What exactly is ID?

SO writes to Percy: Distinct species have never reproduced. That has never been part of the Theory of Evolution.Common descent with modification does not imply that, once diverged, distinct species could reunite into one. Once diverged, they can never reunite. Never ever.Indeed, observing a bear and an alligator reproduce viable offspring would FALSIFY the Theory of Evolution.SO continues: That is not the claim of Common Descent. If you back far enough, the ancestors of bears were very different and back even further, they weren't even mammals. And the alligator's ancestors weren't alligators either. If you go back far enough in your time machine, eventually you find some primitive animal whose descendants began to slowly divide into isolated reproductive groups, and eventually one of the paths down these isolated branches led eventually to bears and, among the many others paths of divergence, one of them led eventually to alligators. This primitive animal is the common ancestor, but it is not a bear and it is not an alligator. When this primitive animal was alive, there were no such things as bears and alligators.Now, despite your claim that reproductive inability is also consistent with a past that never occurred, it has no value to the argument of CD, which has never been falsified to date, after 150 years of increasingly more accurate scientific investigation. Every single verified study has supported nested hierarchy with it's evidence.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

My brother has already nuked you to death on this, but I feel I should answer your questions as a matter of courtesy. The common ancestor was a completely different species. You are in error when you use the word "they" as in "they were one species". At that time in the past, the "they" did not exist at all. You are making another error. Convergent evolution NEVER means genetic compatibility for producing viable offspring. The genes, being very different, will not allow it. You are being duped into thinking that because they look similar & occupy similar niches in their ecologies, that the species difference magically vanishes. But RAZD even shows you pictures.... Yeah. It's called "Reading this forum completely along with it's references." Because it would ruin the theory of common descent, you idiot.
Again, I suggest you read this forum in it's entirety. Last Thursdayism is unfalsifiable, irrelevant and a childish squeaky toy that should never be used in an argument, even by such luminaries as Straggler himself. Cite. Look, dude, you can find anything on the internet - you can even find people who believe the sun goes around the earth (oops - off topic).Your little paragraphs you quoted only show that the current picture of the situation has been getting better & better. Things change and scientists accept new findings that change things. The underlying concept remains intact. You are accusing a car built to be able to change direction of travel of actually changing direction of travel!!Oh the nerve of it to change direction of travel!

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

SO writes: Pretty much the same thing that is stopping all of the air molecules in your room from suddenly all being in one half of the room. Well, lest I get into a True Scotsman retreat, I'll just say I was wrong.Perhaps I would point out that in these cases, it was by Intelligent Design via Homo Sapiens.SO brings up inside we find: I would strenuously object to the words "recruited for its role", but rather something closer to "given the role".My reading of the site leads me to believe that they dont have the "Tree of Life" properly defined in their heads, especially since their own words regarding Pax 6 would seem to imply common ancestry.Continuing from the site: No - this just means that that particular sort of result is heavily favored when it randomly comes up. No, no, no. You cant have your cake and not have your cake. All the research shows is that there are ZILLIONS of ways biology evolves. Fascinating.Just because they haven't gone back far enough in the "Bush" of life doesn't mean they've falsified it.BTW Bush Of Life is probably a better way to describe it rather than insisting on only 2 branchings at a time. Yeah - it's way more complex than the untrained peanut gallery observers can imagine. There lots of systems that have "except when it doesn't" clauses that - upon careful educated scrutiny - turn out to be reasonable conclusions based the data to date.No surprises here.What I see in this site is an unbelievable amount of smugness on the authors. You can almost see them rubbing their hands and nodding to each other with grins "Oh - we got them now!" LOLThey haven't made a point at all.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d