The evidence for Evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

They are the same species. They were simply incorrectly classified as separate species when people actual believed they couldn't mate and produce fertile offspring.

We have been over this before. They may reproduce, but their offspring have greatly reduced fertility. That means that they are different species.

Why can't you get even this right?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is true, and it is quite likely that, in a few cases in the fossil record, variations within a species have been misinterpreted as separate species. But, as you are clearly aware, the example of dogs is not an example of evolution by natural selection.

Dogs are exactly what would occur except what you have seen man do in a few hundred would if left to natural bringing together from famine, migration, geological changes have occurred more slowly and over millions of years. Instead of over a hundred breeds (infraspecific taxa) there would be only a few as in the fossil record you have incorrectly classified.

But I notice when man tinkers with bacteria in the lab you don't hesitate to exclaim proof of natural selection. So you will excuse me if I find your reasoning for refusing to accept what you observe a little lacking. So when man tinkers with say plants, we can discard all those too? Or just what are you implying?

The large variations in dog breeds that we see from the deliberate selective breeding of dogs by humans could only come about through evolution by natural selection if the breeds were reproductively isolated populations and their variations were existential advantages for corresponding environmental niches.

That's what you said about Darwins Finches too, yet they are interbreeding to the point where their DNA can't be told apart, yet you have no problem classifying them as seperate species even if they are not reproductively isolated. Which by the way was the sole reason they were originally classified as seperate species, so that classification was based upon an error from the start and speciation from reproductive isolation never occurred. So you will have to excuse me again if I feel your reasoning is again, lacking.

If this had been the case, it would have taken very much longer for the full extent of the variations to become apparent, and the corresponding populations would rightly be considered separate species. So if we found such variation in the fossil record, we would be justified in interpreting them as separate species or sub-species.

No you wouldn't. The difference is you have clear cut evidence of the lineage of dogs whereas in the fossil record you don't have a clue as you never observed any of them in life. Whether a Husky and a Mastiff are separated by 100 years or 100 million makes no difference.

Our distant descendants (if we survive long enough) may find fossils of today's domestic canines and perhaps remark on the extent of their variation; but they would see that this variation had arisen in too short a time for it to be the result of evolution by natural selection, that the variants were obviously not reproductively isolated, that the more extreme were quite unsuited to natural environmental niches, that they were generally associated with human habitation, and that where they were not so associated, their variations quickly regressed to a mean; so it would be clear that they were not separate species, but the products of deliberate selective breeding.

Just sayin'.

Again, I find your reasonings lacking in sincerity since what man causes in the lab with bacteria and plants with deliberate selective breeding or gene tampering, you have no problem with.

Just saying

 

[Justatruthseeker]

We have been over this before. They may reproduce, but their offspring have greatly reduced fertility. That means that they are different species.

Why can't you get even this right?

Whatever excuses you need to tell yourself to feel better. You need to study history. The ONLY reason they were classified as seperate species was because it was once believed they couldn't produce fertile offspring.

And that reduced fertility is simply an assumption not supported by any actual breeding tests.

Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!

But like I said, whatever you need to tell yourself to make the lie of evolution more digestible. Wouldn't want you throwing up in the forum.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not in your world where two animals can mate right in front of your eyes and you can ignore the incorrect classification of them as seperate species.

I'm not interested in quibbling over the classification of species, I know you feel strongly about it but I don't see how the groups that people decide to put different animals into throws any doubt onto the TOE. Actually, I'll go further than that... If, as you seem to think, animals were created in their own 'kinds' we wouldn't see these blurred lines between different groups.

Adam and Eve. You know it takes two to mate right? You know that after countless mutations and countless generations so that every mutation was gone through twice, those E. coli remained E. coli. They have no way to receive new genomes, so will forever stay E. coli. This is why your theory of simple to complex never works.

You start with the wrong approach. Start with two genetically perfect infraspecific taxa with all the genetic variables contained within

LOL, you accuse others of starting with the wrong approach. You start with an ancient myth and then make things up to explain observations we can make today. Where is the evidence that the human race started with two beings with some sort of super-genes? We can pin point mutations in the human genome that over the course of our development has helped us to adapt to different environments. When you balance the mountains of evidence from multiple fields of science against your unevidenced claim of an original two people with 'super-genetics' the levels of your cognitive dissonance it beggars belief.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, if you can present evidence for your 'super genetics' idea, predictions we could use to confirm it, or any way of falsifying it for example we can move the discussion forward.

 

[Jimmy D]

You need to study history.

Do you think history supports the notion that the globe was populated by a single family 4000 years ago?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you think history supports the notion that the globe was populated by a single family 4000 years ago?

His story does ... yes.

Current interpretation of history does not.

Current interpretation of history can support Earth being visited by aliens from another planet.

 

[Jimmy D]

His story does ... yes.

Current interpretation of history does not.

Can't argue with that.

Current interpretation of history can support Earth being visited by aliens from another planet.

I'm afraid to ask.... so I won't.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm afraid to ask.... so I won't.

Have you ever read, Chariot of the Gods? or seen the Nazca Lines?

 

[Jimmy D]

Have you ever read, Chariot of the Gods? or seen the Nazca Lines?

Ok, I get you now, and I disagree. I doubt you'll find many historians who interpret* such things as proof of aliens.

*by which I mean imagine.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Dogs are exactly what would occur except what you have seen man do in a few hundred would if left to natural bringing together from famine, migration, geological changes have occurred more slowly and over millions of years. Instead of over a hundred breeds (infraspecific taxa) there would be only a few as in the fossil record you have incorrectly classified.

Really? You care to take a guess at what natural selective pressures would result in bulldogs, or poodles, or shi tzus, or dachshunds, King Charles spaniels, or pekingese?

You're welcome to swap the label 'species' for 'sub-species' and vice-versa wherever you like. There are many definitions of 'species'. The ToE doesn't depend on the definition of species, it's a convenient categorization that has fuzzy edges. How many grains of sand does it take to make a heap?

But I notice when man tinkers with bacteria in the lab you don't hesitate to exclaim proof of natural selection.

A plain lie. I have never made such a claim.

So when man tinkers with say plants, we can discard all those too? Or just what are you implying?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Discard what plants? what are you implying?

That's what you said about Darwins Finches too, yet they are interbreeding to the point where their DNA can't be told apart, yet you have no problem classifying them as seperate species even if they are not reproductively isolated.

You're making false accusations at the wrong person; I've said nothing about Darwin's finches in this thread, and I've never attempted to classify them.

So you will have to excuse me again if I feel your reasoning is again, lacking.

What is it you think I said about Darwin's finches?

I find your reasonings lacking in sincerity since what man causes in the lab with bacteria and plants with deliberate selective breeding or gene tampering, you have no problem with.

That is also untrue - you make a poor mind-reader - but what does it have to do with my reasoning or sincerity?

If you disagree with what I've said, quote the relevant statements and make a rational argument to refute them (it might help if you read over your posts before submitting them, so you can make them readable). Don't just make up stuff you think I've said and make vague assertions. It sounds like you're talking nonsense because you've nothing sensible to say.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Have you ever read, Chariot of the Gods? or seen the Nazca Lines?

Yes; without wishing to derail the thread, von Däniken is a fraud (or an idiot), not an archaeologist or anthropologist - his misinterpretations were debunked years ago. The Nazca lines were made by the people of the area for an unknown ritual purpose (there are many hypotheses) - the claim that they can only be seen from the air is nonsense, they were discovered by looking down from the surrounding hills.

But this isn't relevant to the thread so I won't comment further on it.

 

[AV1611VET]

But this isn't relevant to the thread so I won't comment further on it.

Whew!

Thank you!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'm not interested in quibbling over the classification of species, I know you feel strongly about it but I don't see how the groups that people decide to put different animals into throws any doubt onto the TOE.

Because if your classifications of them as separate species is incorrect, then your line of progression from species to species is incorrect. If say you only found dogs in the fossil record and claimed the distinct evolutionary line from species to species because you classified them incorrectly as separate species, then your TOE would be based upon a false classification, as one would never have evolved into a separate species. You just don't want to accept this so even though you know it is true will pretend you don't understand.

Actually, I'll go further than that... If, as you seem to think, animals were created in their own 'kinds' we wouldn't see these blurred lines between different groups.

We don't. I'm not the one trying to avoid birds mating right in front of my eyes and producing fertile offspring as being the same species. I'm not the one trying to uphold an incorrect classification from the start based upon reproductive isolation causing speciation, when there was never speciation from reproductive isolation to begin with since there was never reproductive isolation. The only reason 90% of the lines are blurred is because they ignore what is happening right in front of their eyes.

Scientists have egos, and scientists like to name things.....

where are the baby dinosaurs

And so they name things as separate species before even doing proper study because they look a little different. Just like they did with babies and adults of the same species. So if they cant even get babies and adults correct, what makes you believe they got the infraspecific taxa correct? Especially when they have no infraspecific taxa within the species in the fossil record, despite it being clear they are predominate in the species.

LOL, you accuse others of starting with the wrong approach. You start with an ancient myth and then make things up to explain observations we can make today. Where is the evidence that the human race started with two beings with some sort of super-genes?

Have you ever seen a human come about by any other means but mating? I didn't think so, so who is now relying on pure imagination??????

We can pin point mutations in the human genome that over the course of our development has helped us to adapt to different environments. When you balance the mountains of evidence from multiple fields of science against your unevidenced claim of an original two people with 'super-genetics' the levels of your cognitive dissonance it beggars belief.

Which mutations came from already preexisting genes. You have NEVER ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, observed new DNA come about. Yet this fantasy is the entire basis of your belief. Your reliance on things never once observed or replicated is larger than mine. At least I am not going against every experiment ever made in which E coli bacteria remain E coli bacteria no matter how many times they are mutated. Then you want everyone to ignore this and pretend they can magically form DNA that never existed. Even if every mutation ever observed was a copy variation from (Ill say this slowly since you want to start degrading into belligerence) PREEXISTING GENOMES.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, if you can present evidence for your 'super genetics' idea, predictions we could use to confirm it, or any way of falsifying it for example we can move the discussion forward.

If you could present any evidence that new DNA can arise where none existed before, for example, we could also move this discussion forward. You got an entire human genome sequenced and know for a fact that it shows no creation of new DNA anywhere in the line. Perhaps a few deletions from mutations, but perhaps you can show me where say the letter T once didn't exist and then was magically created out of the others???

I didn't think so, but yet here you are always claiming it as a fact when there is less evidence for it than starting with a perfect genome....

 

[Speedwell]

Which mutations came from already preexisting genes. You have NEVER ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, observed new DNA come about.



If you could present any evidence that new DNA can arise where none existed before, for example, we could also move this discussion forward. .

I think you must have the theory of evolution confused with some other theory that only you know about.

 

[Jimmy D]

Because if your classifications of them as separate species is incorrect, then your line of progression from species to species is incorrect. If say you only found dogs in the fossil record and claimed the distinct evolutionary line from species to species because you classified them incorrectly as separate species, then your TOE would be based upon a false classification, as one would never have evolved into a separate species. You just don't want to accept this so even though you know it is true will pretend you don't understand.

As I said, your quibbles over classification have no bearing on the TOE. If, as you keep insisting, we look at dogs, we could analyze and compare the DNA and anatomy of different breeds and get a solid understanding of their family tree. As we can and do with all life. Whether you call them different species, 'infra specific tax', kinds, races or breeds has no bearing on that.

We don't. I'm not the one trying to avoid birds mating right in front of my eyes and producing fertile offspring as being the same species. I'm not the one trying to uphold an incorrect classification from the start based upon reproductive isolation causing speciation, when there was never speciation from reproductive isolation to begin with since there was never reproductive isolation. The only reason 90% of the lines are blurred is because they ignore what is happening right in front of their eyes.

Scientists have egos, and scientists like to name things.....

where are the baby dinosaurs

And so they name things as separate species before even doing proper study because they look a little different. Just like they did with babies and adults of the same species. So if they cant even get babies and adults correct, what makes you believe they got the infraspecific taxa correct? Especially when they have no infraspecific taxa within the species in the fossil record, despite it being clear they are predominate in the species.

See above.

Have you ever seen a human come about by any other means but mating? I didn't think so, so who is now relying on pure imagination??????

LOL. Isn't it you arguing for special creation?

Which mutations came from already preexisting genes. You have NEVER ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, observed new DNA come about. Yet this fantasy is the entire basis of your belief. Your reliance on things never once observed or replicated is larger than mine. At least I am not going against every experiment ever made in which E coli bacteria remain E coli bacteria no matter how many times they are mutated. Then you want everyone to ignore this and pretend they can magically form DNA that never existed. Even if every mutation ever observed was a copy variation from (Ill say this slowly since you want to start degrading into belligerence) PREEXISTING GENOMES.

Are you saying that benficial mutations don't occur?!? Are you really saying that?

If you could present any evidence that new DNA can arise where none existed before, for example, we could also move this discussion forward. You got an entire human genome sequenced and know for a fact that it shows no creation of new DNA anywhere in the line. Perhaps a few deletions from mutations, but perhaps you can show me where say the letter T once didn't exist and then was magically created out of the others???

I didn't think so, but yet here you are always claiming it as a fact when there is less evidence for it than starting with a perfect genome....

New DNA? What does that mean?

Of course I can provide evidence for an example of a mutation which is beneficial for a population's survival, you don't have to be Francis Collins to use google. I'm not going to though, as your response is the equivalent of a five year old going "I know I am but what are you?!". I asked, in a reasonable manner, for evidence of your claim of 'super genome' and you lamely attempted to deflect it with your strawman. You don't have any evidence for your claim do you? At least admit it's a belief based on religion rather than scientific evidence and we can move on. I repeat, put up or shut up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whatever excuses you need to tell yourself to feel better. You need to study history. The ONLY reason they were classified as seperate species was because it was once believed they couldn't produce fertile offspring.

And that reduced fertility is simply an assumption not supported by any actual breeding tests.

Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!

But like I said, whatever you need to tell yourself to make the lie of evolution more digestible. Wouldn't want you throwing up in the forum.

Wrong again Justa. Their sterility is greatly reduced first all male Ligers and Tigons are sterile. You keep making the same rather foolish errors of having an all or nothing mindset. And the fertility of female ligers is reduced. I see that you found the one website that states females are fertile, but of course they went overboard and tried to claim they are very fertile.

For such a weak and rather idiotic website Wiki is a more than ample refutation:

Liger - Wikipedia

"
Other big cat hybrids can reach similar sizes; the litigon, a rare hybrid of a male lion and a female tigon, is roughly the same size as the liger, with a male named Cubanacan (at the Alipore Zoo in India) reaching 363 kg (800 lb).[12] The extreme rarity of these second-generation hybrids may make it difficult to ascertain whether they are larger or smaller, on average than the liger.

It is wrongly believed that ligers continue to grow throughout their lives due to hormonal issues.[citation needed] It may be that they simply grow far more during their growing years and take longer to reach their full adult size. Further growth in shoulder height and body length is not seen in ligers over 6 years old, as in both lions and tigers. Male ligers also have the same levels of testosterone on average as an adult male lion, yet are azoospermic in accordance with Haldane's rule. In addition, female ligers may also attain great size, weighing approximately 320 kg (705 lb) and reaching 3.05 m (10 ft) long on average, and are often fertile. In contrast, pumapards (hybrids between pumas and leopards) tend to exhibit dwarfism."

Of course you tried to change what I wrote, I did not make the error that you made. I did not say all are infertile, I said that they have reduced fertility.

And a little more from the article:

"Fertility
The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y).

According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[18]"

Two examples of offspring from ligers and tigons indicates that they are of very low fertility. You found an article by rather prejudicial authors, that did not seem to be very bright. Perhaps they are creationists too.

And remember, I don't have to lie to myself. The evidence is all on my side.

In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[19]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Which mutations came from already preexisting genes.

Yup, that's how evolution works.

You have NEVER ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, observed new DNA come about.

What, exactly, do you mean by 'new DNA' ? mutations cause the modification, duplication, or deletion of existing DNA sequences resulting in different sequences. They're 'new' sequences in the sense of being different, and duplications are 'new' also in the sense of being additions. What did you think it was?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Regardless of how many Asians mate with Asians, those Asians remain Asians.

No matter how many Huskies mate with other Huskies, those Huskies remain Huskies.

Just like evolution predicts.

Now, if those huskies would suddenly produce a pitbull - then the theory would be in trouble.

The ONLY time you have ever observed something new in the species is when two infraspecific taxa mate.

You also seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between race and species.

So we know by observation that many infraspecific taxa within the species exist. Asian, African, Afro-Asian, etc are all different infraspecific taxa within the species.

And since you are a creationists, you must necessarily believe that some kind of evolutionary process produced all those different races, because there are more then 2, while according to your mythology, it started with just 2 individuals named Adam and Eve.

So yea... let's turn this nonsense around, shall we?
How do YOU explain the different races of humans, if not by an evolutionary process, assuming it all started out with 2 individuals?

Just as if you had never seen a dog in real life but had only fossils of them you would incorrectly classify the different infraspecific taxa as seperate species. You would insist incorrectly that the Chinook evolved from the Husky or Mastiff simply because it would appear later in the strata.

That's actually an inappropriate and dishonest thing to say. Because the many different races of dogs that we all know and love... are not natural.

Many of them wouldn't even be able to survive in the wild!

Worse yet you would classify the Husky, Mastiff and Chinook as seperate species. And be wrong!

I wouldn't know about that. I'm actually not so sure.
In any case, if we would manage to get our hands on their DNA, that situation would quickly be rectified and we would see how they fit unto the phylogenetic tree of life. Their shared ancestry would be exposed.

And this is the heart of the problem, you have incorrectly classified the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as seperate species, this leads you to your incorrect conclusions.

And you, off course, know better then the thousands, millions of actual experts in this field around the world.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Which mutations came from already preexisting genes. You have NEVER ONCE IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE, observed new DNA come about. Yet this fantasy is the entire basis of your belief. Your reliance on things never once observed or replicated is larger than mine. At least I am not going against every experiment ever made in which E coli bacteria remain E coli bacteria no matter how many times they are mutated. Then you want everyone to ignore this and pretend they can magically form DNA that never existed. Even if every mutation ever observed was a copy variation from (Ill say this slowly since you want to start degrading into belligerence) PREEXISTING GENOMES.

I'm not gonna bother with correcting all the blatant misconceptions in that paragraphe.

Instead, I'm just going to tell you that, unless you actually inform yourself on how the theory of evolution really says, how it really is said to work... then nothing you say about it (pro or con) is of any value.

You literally managed to get everything wrong here.

I don't even know where to begin.

So the best I can do at this point is to advice you to go away and learn a bit of biology 101 before trying again.

But I have a feeling that you'll be back faster then Arnold can say "I'll be back", with the same misconceptions and nonsense about huskies again...

If you could present any evidence that new DNA can arise where none existed before, for example, we could also move this discussion forward.

Duplication.
Done.

Denial in 3...2...1...

You got an entire human genome sequenced and know for a fact that it shows no creation of new DNA anywhere in the line. Perhaps a few deletions from mutations, but perhaps you can show me where say the letter T once didn't exist and then was magically created out of the others???

DNA does not consist of letters. It consists of molecules which are represented by letters.

 

[Dharma Flower]

The evidence for Evolution presented by Darwin nicely and concisely compiled by a historian (at 1:20).

When dealing with matters of prehistory, before anyone was around to witness what really happened, what matters more than the evidence is one's interpretation of the evidence: