Give your best "transitional form"

Loudmouth said:

Yes you do. You made the claim. Back it up.

Click to expand...

Backed it up, with every observation and experiment ever done - versus your "claim" it happens another way.

"No breed ever evolves into another breed."--Justa

Click to expand...

I know they don't. Nothing "evolves" into anything. Quit using that pseudo scientific terminology. Again quit ignoring real world data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_(dog)

"The Chinook is a rare breed of sled dog"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husky

"Husky type dogs originally were landrace breeds kept by Arctic indigenous peoples."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaskan_Malamute

"The Alaskan Malamute is a large breed of domestic dog"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Mastiff

"The English Mastiff is a breed of large dog"

Where is the evidence that australopithecines never evolved into a new breed?

Click to expand...

Where is the evidence it "evolved" into anything? Apparently you are still confused as to what we observe.

Then tell us what features a missing link would have, and how those features on not found in the hominid transitionals.

Back up your claims.

Click to expand...

I'd say about 7 of every 12 of those is a mis-classification as a species when it's just a breed of another kind.

You know, like you incorrectly mis-classified H. Erectus skulls and half the others.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution

"Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks....

Just as you are going to have to wipe half of the dinosaurs from the textbooks.

..."This is the first complete skull of an adult early Homo. They simply did not exist before,"". Of course they didn't, this is nothing new.

"...Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground."

Now? It's always been shaky - it's collapsing.

Here is more you can ignore:

...The scientists went on to compare the Dmanisi remains with those of supposedly different species of human ancestor that lived in Africa at the time. They concluded that the variation among them was no greater than that seen at Dmanisi. Rather than being separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus."

and just as you have done with dinosaur, you did with the human Kind.

..."Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree accumulating a lot of branches,"

So now not only are you going to claim mis-classifying dinosaurs doesn't affect evolution, but doing the same exact thing with humans isn't going to affect anything either. Lol. The sand is only so deep, Loud.

Justatruthseeker said:

Backed it up, with every observation and experiment ever done - versus your "claim" it happens another way.

Click to expand...

Where are the experiments done on australopithecines showing that they never became another breed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_(dog)

"The Chinook is a rare breed of sled dog"

Click to expand...

Chinook came from wolves. So much for your claims.

Where is the evidence it "evolved" into anything?

Click to expand...

We have the genetic and fossil evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and that the differences beween our species is due to mutations that accumulated over 5 million years, not 100 years as you try to pretend.

This includes the fossil evidence of transitional fossils such as Australopithecines which have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.

This includes shared genetic markers, like orthologous ERV's.

You know, all of the evidence you run away from.

I'd say about 7 of every 12 of those is a mis-classification as a species when it's just a breed of another kind.

Click to expand...

What kind do australopithecines belong to, and where is your evidence for that claim? Why does belonging to that kind prevent australopithecines from being transitional and evidencing the evolution of humans from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

You are all over the place.

You know, like you incorrectly mis-classified H. Erectus skulls and half the others.

Click to expand...

Whether they are the same species or separate species, they are still transitional. You do realize that, don't you? They aren't transitional because of the name we give them. Three examples of transitional fossils from the same species are still three transitional fossils. If we decide to split them into three species, they are still transitional. They are transitional BECAUSE OF THEIR MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES. Do you still not understand that?

Loudmouth said:

How would a fossil show that?

Click to expand...

There, this is the best response yet. The question is "how would a fossil show that?"

Exactly, fossils cannot show transition. No matter how many you have, how close they "look" to being similar animals, it is impossible to emphatically state that this creature slowly, over time transitioned into that creature. They are all static evidence of animals and organisms that "lived" at a point in time. We can guess at how old it was, one year, two years, ten years. We cannot tell if it had offspring, brothers, sisters, we cannot tell if much about it at all, other than it existed at one time. All the hype about evolving and transitioning into other species is just speculation, assumption and wishful thinking. The papers even state words that show this "may have", "probably", "looks like", "it's accepted that", "we believe that".

I saw a video on a guy that has a museum and has actually proven that some examples of "transitional" fossils were actually just a series of skeletal remains of different animals of the same species at different ages. As the animal went from infant, youth, adolescent and adult, the skeleton changed and was passed off as different stages of transition while it was only an example of the animal growing up and maturing..

JacksBratt said:

No matter how many you have, how close they "look" to being similar animals, it is impossible to emphatically state that this creature slowly, over time transitioned into that creature.

Click to expand...

That is not how transitional fossils are defined or viewed. Transitional fossils are simply fossils with a mixture of features from two divergent taxa. The fact that we only see the transitional fossils that evolution says we should see, and not the ones that we shouldn't see, is evidence for the theory of evolution.

For example, a fossil with a mixture of bird and mammal features would be a transitional. It would also falsify the theory of evolution since the theory says that we shouldn't see those transitionals. The fact that the fossils fall into the same nested hierarchy as living species is what evidences the theory.

They are all static evidence of animals and organisms that "lived" at a point in time. We can guess at how old it was, one year, two years, ten years. We cannot tell if it had offspring, brothers, sisters, we cannot tell if much about it at all, other than it existed at one time.

Click to expand...

We don't need to know if it had offspring in order to tell if it is transitional. All we need is the morphology of the fossil.

I saw a video on a guy that has a museum and has actually proven that some examples of "transitional" fossils were actually just a series of skeletal remains of different animals of the same species at different ages. As the animal went from infant, youth, adolescent and adult, the skeleton changed and was passed off as different stages of transition while it was only an example of the animal growing up and maturing..

Click to expand...

Can you show me a child that looks like an Australopithecine or Homo erectus?

Loudmouth said:

Where are the experiments done on australopithecines showing that they never became another breed?

Click to expand...

They did, that's just it, they are NOT separate species, just different breeds of human - as chimpanzees are different breeds of ape. And is why chimpanzee fossils are found later in the record than humans, not before or even supposedly splitting off near the same time.

Chinook came from wolves. So much for your claims.

Click to expand...

Exactly - I claim they are simply a different breeds of the species all dogs belong to. Now you are catching on, even if you don't really grasp it yet.

We have the genetic and fossil evidence that humans and chimps share a common ancestor, and that the differences beween our species is due to mutations that accumulated over 5 million years, not 100 years as you try to pretend.

This includes the fossil evidence of transitional fossils such as Australopithecines which have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features.

Click to expand...

See above. The problem is that chimpanzee fossils are not found anywhere near the age of the claimed ancestors for man.

This includes shared genetic markers, like orthologous ERV's.

You know, all of the evidence you run away from.

Click to expand...

Oh no, it seems to be you that runs from those retroviruses and the known insertion of foreign genomes through HGT. I fully accept those shared markers and their source as proven scientifically.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982211001011

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

And soon we will find it is the sole cause of those cross-species shared genetic markers as science continues to advance. No, you have that wrong. I fully accept those shared genetic markers and their source, and exactly what it means to evolution.

What kind do australopithecines belong to, and where is your evidence for that claim? Why does belonging to that kind prevent australopithecines from being transitional and evidencing the evolution of humans from a common ancestor shared with chimps?

Click to expand...

Where is yours? You just got some bones you claim are separate species but still the progenitors of our species. Even if you have never once observed a new species coming from another species - but only breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species.

You claim Darwin's Finches are seperate species, although it has been empirically proven they all interbreed and produce fertile offspring - proving they are merely variations (breeds) of the same species.

Where is the evidence for your claim???????

Whether they are the same species or separate species, they are still transitional. You do realize that, don't you? They aren't transitional because of the name we give them. Three examples of transitional fossils from the same species are still three transitional fossils. If we decide to split them into three species, they are still transitional. They are transitional BECAUSE OF THEIR MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES. Do you still not understand that?

Click to expand...

A Husky we could say is a transitional of the Chinook, but you don't insist they are separate species, because you have empirical evidence they are all of the same species. You could if you like classify them as subspecies, but since they can still interbreed even that would not be correct. Now ring species is the prime example of a subspecies - being they came about from adaptations to local conditions, but again, they are not separate species - merely infraspecific taxa.

You can't show speciation - never have and never will - unless you improperly classify things. Finches that interbreed do not show speciation - they simply show that infraspecific taxa mates with infraspecific taxa producing further infraspecific taxa.

I am going to have to ask you to please abide by the scientific designations of classification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

So Darwin's finches, since adapted by local conditions - are in actuality merely infraspecific taxa of the original finches that migrated to the islands, correct? Proven by the fact that when we actually got around to studying them in 2006, they all interbreed and produce fertile offspring with no diminished capacity. Speciation never occurred in the first place. The most you can claim scientifically is that through adaptation they became infraspecific taxa of the original species. Breed mating with breed within the species producing new breeds.

Please stop with the wild claims that do not match reality or science. This is a formal debate and scientific definitions are to be used - not ones made up on the spot as you are trying to claim.

EDIT:

Scientific consensus you claim makes it fact. Then show me any article on dogs that does not use the term breed? Therefore breed by your own claims is scientific, since it is the term used to scientifically describe all variations of dogs. You can add it to the list of infraspecific taxa, under the heading of species.

EDIT, EDIT:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html
"From Pekingese to St. Bernard and greyhound, dogs come in such startling variety it's easy to forget they belong to the same species. The profusion of breeds today -- at least 150 -- reflects intense, purposeful interbreeding of dogs in the past 150 years."

I say it is this that startling variety you easily forget when you classify the fossil record. That all of these are the same species - just different breeds. With perhaps some being merely babies or adults of the species.

Justatruthseeker said:

They did, that's just it, they are NOT separate species, just different breeds of human - as chimpanzees are different breeds of ape.

Click to expand...

WHERE???????

Exactly - I claim they are simply a different breeds of the species all dogs belong to. Now you are catching on, even if you don't really grasp it yet.

Click to expand...

WHERE DID THE BREEDS COME FROM??????????

See above. The problem is that chimpanzee fossils are not found anywhere near the age of the claimed ancestors for man.

Click to expand...

No one is claiming that chimps are our ancestors.

Oh no, it seems to be you that runs from those retroviruses and the known insertion of foreign genomes through HGT. I fully accept those shared markers and their source as proven scientifically.

Click to expand...

So you accept that independent insertions should produce non-orthologous insertions, and that orthologous insertions require common ancestry?

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10254.full

That is the proven science.

"But all agree that the exchange of genetic information across species lines — which is how we will define LGT in this primer — is far more pervasive and more radical in its consequences than we could have guessed just a decade ago."

Click to expand...

LGT of retroviruses produce markers that we can use to determine common ancestry. That is what you keep failing to understand.

Where is yours? You just got some bones you claim are separate species but still the progenitors of our species.

Click to expand...

False. This is what I have. I have fossils with a mixture of basal ape features not found in any anatomically modern human. Those same fossils have human features not found in any living ape species. That makes them transitional. That makes them separate species from both living ape and living human species.

Even if you have never once observed a new species coming from another species - but only breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species.

Click to expand...

WHERE DID THE BREEDS COME FROM???????????

A Husky we could say is a transitional of the Chinook, but you don't insist they are separate species, because you have empirical evidence they are all of the same species.

Click to expand...

WHERE DID THE HUSKY COME FROM????????

You can't show speciation - never have and never will - unless you improperly classify things. Finches that interbreed do not show speciation - they simply show that infraspecific taxa mates with infraspecific taxa producing further infraspecific taxa.

Click to expand...

Why would we expect speciation to be observed in such a short time period when it takes hundreds of thousands of years to occur? What we have is evidence for shared ancestry between species that are separate now.

JacksBratt said:

There, this is the best response yet. The question is "how would a fossil show that?"

Exactly, fossils cannot show transition. No matter how many you have, how close they "look" to being similar animals, it is impossible to emphatically state that this creature slowly, over time transitioned into that creature. They are all static evidence of animals and organisms that "lived" at a point in time. We can guess at how old it was, one year, two years, ten years. We cannot tell if it had offspring, brothers, sisters, we cannot tell if much about it at all, other than it existed at one time. All the hype about evolving and transitioning into other species is just speculation, assumption and wishful thinking. The papers even state words that show this "may have", "probably", "looks like", "it's accepted that", "we believe that".

I saw a video on a guy that has a museum and has actually proven that some examples of "transitional" fossils were actually just a series of skeletal remains of different animals of the same species at different ages. As the animal went from infant, youth, adolescent and adult, the skeleton changed and was passed off as different stages of transition while it was only an example of the animal growing up and maturing..

Click to expand...

We can tell every one of them is dead (oops) - and like the Coelacanth the story sounded good until they were found to be alive and DNA tests showed they were not what they had claimed them to be. Not to mention empirical observation showed they never walked or even crawled.

And let's not mention Asian mating with African producing an Afro-Asian, with no transitory species between, merely breed mating with breed producing new breeds within the species. And all by the recombination of genes and new dominant and recessive traits. And all the while Asian remains Asian as African remains African. Husky remains Husky and Mastiff remains Mastiff. T-Rex remains T-Rex, Triceratops a Triceratops. And according to every empirical observation of the natural world - only when different breeds of the same species mate - do new breeds come into the record. Yes, quite a few of them are merely the young or old misidentified, but it goes far beyond that. Some are merely babies and adults, the others are merely different breeds, leaving only two that were once one, and when that DNA that was separated reunites, becomes one again. Male or female, but yes, because of mutation both at once now and then. Sometimes mistakes happen in the coding process, but it's not evolution.

The mutations that get through the repair mechanism causing cancer, deformities, mentally challenged people, legs on the back of cows, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against cows with legs on their backs - it doesn't make them any less - or more - than cows.

.

If I am reading all of this correctly, would it be fair to say that no creationist will accept any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like?

LoricaLady said:

See Spike Psarris vid on the Big Bang. Like me, he, a scientist working for the navy in astronomy, started out believing in evolution but the data persuaded him that creation was the only scientific explanation for what is seen out there. I believed in evolution all my life. I never even knew anyone who doubted it was true. Then I read a book by Dr. Gary Parker - one of many formerly atheist scientists, in fact one who used to teach evolution as fact at the university level - called Creation Facts of Life. By the time I was finished with that book I was laughing, really hard, at evolultion.

Click to expand...

Spike's videos are great aren't they? I have two of his DVDs and he's told me that a third one in the series, dealing specifically with the so-called Big Bang and other fairy tale ideas like dark matter/energy is due out this Autumn/Fall. Also, I agree that Dr Gary Parker's videos make excellent viewing and he's got a great sense of humour ("From Evolution to Creation" is another one of his brilliant DVDs). I'd also recommend checking out "4 Power Questions to ask an Evolutionist" by Mike Riddle and of course, the new DVD entitled "Evolution's Achilles Heels" from creation.com makes for compelling viewing. These people are doing such a wonderful job and I'm sure that The Lord must have raised them up at this time to help counteract the false religion of evolution.

LoricaLady said:

We already knew animals can change. Farmers have been changing animals and plants for thousands of years. Result? Lots of changes, but cows stay cows, pigs stay pigs, tulips stay tulips. That's not evidence that change leads to evolution, it's evidence that change does NOT lead to evolution.

Click to expand...

More extreme varieties of dogs and wolves are different enough that there are more different than many different naturally occurring organisms that we call different species. If we wanted to we could breed a non-flying creature out of a flying bird, by selecting for small wings and big legs and body. Evolution is just the sort of change that we see in variety selection taken further. There is no reason why we couldn't, over time, breed a dog to create a seal. All the basic morphology is there, as well as a liking of water and ability to swim. It would just take many lifetimes to do it.

Last response. Not to be rude, but I truly am limited for time and probably shouldn't have started this at this time.

Dogs and wolves give evidence against evolution. Yes they have changed. But they are still the same species even after being bred under different circumstances. I am not saying that new species are not being created btw. New ones are found all the time. But 200 species of bees are still bees.

Click to expand...

Only because we humans call them the same species. As I said there are natural creatures more simlar than extreme dog breeds and wolves that we call different species. Because we know the history of dogs, we put them in the same species.

You say that bees are bees. But, we keep finding fossils and even living creatures that are intermediate between 'types'. E.g. people talk of fish and reptiles, well amphibians are intermediate between them.

Look at all those fish in the ocean. Countless species. Yet each one is a fish. No fins are seen turning into feet. Yes the walking fish and the flying fish use their fins in novel ways, but they are 100% fins, not feet. Fin DNA cannot turn into feet DNA. No one has ever seen the creation of new DNA though they spin stories to make you think they have evidence for that. But that's another story.

Click to expand...

In the fossil record, Tiktaalik shows an intermediate state between fins and feet. Fins turning into feet. In the modern world, the limbs of the mudskipper fish are evolved in a way that is distinctly limb like. Less transitional than Tiktaalik, but still showing an intermediate form. When you say that 'no one has ever seen the creation of new DNA', that is wrong. Any time we have a new mutation, that is the creation of new DNA. And, there are lots of examples of that. BTW: I think that Tiktaalik is one of the most interesting transitional fossils we have, and mudskippers and anabatids and other labyrinth fishes plus lungfishes etc. are among the most interesting living intermediate forms.

You seem to be possibly someone with an open mind.

I suggest, for starters, that you watch Don Patton's vid on Fossils. Then there is Spike Psarris vid on the Big Bang, Animals that Defy Evolution, Thermodyanmic Evidence For Creation. All on Youtube, but stuff like that is all over the net. There is sci-en-tif-ic evidence for creation. Check it out. Be able to say you have really listened to scientists on the other side. I've done my homework and read, and debunked, tons of stuff on evol. sites, like Talk Spin/Talk Origins. I hope you do yours but that's up to you.

Don't be fooled Sarah. Check it out.

Click to expand...

Youtube videos are a very poor source of information as anyone can post them without having to prove that it is likely that the information they present is correct. Do you have any articles published in reputable scientific journals that make these claims? Given what you write here, it doesn't fill me wtih confidence that your sources provide you with good solid information due to the quality of the argument in your posts.

Loudmouth said:

If I am reading all of this correctly, would it be fair to say that no creationist will accept any fossil as being transitional, no matter what it looks like?

Click to expand...

Some of this is a naming problem. E.g. if we didn't know of the existence of amphibians, but only named things 'fish' and 'reptiles', then amphibians are an intermediate form. But, because we've named these amphibians, then some people will claim that we have to provide the transitional forms between fish and amphibians and amphibians and reptiles. It's the naming of things that appears (to me) to create the expectation of there needing to be intermediate forms between things.

Not_By_Chance said:

I'd also recommend checking out "4 Power Questions to ask an Evolutionist" by Mike Riddle and of course, the new DVD entitled "Evolution's Achilles Heels" from creation.com makes for compelling viewing. These people are doing such a wonderful job and I'm sure that The Lord must have raised them up at this time to help counteract the false religion of evolution.

Click to expand...

What are these 'four power questions to ask an Evolutionist'?

Justatruthseeker said:

This is confirmed in over 100 years of mutational experiments in plant and animal husbandry. No new species ever arise - just infraspecific taxa.

Click to expand...

Really? So broccoli and brussels sprouts are still the same species?

DogmaHunter said:

Really? So broccoli and brussels sprouts are still the same species?

Click to expand...

Now you are catching on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broccoli
"Broccoli is an edible green plant in the cabbage family"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_sprout
"The Brussels sprout is a member of the Gemmifera Group of cabbages"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea
"Brassica oleracea is the species of plant that includes many common foods as cultivars, including cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi and kai-lan."

Or do you wish to further confirm my claims while overthrowing yours while still denying the truth? You should know better by now to even attempt such strawmen. But like all evolutionists you are simply going to make claims before doing any actual research, which would have informed you you were trying a strawman to begin with and saved us both wasted time.

Justatruthseeker said:

Now you are catching on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broccoli
"Broccoli is an edible green plant in the cabbage family"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_sprout
"The Brussels sprout is a member of the Gemmifera Group of cabbages"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brassica_oleracea
"Brassica oleracea is the species of plant that includes many common foods as cultivars, including cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts, collard greens, savoy, kohlrabi and kai-lan."

Or do you wish to further confirm my claims while overthrowing yours while still denying the truth?

Click to expand...

Brassicas are like dogs. They have been selectively bred for so long that they would be described as different species should they occur in the wild. However, beause we know they were selectively bred, we have chosen to keep the species name of the original species. Can anyone name any wild/natural form plant which has varieties that differ as much as broccoli and brussel sprouts, but are still described as one species? Same applies to Great Danes and Pugs.

AnotherAtheist said:

Brassicas are like dogs. They have been selectively bred for so long that they would be described as different species should they occur in the wild. However, beause we know they were selectively bred, we have chosen to keep the species name of the original species. Can anyone name any wild/natural form plant which has varieties that differ as much as broccoli and brussel sprouts, but are still described as one species? Same applies to Great Danes and Pugs.

Click to expand...

No they wouldn't be, and if they were they would be classified incorrectly. Stop with the strawmen already.

What you mean to say is that you can only get away with it for fossils because you haven't a clue as to their true lineage. And you can't get away with it with dogs, cats and plants because you do know their true lineage. You simply can't incorrectly classify them because you are aware of their lineage.

Great Danes and Pugs are the same species - just different breeds thereof, which you should know by now and stop trying strawmen. Just as Asian, African, Caucasian etc are all merely different breeds of the same species.

Or would you like to discuss greatdanoodles too?

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/g/greatdanoodle.htm

Try all you like, but your strawmen hold no water.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/5/l_015_02.html
"From Pekingese to St. Bernard and greyhound, dogs come in such startling variety it's easy to forget they belong to the same species. The profusion of breeds today -- at least 150 -- reflects intense, purposeful interbreeding of dogs in the past 150 years."

So stop trying to purposefully ignore they belong to the same species. Or did you just easily forget?

Justatruthseeker said:

No they wouldn't be, and if they were they would be classified incorrectly. Stop with the strawmen already.

What you mean to say is that you can only get away with it for fossils because you haven't a clue as to their true lineage. And you can't get away with it with dogs, cats and plants because you do know their true lineage. You simply can't incorrectly classify them because you are aware of their lineage.

Great Danes and Pugs are the same species - just different breeds thereof, which you should know by now and stop trying strawmen. Just as Asian, African, Caucasian etc are all merely different breeds of the same species.

Or would you like to discuss greatdanoodles too?

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/g/greatdanoodle.htm

Try all you like, but your strawmen hold no water.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are the same species, because we call them the same species. They are as different as closely related different species are. So, we have demonstrated that we can artificially create different species, we just haven't chosen to say that we have. The assignment of species names is a subjective human choice, not objective reality.

Why do you think that a link to a greatdanoodle answers my point?

AnotherAtheist said:

Yes, they are the same species, because we call them the same species. They are as different as closely related different species are. So, we have demonstrated that we can artificially create different species, we just haven't chosen to say that we have. The assignment of species names is a subjective human choice, not objective reality.

Why do you think that a link to a greatdanoodle answers my point?

Click to expand...

Name one interrelated species that are as similar as dogs are that you have not classified correctly????????

The assignment of species names is a subjective human choice, not objective reality.

Click to expand...

Of course it has nothing to do with reality - or you would not be calling birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring separate species. And then instead of admitting to the mistake in classification continue to lie to cover up the mistake. I already know your classifications do not match any type of reality as we know it. Your point being what besides classification by whim?

Because the greatdanoodle gives lie to the claim you just made - that they are seperate species - because separate species are incapable of interbreeding. The fact you know they are descended from the same species should tell you this. At the most, being you know their lineage, you can only classify them as sub-species or infra-specific taxa and never a new species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

You can't even get your own science to agree with you.

Justatruthseeker said:

Name one interrelated species that are as similar as dogs are that you have not classified correctly????????

Of course it has nothing to do with reality - or you would not be calling birds that interbreed and produce fertile offspring separate species. And then instead of admitting to the mistake in classification continue to lie to cover up the mistake. I already know your classifications do not match any type of reality as we know it. Your point being what besides classification by whim?

Click to expand...

There are lots of separate species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. E.g. people who keep cichlids from Lake Victoria in aquariums have to be careful about keeping different species in the same aquarium due to the very high chance that they will interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Many plants that we can buy are fertile hybrids between different species.E.g. see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)#Hybrid_plants

Because the greatdanoodle gives lie to the claim you just made - that they are seperate species - because separate species are incapable of interbreeding. The fact you know they are descended from the same species should tell you this. At the most, being you know their lineage, you can only classify them as sub-species or infra-specific taxa and never a new species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

Click to expand...

Your very link also lists other species concepts. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Other_species_concepts

The reason that we have other species concepts is that early on we realised that the simple definition of being able to breed and produce fertile offspring doesn't match the species that we find in nature. We can find lots of organisms in nature that we name as different species but which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

If we wanted to produce different species of dogs that fulfil the reproductive species concept, then we could (e.g.) selectively breed animals (e.g. dogs) with incompatible genitals. If they are unable to mate, then they would be reproductively isolated.

You asked me to provide an example of organisms that can hybridise and produce fertile offspring. How about the lily × Fatshedera lizei, a hybrid between Hedera helix and Fatsia japonica. Note that this is a man-made hybrid that we have given its own species name. So, we have created new species.

BGTW: Here is a man-made species of fruit fly that is reproductively isolated created by genetic manipulation.

http://www.examiner.com/article/first-man-made-species-revealed

AnotherAtheist said:

There are lots of separate species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. E.g. people who keep cichlids from Lake Victoria in aquariums have to be careful about keeping different species in the same aquarium due to the very high chance that they will interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Many plants that we can buy are fertile hybrids between different species.E.g. see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_(biology)#Hybrid_plants



Your very link also lists other species concepts. Look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Other_species_concepts

The reason that we have other species concepts is that early on we realised that the simple definition of being able to breed and produce fertile offspring doesn't match the species that we find in nature. We can find lots of organisms in nature that we name as different species but which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

If we wanted to produce different species of dogs that fulfil the reproductive species concept, then we could (e.g.) selectively breed animals (e.g. dogs) with incompatible genitals. If they are unable to mate, then they would be reproductively isolated.

You asked me to provide an example of organisms that can hybridise and produce fertile offspring. How about the lily × Fatshedera lizei, a hybrid between Hedera helix and Fatsia japonica. Note that this is a man-made hybrid that we have given its own species name. So, we have created new species.

BGTW: Here is a man-made species of fruit fly that is reproductively isolated created by genetic manipulation.

http://www.examiner.com/article/first-man-made-species-revealed

Click to expand...

That's just it - your confused classification system willy nilly. Birds that do not breed are separate species. Birds that do breed are separate species. Birds that do interbreed are also the same species. You have no consistency - merely what you decide they should be on any given day.

It is your erroneous belief that separate species can interbreed. They are breeds of the same species. The prime definition of what separates one species from the next. They then through reproduction and natural forces become subspecies or infraspecific taxa.

Lets look at your claimed Darwin's Finches being separate species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Tell me, which of the four factors caused their speciation? I know what the papers claim - but let's see you fit the definitions. The experts also claimed Coelacanth used its flippers as legs and was a transitory species - until they were found to be alive of course and could actually be studied. Once again, you keep presenting flawed classifications as if they are supposed to be evidence. You can't defend a single one of them by the scientific definition of species - subspecies and other infraspecific taxa. The science you claim to follow defeats you before you even begin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms where two hybrids are capable of reproducing fertile offspring, typically using sexual reproduction.... Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

And still you refuse to correct your mistakes in classification. You have hard scientific evidence that they incorrectly classified half of just the twelve major dinosaur groups of North America. Or are you like most evolutionists one of those that ignores any science not fitting his belief system? Solid science based upon everything known of bone growth.

And that man-made fruitfly is a "listen closely" - subspecies. Adapted by local conditions - or man - it is infraspecific taxa - despite any claims to the contrary. Again - your own science betrays your strawmen.

Justatruthseeker said:

That's just it - your confused classification system willy nilly. Birds that do not breed are separate species. Birds that do breed are separate species. Birds that do interbreed are also the same species. You have no consistency - merely what you decide they should be on any given day.

It is your erroneous belief that separate species can interbreed. They are breeds of the same species. The prime definition of what separates one species from the next. They then through reproduction and natural forces become subspecies or infraspecific taxa.

Click to expand...

First, it is not my classification system. The species that I list are all the accepted species names for these organisms. These have been decided by the scientific community, not by me. I've given you species names so you can check this out if you like.

You say that it is '[my] erroneous belief that separate species can interbreed.' It is not an erroneous belief. I have given you names of real species that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. I've even given you examples of plants from whole different genuses that can crossbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Here's another one, backed up by a reference. The british freshwater fish roach and bream which are different species (not decided by me) can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Depending on the history of hybridisation the hybrid fish may even have quite high fertility.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10641269908951360

Here's the abstract.

The literature was reviewed to determine the number of fertile, interspecific fish hybrids produced naturally and artificially. A total of 130 interspecific, natural crosses resulted in fertile F1 hybrids, and 150 artificially produced interspecific crosses produced fertile F1 hybrids. The validity of species concepts with reproductive isolation in their definition is questioned. The presence of fertile hybrids in 45 intergeneric crosses makes their current classification questionable.

Click to expand...

Note the very relevant (to our discussion) words 'The validity of species concepts with reproductive isolation in their definition is questioned.'

There are loads of examples of different species (not decided by me) that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring (not made up by me). Hence, your whole argument that different species cannot breed and produce fertile offspring is demonstrably wrong.

You then discussed 'your claimed Darwin's Finches being separate species. I never said anything about Darwin's Finches, not anything about the Coelacanth, not about quite a few other things you then went on to, so I am going to ignore those irrelevant diversions in this post.

My point is that in selectively breeding both Great Danes and Pugs (replacing Pugs with Chihuahuas makes an even better example) we have produced organisms that are different enough that if they occurred in the wild we would call them different species. You have a counter-argument that since in theory they can produce fertile offspring they cannot be different species. I have given you examples that organisms are often grouped into different species even though they can (and do) hybridise and produce fertile offspring.

Broccoli and Brussel Sprouts are another example. If they were present in the wild, they would be called different species.

And there are examples where we have produced new species. Cross-breeding plants of different genuses have produced new plants of a different species. Finally genetic manipulation has produced a fruit fly of a new species. So, clearly we can and have produced new species.

The concept of a 'species' is far far, less clear-cut than you claim. And there are a LOT of organisms out there that we group into different species even though they are able to (and do) breed and produce fertile offspring. If we had discovered Great Danes and Pugs living in the natural world, we would have assigned them to different species.