"Best" evidence for evolution.

Well I'm the only one here trying to figure out what a Kind might be so I guess for this discussion I'm the "arbiter," yes.

quote:

---

Tangle changed the subject as it is usually discussed, that's why I said what I said.

---

No he didn’t. He just disagreed with an assertion you made. One that you now say is irrelevant. And I still don’t see why you had to invent that claim about “moving the goalposts” (more accurately I don’t see an honest reason).

Faith writes: Well I'm the only one here trying to figure out what a Kind might be so I guess for this discussion I'm the "arbiter," yes.

We bow to your knowledge and intellect. What are your thoughts on worms? When is a worm not a worm?

We know with certainty that you'll do absolutely nothing about the Faith Classification System while thinking that you have.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

What makes you think EvC is the only place I make use of my thoughts or that I say everything I think here?

Oh, silly me, you've already published your taxonomy? Please provide a reference.

So you accept the fact that there has been radical change, even to the change in the number of chromosomes? Even to the extent that a population can diverge so much that it may form multiple groups that cannot interbreed and so are different species? I'd hardly call that "depletion"!

Anyway, I'm surprised you didn't just say that all of this was "unnatural" selection, intelligent interference in the genome by breeders! Is that because you know the natural world can impose selective pressures on populations of living creatures much more stringent (and for far longer) than human breeders?

Over time, of course, there has been enormous change. The first fossil evidence of mammals is from the Triassic Period, when the reptiles still ruled. The early mammals were small (often described by paleontologists as "shrew-like" or "mouse-like" animals) and certainly far different from the horses, whales, elephants and other mammals we see today. So we have evolutionary change over many generations. The most important evidence for evolution is the simplest: go from point A, an ancestor, to point B, a creature living today of much different form than that ancestor.

Unless, of course, you are willing to believe that there have always been horses, whales, elephants and all the other mammals, since the beginning of life on earth. Is that it? Were there kangaroos and aardvarks and lemurs on earth billions of years ago?

It's published in Genesis with expansion in the flood myths.

I'd probably classify them as a Kind, or perhaps within a larger group of insects if I ever got into that area. Morphologically they are the same, that's the main criterion for the Kind/Species for me. Shape of body, form and number of legs, shape and function of proboscis.

Sorry, I edited my post to add the morphologial data that I forgot to include: they are identical morphologically.

Why don't they interbreed? This is important to the control of malaria.

Enjoy

All I have is Google Image. Linnaeus' specimens were more useful but on the other hand the internet is jjust about miraculous for such purposes. ... . Mostly my own memory of course. ...

Google won't show you the differences between placental and marsupial mammals, for starters.

No wonder you lump things in nonsense manners.

enjoy