Kinda Biology 101, but if they mate and produce sterile offspring, there's no problem with their being species. Like lions and tigers, you know?
You have fosils, but you don't have anything that ties them to the apes
The fact that they look like apes might be a clue, no?
Are you serious? You give me a source that sites evening primrose as an example of a new species? That's the text book example of a mutation which is what de Vries is famous for! In fact, all of his "Observed Instances of Speciation " are either cases of polyploidy, non examples of speciation (suddenly morphological differences are speciation as in Stephanomeira or Mimulus) or behavioral isolation (Drosophila).
Yeah, if you close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears, you don't have to see the counterevidence to your contention. I call this 'Proof by la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you".
Polyploidy is a difference in chromosome number; chromosome number differences are one of the major means of speciation (as, for example, with horses and donkeys; the occasional fertile mule is where the chromosome number problem got solved by attachment to another chromosome. And behavioral isolation is the major mechanism of isolation in many groups of animals - for example, birds.
So your dislike of evolution causes you to reject most of the isolating mechanisms of closely related species; basically, your irrational dislike of evolution causes you to reject a large chunk fo the rest of biology.
Scratch a bit here and I bet we find a rejection of most of science.
If Behe, Denton, and Dembski have been forced by the evidence to accept common descent, those still rejecting it are rejecting science itself.
143 is a very good post.
Kinda Biology 101, but if they mate and produce sterile offspring, there's no problem with their being species. Like lions and tigers, you know?
Sorry, I meant fertile off-spring, which of course is the opposite of what I wrote. And of course, this goes directly against Darwin's "Tree of Life".
Polyploidy is a difference in chromosome number; chromosome number differences are one of the major means of speciation
No, that's not what speciation is. That was my first problem with that site (Boxhorn's) is that he fails to give a concrete definition of speication. He sites Dobzhansky and then Mayer and he doesn't hold himself to either definition (and Mayer's is poorly defined anyway).
Specifically, Darwinists site a slow gradual change in the genetic code, whereas polyploidy is the result of a doubling (or occasionally tripling etc.) of the entire genetic code.
Owl_Eagle(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,