Teach "Evolution," Not Darwinian Evolution

Many so-called species can interbreed to produce offspring, so syngameons, or a more accurate term like it, would be better science.

Since many "species" can interbreed, they are obviously not "the base unit for life."

1. It doesn't matter if they can interbreed when they don't.
2. the wild speculation that many species can interbreed is unsupported. There have been no mating programs to establish that 'many' species can interbreed. We merely know of a few select examples.

The species remains the base unit of diversity, whether you like it or not. This is what the scientific community says.
 
"It doesn't matter if they can interbreed when they don't?" I guess I can't help you.

There are many "species" which interbreed, many kinds of birds, camelids, bovines, felines, canines, on and on, I guess I can't help you.
 
What percentage of species can interbreed? Answer: You do not know.

What percentage of species does interbreed in the wild? Answer: 0.0%

The lowest common denominator is often not at the "species" level, it's often at the genus level, and sometimes the family level, so the term species forces delineations of gene pools which are not there, bad science.

In captivity a tiger can breed with a lion. On a genus level the tiger and lion belong to the genus of Panthera. Other members of the panthera genus are the jaguar and leopard. Put a jaguar with a tiger and you get a nice fight but no breeding.
 
Last edited:
Not really.

conservative estimate states that there are 10 million species.

naming 10 examples that do interbreed will still give a figure lower than 0.0%
 
Thousands of species can interbreed, but Darwinists cling to Origin of the Species because they know that no morphing has occurred between syngameons, say from tree shrew to monkey, so the Darwinists can say that, what is actually just variation within syngameons, is "evolution of species," a cheap, intellectually dishonest ploy, but it's worked so far, this is why the distinction between evolution, per se, and Darwinian evolution (goo morphs to you) should be made, for the sake of sound science.
 
They base their assumptions on a holy book, which they believe on faith, yet they ask for extraordinary evidence of every detail of evolution.
 
I do not make any such distinction, except that Darwin was unaware of the role of DNA and genes.
 
I'm serious, explain it's properties. Snails are already relatively sophisticated multicellular animals.
 
The "creationist" web sites are interesting in their own right as a sociological study. Each "creationist" group takes a different view. Apparently, Ice Age is with the "6,000 year's old as Earth's Age" group. Other groups posit the Earth's Age as being young, but not that young. Still other groups posit the Earth's Age as being the same as science shows, roughly 4.5E9 years.

Some are islamic creationist sites, which are interesting when compared with the "fundamental christian" sites. The Jehovah's Witnesses disavow being "creationists", yet posits a "creator" that constantly creates new species over time.

None of them even attempt to detail how the "creation" took place, other than a vague claim that everything suddenly appears.

To counter the arguments for star light taking billions of years to reach Earth, they posit that the stars and galaxies are actually much closer (without actually saying they are less than 6,000 light years away; that in and of itself would present an interesting condundrum if you were to calculate the number of stars in the visible galaxies, and place them in a volume of a sphere only 6,000 light years in radius - cause they don't fit!).

Every turn of a difficulty with their "theory" can only be met with the argument that it is "miraculous". What's really a miracle is that they work so hard at it, in the face of a mountain of facts against them.

Oh well, I guess that none of them believe that the purpose of the Creation is to investigate the creation logically.
 
Last edited:
Gravitational time dilation caused the apparent great age of the stars, and of course, the Big Bang theory confirms this, when the Big Bangers admit that their model requires a bounded universe.
 
Obviously Ice Age doesn't want to calculate the number of stars in the visible Universe (Billions of stars per galaxy, times billions of galaxies visible), and place them inside of a 6,000 light-year radius sphere (which is what one would have to do to assert that the light is no older than 6,000 years), to estimate their separation. Let's do it for him. That is a volume of roughly 10^12 cubic light-years. Let's down-size the visible universe to one billion stars/galaxy X one billion galaxies = 10^18 stars, or a concentration of one million stars per cubic light-year. That is, the stars would all be about 1/100 th of a light year apart, on average, and we'd be cookin!
 
Back
Top