Evolution for Dummies and Christians

Yes - by the widely accepted scientific definition of species pointed out to you.
Thure, so what you are realy saying is that you disagree with the scientific definition of species so that when a clear observation of evolution is presented you feel justified in disputing it as fact? No because the parents were observed at the same time as the new species was observed.If you can understand the fact that a parent population can produce a sub set of offspring at any time, that can not interbreed with the parent population, then you are part way to actually understanding evolution.I think that this topic may be getting somewhere
(just realised that I picked on the same points as nuggin but he beat me to it)This message has been edited by halucigenia, 09-29-2005 08:20 AM

Thure - now let’s take your point and run with it a bit.Say the new species of the Mimulus plant’s parents did not die off and spawned another subset that was tolerant to salt. This, as we evos, would see it is yet another species, would you see it as 3 sub sets of the original species? OK , now imagine these 3 reproductively isolated species changing over time, and adapting, lets say leaf colour in one (the copper tolerant one), flower shape in another (the original species) and hairiness (a further adaption to the costal climate in the salt tolerant one), even if you disagree that they are different species, I am sure that taxonomists would not, hell even amateurs would give them different common names.If you don’t like the Mimulus example, now let’s take your point a further step towards it’s logical conclusion as per nuggin’s reply - “everything on Earth is a member of the same species” how about using our old friend Archie the Archaeopteryx.
To your way of thinking then, all birds are the same species as the lizard like dino that adapted feathers, wings and flight?This message has been edited by halucigenia, 09-29-2005 08:55 AM

Thure, thanks for replying to my post, I now feel privileged, or maybe 'cos I'm a newb here too, you think that I'm an easy target.Anyway, as you say I have read your previous posts and just do not understand how you can keep on saying this, if another form (carefully not saying species, so as not to offend you) is not genealogical diversity what the hell is?As Modulous says we (all life) are subsets, diversifying from a previous common ancestor, this as far as I understand is genealogical diversity.You are flogging a dead horse here, speciation is expanding the gene pool, and even if god did put the genetic starting place here, then evolution (OK, adaption if you prefer that word) took over from there (not that I personably have any problem with primordial abiogenesis), increasing genealogical diversity.You are not only flogging a dead horse here, but also digging it's (and your) grave.