neither claim is true....first of all I told you that speciation occurs when a variation within the species is isolated from the general population. You have made several comments that demonstrates you are not only aware of what I have said, but agree. You claim this is multi-regional. There is no where on earth where this is demonstrated. Pandas did not evolve both in China and Sweden. Water buffalo did not evolve in both Southeast Asia and Argentina. Kangaroos did not evolve in both Australia and Arizona. Grizzly bears did not evolve in both North America and Africa. Yet you believe human beings evolved on every continent simultaneously. You ridicule the thought that all bears would have evolved into polar bears but you take it for granted that all humans would have evolved into homo sapiens.
as for you "already giving several examples" all you've ever claimed were domesticated animals.....you've already admitted you knew this didn't answer my question......you've only dodged it by saying that since I haven't asked the question in the way you like you aren't going to give it a direct answer.........its obvious to everyone you know the answer will prove you wrong and that's why you won't answer.......the answer to my question is that there aren't any other examples.....
the burning question is this.....since we all know it has never happened anywhere else with any other species, why do you persist in believing that human beings evolved in multiple locations simultaneously?.......
Wow, so many errors/lies.
Your explanation of speciation above is woefully brief and lacking in detail. It is meant to be to evade the direct question I asked you about whether speciation occurs to an individual or among a group. Answer the question I asked.
I did not claim "it" (whatever it is) was multi regional. I said that it is possible for a species to evolve in ways making it distinct from archaic forms in multiple regions or across the entire population of the species. Of course, it is. Homo sapiens are not the same as early homo sapiens and evolution has occurred across the entire population of the species and continues to do so. That is a different statement than the claim that all of homo erectus evolved into homo sapiens due to sharing of beneficial genetic variations across the entire population. The first is well known and not at all controversial. The second is speculated and possible but not the dominant theory.
Panda's are very limited in range due to their specific dietary needs. Humans are not. Neither are cats, dogs, horses, or the various other examples I have given you.
You are a liar, I admitted to no such thing about knowing that I had not answered your question. You asked your stupid question and I answered. You then moved the goalposts because you did not like the domesticated animals, though it fit the criteria of your original question. I asked you to restate your question then and you then asked something to the effect of "give an example of a species that has evolved in multiple regions that is not a hybrid." I told you you needed to rephrase and you refused to due to your arrogant ignorance. So I answered the same way and excluded mules which I had not included in my first example. I was aware at that point that your ignorance had caused you to improperly use hybrid when you, apparently, meant domesticated animals.
Anytime you would like to you can restate your question. I can give you examples that are not domesticated animals. For instance, the brown or common rat. I guarantee you are going to stomp, fuss and move the goalposts again.
I have answered and proved you wrong. It has happened in EVERY species and continues to happen. Even pandas continue to evolve and are different from their older forms. That in no way implies that divergent species will merge or that divergent evolution can not occur.
