but bring alternative, that’s the chalenge

OK, so you have nothing. Good to know

Can you explain to me how this is an ethnocentric comment, or do you think the fundamental laws of physics and maths are different for 8 legged sea creatures?

Dougal

Aren’t our concepts based on nature? Laws of nature etc?

Also if you are going to have a debate about whether evolution exists are not….site actual worthy sites….not wikipedia.

Explain to me your idea of devolution…and give me supporting evidence.
BTW all of your "disproofs" are not disproofs at all…it doesn’t support your argument in anyway.

For example, you say that scientists can’t tell us what a species is…so therefore evolution doesn’t exist. How does that work?

And if you did more research you would know that it isn’t the fact we can’t define it…it is just that there are many factors that contribute to a "species" it is just difficult to define…like a lot of things.

Your way of arguing is soo fallacious that it is unsettling.

"O since we don’t know what came first the chicken or the egg, or all the answers in the universe…GOD MUST EXIST…INTELLIGENT DESIGN!"

All I want to say, is that your arguments are garbage….your reasoning is garbage…and your assumption that a god must exist since we don’t know all the answers….is garbage.

Gamila is not a creationist give him or her that. He is deaf, stubborn, and what is generally known as a post-modernist. A philosophic endeavour that would consider that all human endeavour, including science are social construct. Hence scientific theories have no other values than that you want to give them, and all are equally (in)valid.
As one can imagine, it is not a philosophical trend that got very well with most of the scientific community. And Alan Sokal convincingly (that is if you are a scientist, not one of the victims of the hoax…) proved that this school of thought was … hmmm… not really up to the snuff with all the notions they were using.
As far as I can see (but I am a scientist, not a philosopher) there is nothing useful that came from this school of thought applied to science. But it showed that some philosopher like to talk out of their arses about things that they do not understand (any post by gamila would be a good example of that assertion).

In conclusion Please stop answering and posting in any thread started or hijacked by Gamila this will lead nowhere.

This is actually proof for evolution. According to evolution, species and in particular populations are always in flux. Therefore, we should expect that defining a species would be a problem, since species are NOT static according to evolution. Thanks for the affirmation.

Just as species are not defined by static boundaries, neither are phyla. Phyla are made of up of species, afterall, and nature does not produce phyla. It is a way of classifying organisms and nothing more. Also, you forgot class, order, family, genus, etc. You could have had more "proofs."

Ah yes, The "Insert my own name as an authority" Species Paradox. I have told you this before as you continue to ignore me in your ignorance. But I will explain once more for the other posters and any lurkers out there. Populations Evolve, Not Individuals. Therefore, there was NO first male bird looking for a first female bird on a lonely mission in the wide blueworld. So yes, (2) is sort of correct. There is no problem with this, since evolution is A Change in Gene Frequencies in A Population Over Time. If a particular gene allele provides a fitness advantage It Will Increase In Frequency In The Population Over Time. It is not required that there be multiple mutations in individuals producing the same mutation over and over. This is basic Population Genetics. Thus, The "Insert my own name as an authority" Species Paradox is resolved!

Topic blocked, this go nowhere. And Gamila definitely banned for… so many reason that I will not list them all here. But basically repeating the same thing again and again refusing to acknowledge that the answer to the question has been given multiple times in different words, but always amounting to the same.