i guess i will be more specific. wherever evolution is present, it negates intelligent design, wherever it is not present, then it does not
evolution is about diversity, not the origin of life. and no, many species successfully reproduce fertile hybrid offspring.
all a proponent of natural selection has to do is provide proof of natural selection and keep his comments within the scope of his research. since natural selection is not intelligent, the proven presence of natural selection is implied to not be intelligent design happening. if someone still wants to propose that intelligent design is still there, then the onus would be on the ID supporter, not the NS supporter.
i will put it simply, i dont suggest people take the proof of evolution and apply it outside of its apporpriate context, just wherever it is proven to be present. nothing more, nothing less.
i dont know what the comment about variation is supposed to be getting at
original Point is that evolution doesn't negate intelligent design. If we are agree that natural selection occurs, we still aren't disproving intelligent design, because proponents of ID and creationism, and most religions know of, and understand natural selection.
There aren't "proponents of natural selection".. there are proponents of macro evolutionary theories- and those aren't the same thing.
anyway, Classification is subjective and the current methods of classification of organisms is debatable. Therefore,
Something like a Pizzly makes since to me. These are the same animals, not two different animals.
"many species successfully reproduce fertile hybrid offspring" : First off, define many. Second, define successful. Did you know that 'many' hybrids aren't a combination of the best qualities and aren't successful at surviving at all like the two finely tuned species that it comes from? Plus they don't reproduce.. on the rare occasion that one mixed animal reproduces- it's simply because the two original animals aren't very genetically distinct from one another.
So lets look at a dog and a wolf, human and Neanderthal, a yak n cow, Zebra n horse, polar bear n brown bear.. etc.... If you take all the animals that reproduce to create new ones, and notice that the genetic variance isn't that significant in the first place, then how doesn't this fit into evolutionary theory? The part of the theory in which animals have changed into entirely different organism over time and not just changed heritable traits like a long neck, or eye color or shape of the head seems like a theoretical stretch. I understand how Galápagos finchs have different beaks because they are on different islands and are considered different species. However, even though we've considered these birds different species forever (for the purpose of proving evolutionary theory), we now know that they can breed and really are the same species with minor adaptions.
"i guess i will be more specific." wherever evolution is present, it doesn't disprove intelligent design. For two reasons. It isn't necessarily in contrast with ID. and 2 -people aren't just avoiding discussion when they say we can observe adaptions, natural selection, etc, but then say that macro evolution is unproven -because we have never observed or shown how a species can become a completely different one over time without extensive gaps in the theory.
Please note that people aren't against the concept of theories in sciene, but in physics, mathematics, and chemistry theories are proven.
In biology most theories don't have the gaps that evolution has.
Also, religious people aren't against far fetched ideas (obviously), but they don't have to believe in every one of them.
Also, note I'm not even really debating you; that wouldn't make sense because you have the luxury of legitimately moving the goalpost and your position..
You can say 'tree of life'- if i say Cambrian u move. You can say fossil record - if I say what about these gaps and theories proven untrue, you can move. You can say Galapagos finches, I can say No, u can move again. You say common descent, then I can say it's idiotic to base your ideas solely on institution fueled assumptions made about some hypothetical organism that lived over 3 billion years ago - plus what happens if we find Rna or dna on another planet? Multiple primordial forms instead of one, could have produced the results we show today using adaptions and natural selection. plus we live in Earth with Earth conditions, so of course the dna of a human would be similar to bananas and fish.
