Invitation to prove evolution...

Originally posted by twhitehead
When I said that dogs can interbreed with wolves were you not paying attention? Oh yes, you actually respond to that post. So maybe you don't know what 'interbreed' means?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfdog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coydog
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackal%E2%80%93dog_hybrid

I already pointed out that they are all canines. Calling a dog by another name does not change the fact that dogs reproduce dogs. G75 is still waiting for your proof of the theory of evolution.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I already pointed out that they are all canines. Calling a dog by another name does not change the fact that dogs reproduce dogs.

Yes they are all canines, but they are not all dogs. And yes, calling a dog by another name does change the fact that dogs reproduce dogs. If I call a dog a sheep then it becomes 'sheep reproduce sheep'. Its still false.

G75 is still waiting for your proof of the theory of evolution.
No he isn't. I responded to his OP and he at first said something about responding later as he was just back from the doctor, then he went quiet on the subject and kept on repeating the lie that nobody had taken up his challenge.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes they are all canines, but they are not all dogs. And yes, calling a dog by another name does change the fact that dogs reproduce dogs. If I call a dog a sheep then it becomes 'sheep reproduce sheep'. Its still false.

[b]G75 is still waiting for your proof of the theory of evolution.
No he isn't. I responded to his OP and he at first said somet ...[text shortened]... went quiet on the subject and kept on repeating the lie that nobody had taken up his challenge.[/b]

Well, when it is translated to English, a dog is still a dog. G75 was probably not convinced by your response, for neither was I.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, when it is translated to English, a dog is still a dog. G75 was probably not convinced by your response, for neither was I.

But a Coydog is most definitely not a dog in English and G75s statement remains false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But a Coydog is most definitely [b]not a dog in English and G75s statement remains false.[/b]

If it looks like a dog and quacks like a dog, maybe it is a dog.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
If it looks like a dog and quacks like a dog, maybe it is a dog.

The Instructor

There is no 'maybe' about it. It is not a dog, and the claim remains false.

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is no 'maybe' about it. It is not a dog, and the claim remains false.

If you google "coydog" it will bring up images of the coydog with the following printed below the images:


Coydog

Animal

A coydog is the hybrid offspring of a coyote and a dog. Together they are genetically capable of producing fertile young. Wikipedia

Higher classification: Dog

Rank: Hybrid

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you google "coydog" it will bring up images of the coydog with the following printed below the images:


Coydog

Animal

A coydog is the hybrid offspring of a coyote and a dog. Together they are genetically capable of producing fertile young. Wikipedia

[b]Higher classification: Dog

Rank: Hybrid

The Instructor[/b]

Rons Dictionary
Just to clarify then
1. Animals of the same kind are capable of mating and producing fertile offspring.

2. Animals incapable of such are different kinds.

Is that correct?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Rons Dictionary
Just to clarify then
1. Animals of the same kind are capable of mating and producing fertile offspring.

2. Animals incapable of such are different kinds.

Is that correct?

Obviously you are in denial of the truth, so using logic and reason with you would be futile.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Obviously you are in denial of the truth, so using logic and reason with you would be futile.

The Instructor

Did not ask for your logic or your reason.
Just your definitions.

But alas that is beyond you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
First of all, you need to understand what evolution is. Evolution refers to the fact that if you have a collection of self replicating entities that do not replicate perfectly, the population will change over time.

The Theory of Evolution is a wide range of ideas that help to explain:
1. What happens in general for an evolving population. These are ab ...[text shortened]... rovement' which is not in fact a conclusion of the Theory of Evolution.

Any questions so far?

Sorry for the long delay. Haven't been well and can only sit here so long.
So thanks for the comment but still see no proof. And an explination of how it could happen is still no proof.
And if something that does not replicate perfectly then how is that good? How could it ever progress into something better that is more adapted to it's enviroment?

Originally posted by galveston75
Sorry for the long delay. Haven't been well and can only sit here so long.

You have been able to sit there long enough to repeatedly and falsely claim that nobody was willing to take up your challenge.

So thanks for the comment but still see no proof. And an explination of how it could happen is still no proof.
What I want first is acknowledgement from you that you understood the contents of that post.

And if something that does not replicate perfectly then how is that good?
Does it have to be good? And are we talking about morally good, or something else?
The fact remains that no life form replicates perfectly.

How could it ever progress into something better that is more adapted to it's enviroment?
I can explain it in detail if you like, but lets start with your OP. Do you understand the contents of my first post? Which part of evolution or The Theory of Evolution do you want proof of? So far your demand is no different from someone demanding for proof of Chemistry.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Did not ask for your logic or your reason.

Why are religious apologists always wary of reason, I wonder?
In the words of Martin Luther:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that comes from God."

Originally posted by twhitehead
You have been able to sit there long enough to repeatedly and falsely claim that nobody was willing to take up your challenge.

[b]So thanks for the comment but still see no proof. And an explination of how it could happen is still no proof.
What I want first is acknowledgement from you that you understood the contents of that post.

And if so ...[text shortened]... want proof of? So far your demand is no different from someone demanding for proof of Chemistry.

Still sorry whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by galveston75
Still sorry whether you like it or not.

All I ask is that you cease and desist from falsely claiming that nobody was willing to take up your challenge. I am more than happy to 'prove evolution' to you once we establish what is meant by 'evolution' and what exactly it is that you want proven.
When someone says 'prove Chemistry' are they saying 'show me one experiment I can do in the lab where I mix two chemicals and something happens' or are they saying 'teach me quantum mechanics and derive the bond strength of the hydrogen molecule and show that it matches experimentally obtained values'?
The first is trivial, the second requires a University course worth of material (although that is available for free online for anyone wanting to learn).