cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
><Here's Webster's New World Dictionary definition of "speciation":
><"the process of developing new species through evolution".
>><Note the word "evolution":
><"the theory ... that all plants and animals developed from earlier forms by
><hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations".
>><This DICTIONARY definition REQUIRES
><that one species TRANSITION into
><***another*** species "by hereditary transmission of slight variations in
><successive generations". There's no getting around that FACT (unless you're
><a "liberal" for whom dictionary definitions are mere intellectual challenges
><to get around).
OK. That is the barest of logical deductions.
><Unless you claim that "evolution" caused EACH species to "evolve" into
><precisely the same form originally that EACH species is in now, then you
><MUST claim that one species "evolved" into another species.
Makes no sense.
><option is called "creation", which leaves you with only ONE other option,
><which is "speciation".
I don't see two options described. Merely one. I see no mention of
>Yo, lojbab! Would you be so kind as to do your magic thing again,
>and explain to me what the fuck John's on about?
I don't think even he knows. he's just spouting words because he
cannot comprehend the definition of evolution and thinks that he can
handwave the issue into something else.
Most creationists present their abysmal case better than he does.