Jaclyn Glenn is smarter than Ray Comfort

Brilliant!

Can't even defend yourself, PZ? Lol. Par for the course.

Hi, Godzilla. I so no attempt at defense, here. Hell, I'm still waiting for Ray to prove God....I've asked him to do so repeatedly, but so far, nada.

As for Ray's tour de force, well, have you watched it? Do you understand how creatively it was edited? Do you understand that you can't discuss evolution with someone who doesn't actually understand it beyond he doesn't like it?

Yes wonderful!
Resorting to ridicule, & references to elusive 'mountains of evidence' is very smart.
Jaclyn demonstrates a failure (deliberate or otherwise) to comprehend plain English by missing some valid points made in the video......why otherwise would she go blabbing on about birds, as if she had suddenly revealed some great proof?

Hey John, you forgot to identify the valid points in the Comfort's video. I'm not saying there weren't any, but you shouldn't treat them as self-evident Revealed Truth. As for resorting to ridicule, your "blabbing about birds" qualifies, and shows you failed to comprehend the point Jaclyn made regarding ring species.

why otherwise would she go blabbing on about birds, as if she had suddenly revealed some great proof?

Oh I don't know, maybe because it shows that different species can arise from a common ancestor?

Now, the relevance of that to Comfort's anything but valid "point" does depend on what he means by a "kind", but I have yet to see a creationist explain that clearly, so I can hardly blame her for picking that interpretation. Either way, ring species show evolution in action perfectly while also helping to understand clearly the tree-shaped nature of life, something so many creationists seem to have a problem with (it's not a damn ladder!).

(Of course there's another perfectly good reason to blather on about leaf warblers: they are awesome and lovely and one of my favourite photography subjects ever. Adorable little things that won't stand still, but I love them anyway.)

However one might choose to define 'Species', or 'Kind', the point here is that, in this example, we all know what members of the 'ring' are......BIRDS.
Extrapolate further if you wish, but you take a giant leap of faith to do so & no amount of 'scientific' rhetoric changes this.

Hahahaha! What?

"Doesn't matter if the definitions of "kind" and "species" overlap, showing that two different species evolved from a common ancestor is in no way relevant to the objection that two different kinds have never been observed to evolve from a common kind! Even if we define kind and species the same! Because I say so!"

we all know what members of the ‘ring’ are……BIRDS.

So... "kind" means "class" now? Is that it? Do you accept that all birds evolved from a common ancestor, from ostriches to ravens to leaf warblers?

Just trying to understand where you're coming from. BTW, how do you interpret Deuteronomy 14:11–18 as far as biblical kinds and birds go?

Extrapolate further if you wish,

No need if a kind is a species, which is Jaclyn's point.

but you take a giant leap of faith to do so

How is it a giant leap of faith to admit that if two populations can diverge enough that they can no longer interbreed, given sufficient time they will have accumulated so many changes you would hardly consider them to be of the same kind (whatever you and Comfort mean by it)?

I mean, what mechanism are you proposing that would keep this from inevitably happening?

John: If you admit two populations can diverge to the point of becoming reproductively incompatible then once they are reproductively separated what prevents further and further and further divergence of their gene pools over time? It appears you would have to either believe( without one shred of evidence) that there is a holy governor preventing divergence past a certain point, or you would have to believe without a shred of evidence that the earth is too pathetically young for ongoing divergence to amount to anything of significance. Either way you’re grasping at straws. So where is your evidence in support of such a bizarre claim?
And what’s up with creationists constantly whining about getting their feelings hurt (e.g. “Yes wonderful! Resorting to ridicule.”). Why not just argue your point and stop with the persecution and the high drama. Unless of course this is used as a smoke screen to run from the argument you have been asked to defend. As for the “mountains of evidence” in support of evolution it is exactly that, a mountains of evidence. Bust as they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink

Emotion & high drama, persecution???
I don't hear any 'whining', just a bunch of 'Yes Men' lauding a seriously flawed (& emotional......watch it again if you don't see that) video.
Ring species though interesting, are a 'red herring' when it comes to trying to prove evolution. We all know the argument that given TIME anything can happen. Unfortunately I don't see genetics supporting that (I'm sure you see the opposite).The experts happen to also be on both sides of the fence, so it's up to each person to make his or her mind up having looked at all arguments not a selected few that suit our own beliefs. Endless debate will not fix that.
Even a child can give you a good idea of what distinguishes a bird from a fish or a reptile. Whether birds came from one or many ancestors is not the real question. The question is can genetics really explain a transition this massive, because say what you will, those 3 examples are all so distinctly different that they would require masses of new genetic information added to change so much.
Again, I suggest, go & look at all the hard evidence for a gene pool changing this way. I see wishful thinking......you no doubt see something else.

john, good job on evading our questions (repeating: If you admit two populations can diverge to the point of becoming reproductively incompatible then once they are reproductively separated what prevents further and further and further divergence of their gene pools over time? What mechanism are you proposing that would keep this from inevitably happening?) and saying nothing at all in so many words.

Ring species though interesting, are a ‘red herring’ when it comes to trying to prove evolution.

Yes, evolution happening is obviously not evidence that evolution happens. It is a "red herring". Right.

We all know the argument that given TIME anything can happen.

Not "anything can happen". The argument is, given time, what we see happening over a relatively short period of time will keep on happening.

Unfortunately I don’t see genetics supporting that

Show it. Argue it.

Sheesh. Talk about elusive references to stuff, eh?

The experts happen to also be on both sides of the fence, so it’s up to each person to make his or her mind up having looked at all arguments not a selected few that suit our own beliefs.

What are you going on about? What experts? What fence?

The question is can genetics really explain a transition this massive, because say what you will, those 3 examples are all so distinctly different that they would require masses of new genetic information added to change so much.

Funny how you only picked chordates (creationists: too ignorant and shortsighted for their own good). And you seem to be under the impression that the genome diversity between the three examples you give is massive. That is not the case, of course, since our (read: chordate's) biochemistry is practically the same and so is our body plan, and our physiology is also pretty similar. Those three examples are only "so distinctly different" if you look at them superficially. Genetically... not that much. Certainly not massively.

Again, I suggest, go & look at all the hard evidence for a gene pool changing this way. I see wishful thinking……

Explain.

Even a child can give you a good idea of what distinguishes a bird from a fish or a reptile.

Do you really want me to start listing transitional fossils between those?

Really?

We have a whole tree full of them. Open your eyes and look!

“Unfortunately I don’t see genetics supporting this “ I doubt science depends on what John “sees.” Unlike your religious beliefs, science depends on facts, such as the observed dynamic changes in gene pools along environmental gradients (as predicted from the theory of evolution). I’m curious, does Genesis happen to state that genetic divergence over eons of time leads nowhere? If so, was this before or after the talking snake part?
“The experts happen to also be on both sides of the fence, so it’s up to each person to make his or her mind.” Sure John, in science it’s up to each person to simply believe what he or she wants. Quite the science expert, aren’t you John? I guess it is really no different than we all get to have an opinion on whether or not the invisible God wants us to kill people who eat shrimp. Who needs facts when we have such easy access to our fun opinions? And plus, look at all the time it saves us by not having to read all that silly science stuff.

“Even a child can give you a good idea of what distinguishes a bird from a fish or a reptile. Whether birds came from one or many ancestors is not the real question. The question is can genetics really explain a transition this massive.” When did you study biology John, 80 years ago? I have seen absolutely nothing in the science literature even suggesting these genetic limitations you vaguely hint to. So either you have made a new amazing discovery, or you have made this up. References John?
In typical creationist form you run from questions asked of you so I’ll ask you again. What prevents a broadening divergence of separated d gene pools along environmental gradients? I suspect your “evidence (or mechanism)” does not extend beyond the thoughts running through your brain. But maybe you’ll prove me wrong. I’m all ears John

It seems that the conclusion Banana Ray is trying to lead us to is that in the absense of OBSERVABLE evidence of macroevolution, the entire theory of Darwinian evolution is disproved. But I'll also point out that AiG and many other Christian scholars cite microevolution in humans as the reason for our different "races". But are there any OBSERVABLE instances of microevolution occurring in humans? Like, has anyone ever "observed" or "watched" a group of Caucasians migrate to an isolated uninhabited part of Africa and develop Black skin and different hair texture through evolution? Has anyone ever "observed" that? If it's never been observed, does that mean it never happened?

My favorite Joshua is that we know wolves are the ancestors of poodles, yet no ever has seen (or ever well see) a wolf given birth to a poodle. Therefore creationists must assume (using creationist "logic") this is not possible, therefore God made poodles.

Godd for you Jacyln! Boy, would I love to rip apart Dinesh de Sousa and Deep Crap Choppa! They are due for a good brain reaming out!

I

It

Unfortunately I don’t see genetics supporting that (I’m sure you see the opposite).

Yes, we see the opposite because we're not stupid. The Peano Axioms give us induction; if can get from 1 to 2, to can get from 1 to any number, no matter how large. If genetics supports some change, then it supports any amount of change.

3 examples are all so distinctly different that they would require masses of new genetic information added to change so much

Look, imbecile, they're different and the differences are explained by genetics ... clearly the genetic differences between them are just enough to explain the phenotypical differences between them. So "genetics supporting that" isn't in question by anyone who isn't an ignorant cretin. The question is, such genetic differences come about via evolutionary processes, and the answer ... from massive amounts of convergent evidence and reasoning is yes.

The experts happen to also be on both sides of the fence

Anyone on the creationist side of the fence is, by definition, not an expert.

Even a child can give you a good idea of what distinguishes a bird from a fish or a reptile.

Ah, so your experts are children. Well, some children grow up, get an education, even become biologists, and learn about the fundamental similarities between them and of the massive evidence from fossils, morphology, and genome that prove shared ancestry.

You really have no grasp of how stupid and damning it is to argue from the understanding of children. Children could also give you a good idea of the distinction between an apple falling from a tree and the motions of the heavenly bodies ... does that mean Newton was wrong? Children also think that the moon is as big as their thumb and that the sun sinks into the ocean ... unless they've been disabused of these notions via an education. I could go on and on about the things that children are mistaken about as a consequence of ignorance and intellectual immaturity ... much like you.

Not to belittle Jaclyn's smarts, but even a chimp is lots smarter than banana-obsessed Comfort