OUG, All I can give is PROOF that you DONT read anything properly....having a conversation means you listen to the other person and then answer...I dont think you read anything properly you just like to rant at everyone, well carry on then.

I posted this in my last answer:

"And no, it isn't proof of anything, just an interesting conversation between two intelligent men."

I GIVE UP (throws hands in the air) LOL

OUG,

You want ‘proof’ that one species can turn into another, but have you considered that there is a collection of transitional fossils or intermediates and these are supportive of the evolution theory because they fall into the phylogenetic tree where they were expected/predicted to fit in?

If you want to learn more, you’d be better off to read some of the books recommended to you by others in this discussion than to listen to me or others on this forum who have limited knowledge about this topic.

Thanks for those videolinks Trickerdee, I agree that they fit in this discussion perfectly.

OUG, you keep saying that the evolution theory is ‘only’ a theory because you fail to understand that a scientific theory is not the same as an everyday theory. That’s exactly why Father Coyne avoided using the term ‘theory’: people like you don’t understand that a scientific theory is not the same concept as an everyday theory.
He uses the term ‘explanation’ so that fundamentalists will not misunderstand it. Father Coyne agreed with Richard Dawkins that is the best scientific explanation we have for our existence.
A scientific theory comes as close to the term ‘proof’ as something non-mathematical can get because a theory rests on facts, laws, and tested hypotheses.

“i just love being able to see if it can be faulsifried”
It can be, but hasn’t been falsified.

Don’t tell me that, after studying evolution for 30 years, you think that scientists claim that “the theory of evolution says its all just chance”.
Give me the name or ONE evolution scientists who claims that.

The evolution theory explains how a species can change into a different species over a very long period of time by gradual and accumulative changes.

celiva thankyou for your reasonable response[it all sounds so reasonable]

so lets talk about the dispute[intermediates]
is it reasonable that no intermediates SURVIVE?

going by the theory[i will keep pushing its a theory till it is proved science, while a priest may be bagered into stoping using the 't' word[im not bound by niceness[im a bread and butter'[only the facts maam]

i admit ape[pologies for not reading trikkers full post[i read enough to know he was giving no proof]and he picked the worst guy he wanted me to listen too ,dickk dorkins is so often quoted verbitum in these debates on this topic,but he dosnt do science[and to me sounds like a prat]but lets discuss the intermediates

who despite having an EVOLUTIONARY advantage[wrought by natural selection[whatever that means]has not managed to turn this ;natural advantage ,into survivability[not one lives today[yet its UNEVOLVED have survived just fine?[huh]

the list of inmtermediates must if it egsists as a matter of fact must out number the non mutated[yet by far the fossils recognize only extinct[non intermediates [and many more un'evolved'/unchanged in millions of years]

its like looking for a grey hair ,or a march hare ,the facts dont add up
[take darwins finches ,there are long beaked almost like a woodpecker ,but we know its geneticlly a finch[so say it was fossilised]we got no dna from fossils ,so just because IT LOOKS like an intermediate DOSNT MEAN IT IS PROVEN ,the non survivability natural selection offeres sounds so good

but isnt provable by EVEN one surviving{HUH?}

reveal the cat/dog],reveal the lisard/bird [the arroptrix£$%=] intermediate isnt the sought for intermediate dinosaur ancestoral for the bird]thus these gaps will remain,you would think a few had been filled in[reportedly we have quite a number of the 'bird thing'[but its not the intermediate]

re the scientist saying its all just'chance'[there too clever to come out and say it like i say it[they are more clever[use more clever words]

[they say'natural'selection,survival of the fittest,i call that close enough to chance[evolution happennd by some fluke [rabdom]mutation,i call that by chance]it certainly wasnt planned[because who planned it right?[lol]

Hi, OUG
“isnt provable”
Science NEVER generates absolute proof. As I said, “proof” is a mathematical term and anything outside mathematics does not really use the term “proof”.
A theory INCLUDES evidence, facts, laws etc but it is not proof in the mathematical sense. I wish you came to understand that.
If you deny evolution on the basis that it doesn’t use a mathematical term, then you might as well deny ALL that scientists have ever said because everything is ‘just’ a theory.
Why don’t you refuse all medication, vaccinations etc. because medical science leans on the same methods as other sciences?
Also, deny gravity because that’s a theory, too. Would you jump off a building just because ‘gravity is only a theory’?

“is it reasonable that no intermediates SURVIVE? “
It’s tricky, because if a species currently living has not speciated it’s not considered transitional because it’s at the end of its lineage.
It will only be transitional when it speciates…if it speciates.
For example, you might be found fossilised millions of years from now and scientists then may say, “we found a transitional species” IF the human population in the meantime speciated.
I mean- any parent species will become transitional after its population speciates.

You cannot look at a species currently living and know that it is transitional or not unless:
a. You have a crystal ball and can foretell the future.
b. It has been observed to have speciated already.
Only then it can be called a transitional species.
When a species speciates, the parent species would become a transitional species, wouldn’t it?

Continued

OUG,

Quite a few species have been observed that are in the process of speciating: therefore living transitional species are observed e.g. a salamander, Ensatina eschscholtzi.
It’s too much to discuss this here; you need to research yourself.
Google it if you want to learn more, e.g. search for “observed speciation events” or have a look on this site:
http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm
Or look for some books on the topic.

You dismiss Richard Dawkins by saying that “but he dosnt do science[and to me sounds like a prat”.
Why would you dismiss the opinion of a man who is an Oxford Biologist with two PhD’s and numerous honorary degrees?
You could learn heaps from him even though you find him a prat. There’s nothing to lose and much to gain if you listen to experts.

Keep in mind that evolving is about developing gradually over a long period of time.
Not, as the creationists claim, by sudden change or by chance. It's a slow process.

I probably won’t post here anymore- I hope you’ll find an answer to your questions.
You might, if you keep an open mind.

celivia [im not sure how to tell you
that salamander breed SALAMANDERS
FULL STOP

[i visited a few of the links off your links
quote
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html

>>Rarity of ring species

There are few clear examples of ring species...it is unfortunate that few examples are known. At least 23 cases have been proposed, but most of them are not such clear examples as the salamanders and warblers.

Most of the proposed cases have major gaps{LOL}..populations.However, most of the cases have one thing in common:in one place,there are clearly two species,while in another area the boundary between species is difficult to determine..>>

2 species ONE genus
[=just like wolves/dogs are SAME genus

thus your saLAMAQNDERS ARE one salamander genus

[THIS IS STILL DEBATING SPECIATION OF SALAMANDER GENUS]
ie like wolves breeding into dogs
nothing proving EVOLUTION of one genus into a new genus

THE OTHER THING THEY HAVE IN COMMON IS BEING ALL SALAMAMDERS
[not evolved into say frogs]

THUS not evolution

>>To understand how evolution has produced the diversity of life,we need to study two fundamental processes:....Speciation usually takes too long to observe in one lifetime.

speciation,is more difficult to observe directly,primarily because it usually takes much longer than a biologist’s lifetime to occur.>>

as it is not reported on
it cant be used to prove a THEORY
but here is the report,[i also did vmy own searches]

see what is being SAID,dont just accept reports on your report
[here is the base report]
http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/wake/1986_Evolution_RingSpecies2.pdf

he makes no mention of it proving evolution
ps
you didnt point out which links prove species can change genus
cause they cant[i also revisited the human evilution darwin page again]they dont seem to mention lucy and neoandertol been rebutted[LOL,]why cant science rectify its own errors as it goes[failure to correct error[aint that suss?]

i also came across another statement[about how difficult it is to get info [too right]wonder why they being so secretive[they dont want anyone faulsifying its theory?