Scientists baffled by a perfect example of Biblical kinds

[Jose Fly]

Nope, the "search and replace" challenge remains valid regardless of how little effort I put into testing it.

OK. Let me know when you get around to doing it.

Try sticking to the topic. :up: Nobody is confused over "life."

OK, thanks for your time.

 

[Stripe]

OK. Let me know when you get around to doing it.

Nope. Your fallacious argument does not get swept under the rug by making demands. You cannot imply the challenge is invalid by saying the test has not been done.

If we did a search and replace on species with another word of similar meaning in the scientific literature, nothing would be lost. This is because species is never rigorously defined. Darwinists use the word to establish their question-begging nonsense, pretending that the word itself is evidence.

OK, thanks for your time.

Darwinists hate having a conversation.

Species is a vague and malleable word that is next to useless in a scientific discussion. If we were to challenge evolutionism, Darwinists would trot out this word and use it liberally because it assumes the truth of their religion. They would never condone a rational examination of the evidence using terms that are strictly defined and did not sneak their religion into the psyche of the discussion.

 

[Stripe]

The first paper from your first link uses "species" once without defining the term. The second paper from your fist link uses "species" 10 times without defining the term. The third paper from your first link uses "species" 11 times without defining the term. The fifth paper from your first link uses "species" 44 times without defining the term. Although it does hint at the notion that it is separating mosquitoes into species based on their DNA, but complicates matters by introducing interbreedability as a factor.

Darwinists hate it when the conversation turns to evidence.