Deputy Dog, your latest post to Steve is yet another example of a creationist performing the usual attempts to sidestep discussions.
Steve originally said:
:: . . . within our time, a species has evolved into a completely separate species of plant or animal. . . In Washington two NEW species evolved about 50 years ago. . . Go back 100 years ago, and this species did not exist on the planet."
You answered:
:: Go back 100 years ago, and this species did not exist on the planet.
: You mean they hadn't been observed anywhere on the planet.
Your answer shows that you know perfectly well what Steve meant by "species". If you didn't, then your answer was either stupid or insincere.
Steve answered:
:: No. I mean they didn't exist on the planet. The were observed evolving.
Obviously, he figured that both of you had agreed on the meaning of "species".
You answered:
: How do you know they never existed? And what makes this a new species and not a new variety?
So here you introduced a new term, "variety", that you distinguish from "species". Now, if we assume that you have some idea of what you're talking about, then you must in your own mind distinguish between "variety" and "species".
Assuming that you have some idea of what you're talking about, Steve asked:
:: How would you define the difference between species and variety?
You answered:
: I'm glad you asked. That's not an easy question to answer!
But you failed to answer the question! Nor did your source reference answer it.
Steve obviously noted this, and repeated his question, not about what "species" means, but about what YOU think is the difference between the words -- which you yourself used differently and one of which you yourself introduced into the discussion. He said:
:: That's why I asked it. What do YOU think is the difference between a species and a variety?
You then continued your sidestepping and waffling with this:
: So, you don't know either?
The only conclusions one can come to is that you're either deliberately waffling, or you really have no idea what you're talking about. In the first case you're dishonest, in the second you shouldn't be opening your mouth. Which do you pick? Either way shows the arrogance produced by Christian fundamentalism.
In a later post you said to me:
: If you have to talk down to everyone you disagree with maybe you shouldn't post to them at all. That gets old real fast.
I only talk down to ignorantly arrogant people who think they know everything and refuse to discuss anything rationally. A good example of this irrationality is dido's comment: "DD- didn`t you know that Alanf classes himself as the `Daddy` of evo?" Now, I in no way class myself as an expert in evolution, since an expert would have to have a good deal of formal education in a variety of biological topics, which I most certainly don't have. So dido's comment is grossly ignorant because it's not only wrong, but has no basis in anything I've ever posted. It's also grossly arrogant because it's obvious that she thinks she's so bright that she can figure out something that's so stupidly wrong about me. Do you really like being classed with such people? You're no dope -- not really. Why not quit acting like one?
AlanF