JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) wrote:
>>>They simply don't have the evidence of what they say occurred
>>>'....over a long period of time' because it can't occur according to
>>>biological breeding rules.
>>>>But it can, and it has been observed. Therefore your "biological
>>breeding rules" must not be rules.
>>Yes they are rules. You have violated those rules by takeing one or
>two bones which is perhaps millions of years old (by your standards)
>and created the notion that it represents an entire species...
I have? No. Science can tell it is a different species, because it
differs in some key characteristic from a similar bone of a related
species.
But what science does in classifying fossils has nothing to do with
violating any breeding rules.
>all
>with no proof whatsoever that thousands of these creatures did
>indeed exist, and breed as a species.
No, we don't know that thousands existed, though it seems likely.
lojbab
