[gallo]

Quote by: doittoit The word speciest as I was using it is simply an identifier of someone who believes that one species can evolve/diverge into another.

But you didn't use the word "speciest". You see, I already knew what "spiciest" means, but in your context it was rendered meaningless. Now you pretend that you wrote "speciest" instead of "spiciest". You could at least have the integrity and honesty to admit sloppy spelling, sloppy editing, or both.

It's a common convention to identify sides when writing by identifying point of views by a single word identifer ie idealist, racist,Marxist ect.

That may be true, but it is also common convention to define a term when you coin it, especially if the word is already in use to mean something completely different, as in "spicy - spiciest." Just how, exactly, are we to get "spiciest" out of "species"?

Given the context and my statements it should be obvious to anyone bothering to use any amount of evaluation to my post.

That's not true. In order to understand any of your posts requires a lot of "evaluation" and guesswork to figure out what you meant to say. Even if one reaches a reasonable guess as to your intended meaning after dealing with the bad grammar and misspellings, it doesn't seem to be all that logical and well thought out.

It's actually very hard to get funding to verify experiments, the work doesn't bring nearly the same notoriety as proving something "new" (easy to varify [sic] with sources if you disagree with what should be common knowledge). As for an example you can compare the two Weignberg [sic] articles by doing a simple search. You can find 2 dozen or more hits with the 1992 article and about 4 for the 1996 article 3 of which will send you to the same source.

How is that relevant? What does that have to do with evolution?

The original 1992 article is in Jack's link, which I refered [sic] to previously.

The 1992 article is not in Jack's link. There is a citation of the 1992 article and some information about what the article said. I asked you to summarize the actual article. It seems that you are unable to do that.

It studies worms and concluded a change in worm population believed to a significant change in karyotypes.

The study concluded a change? What commenced the change? Do you have any idea about maintaining the same tense throughout a sentence? Your above line actually be considered a sentence? Karyotypes differences were a secondary finding. As I understand it, they were not postulated as being causal. Further, the karyotype changes were specifically mentions as being "slight". How do you arrive at "...significant change in karyotypes" from that?

The 1996 article recounted after finding that the protein variation didn't support the conclusion.

Since you couldn't adequately and correctly summarize the original paper, we can only wonder what conclusion the 1996 paper failed to support, if that is indeed true. Moreover, "recount" would mean to count or to tell again. Since the second paper was not by the original authors, you couldn't possibly have meant recant. So it is anyone's guess what you are trying to say. How are we to rely on your context for meaning, as you suggest, when it is so confused?

This should all of [sic] been self evident if you would of [sic] read the 5.7 section (about a paragragh [sic]) of the link Jack provided and done a 10 second search for the 1996 article instead of disecting [sic] my post line by line spamming irrelevant comments (for the same reason Zhavric did) while ignoring the whole section that actually talked about the short comings of the research.

In other words, you can't summarize either paper and explain why the second fails to support the first. I suspect that you haven't read either paper and it seems clear to me that you wouldn't understand them if you did. Since a 10 second search will not provide access to the paper without a subscription to the journal, what good is it?

Please summarize both papers, the methods, data, and conclusions of each and explain, specifically, why the second fails to support, or in fact, debunks the first. Please try to use correct grammar, spelling, and an orderly progression of ideas.