Evolution's Brick Wall: Part II

[Justatruthseeker]

It's all fake anyways.

For example the western populations of the Yellow-rumped Warbler (which have yellow throats) were previously considered a species, Audubon's Warbler, distinct from the eastern Myrtle Warblers (which have white throats), largely because of differences in appearance. Then it was discovered that the breeding ranges of Audubon's and Myrtle Warblers overlap broadly in a band from southeastern Alaska through central British Columbia to southern Alberta, and that the two "species" hybridize freely within this area. The forms intergrade, and taxonomists now consider them to be subspecies of a single species, the Yellow-rumped Warbler. Subspecies are simply populations or sets of populations within a species that are sufficiently distinct that taxonomists have found it convenient to formally name them, but not distinct enough to prevent hybridization where two populations come into contact.

So we see exactly what should be done with those finches. They know it, but can't allow themselves to dare change the incorrect classification of Darwin's precious birds....

 

[Heissonear]

A wall of irrelevance to hide the fact that you got caught making a malicious false accusation to cover up the fact that you cannot understand the conclusions in the very papers that you crazily think support your ignorant notions.

Reportable, Sir. Can you keep the topic on the OP?

 

[Kylie]

Afraid I can't help you then, if you're going to withhold a key piece of information from me.

Your challenge is the equivalent of:

Kylie: Tell me, AV, 2x + y = n
AV: Give me the value for n, and I'll give you the value for y.
Kylie: Nothing doing.

And what if I asked you this question 600 years ago? Are you telling me that it was impossible to tell if two creatures were in the same Kind (created by God) until humans, poor weak, flawed imperfect Humans, created a system to classify animals?

And how about this...

Is Boloceroides daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

BTW, in the above example, n=10. Now please tell me the value of y.

 

[Kylie]

Female Ligers can breed with either of its parents.... so female Ligers are still the same Kind as it's parents. Now you may if you wish call the male Liger a separate Kind, although that wont do much good since it is headed only towards extinction.

But the offspring isn't a liger, is it? It's a liliger. Or a tiliger. You are talking about something you don't understand. And to make it worse, you don't seem to WANT to understand it. You just want to use it to go on about how your ideas are correct.

So since you apparently believe Tigers and lions are separate species (even if producing fertile offspring), then what species is the Liger?????

It's a hybrid.

And don't you remember your own source you presented earlier in another thread????

Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!

"Male Ligers haven't been involved in any mating to transfer their genes to the offsprings. But according to different lab tests, male ligers do have a certain high degree of testosterone presence within their body...."

Remember, they claimed for decades that Lions and Tigers could also not produce offspring at all. It was that reason alone they were called separate species to begin with. It took repeated attempts over 20 years to finally produce them in captivity.

That is the key word, captivity, where they didn't do well under stress, and it isn't in their nature to mate to begin with.

What are you blabbering about? I never claimed that all ligers were sterile, did I? I said that MALES are sterile, while the females were fertile.

Trying to have a discussion is very painful. You can't keep track of what has been said, and you don't understand the things you are trying to talk about.

That's one of the biggest and false rumors there are.

Ligers and C-Section

"The biggest rumor about ligers is that their mother (tigress) has to go through a c-section at the time of birth and normal birth is not possible for the ligers. This is absolutely wrong because there are many cases where the liger cubs are born without c-section. Even there are reports of liger cubs being accidentally born as in the case of Taiwan, Russia and Korea and these cubs were born without c-section. Yes there might have been some rare occasions when liger cubs would have been born as a result of c-section but that does not mean that this incident can be generalized for the ligers."

"Critics also argue that Liger cubs are bigger in size than the tiger cubs. So they claim this bigger size as the key reason for the liger cubs to go for c-section. This is again absolutely wrong because liger cubs are almost equal in size to that of the tiger cubs. Tiger cubs are around 1.6 to 2.0 pounds while liger cubs are also around 1.6 to 2.0 pounds. This small variation within the weights of the liger cubs is marginal and it does not contribute for any sort of c-section within tigresses. Moreover; the size i.e., overall length, width of head and body etc. for liger cubs is also same as that of the tiger cubs. Therefore; whoever says that a liger cub has to go through c-section because of its bigger size is absolutely wrong."

"However; liger cubs after their birth do experience a much faster growth than lion and tiger cubs and this is the key reason that after 4 years a liger reaches a maximum weight of around 1000 pounds. On the other hand; tigers and lions after 4 years gain a weight of around 400 to 500 pounds. So what basically critics did here is that they have associated the bigger size of the liger as also their birth size as well and tried to create a rumor about c-section. But current analysis proves that all such rumors are absolutely wrong."

Once again you seem incapable of actually understanding what people are trying to tell you.

The source I quoted says:

"Because ligers are usually larger than either parent, it also puts the tigress at great risk in carrying the young and may require C-section deliveries or kill her in the process."
​

Do you know what the word MAY means? Because it doesn't seem like you do.

 

[Kylie]

Then they are still not separate species.... since as you admitted it was a good indicator.

But let's go with your double-talk argument....

If two creatures interbreeding is not a foolproof indicator of same species..... then two creatures not interbreeding is not a foolproof indicator of separate species....

You want x to not always equal x, but y to always equal y. So if x is not always x, then y is not always y......

Which means neither of us can do math anymore since we don't know if x is x and y is y, so all of mathmatics just fell apart because of your arbitrary definitions.....

And hence this is why evolution always falls apart......

Wow, your lack of understanding is astonishing.

Take a single population.

Divide it into two populations.

As time passes, these two populations will face different pressures and evolve to adapt to them.

Eventually they will be different species.

If you take individuals from each of the two populations shortly after you divided them, they will be able to interbreed because they have not yet diverged enough to be sexually incompatible.

The longer you wait, the less likely it is that the two individuals will be able to interbreed.

Some intermediate stages we would expect to see are fertility problems with any offspring produced (such as ligers which are almost all sterile when it comes to males), or genetic problems which reduce the viability of the offspring.

There is nothing in the finch example that contradicts this.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is Boloceroides daphneae of the same Kind as Boloceroides mcmurrichi?

Yes, if they can mate with each other and have fertile offspring.

And how about that Post 148?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, if they can mate with each other and have fertile offspring.

And how about that Post 148?

They can? Or are you just guessing?

 

[AV1611VET]

They can? Or are you just guessing?

Kind = genus.

A Biblical kind must be able to do its part in replenishing the earth.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, if they can mate with each other and have fertile offspring.

Is that the best you can do? I even gave you the genus names and everything, which you claim are pivotal in making the determination, and you STILL have to resort to conditional answers? Come on, actually make a proper choice, would ya?

And how about that Post 148?

Answered your post 148 in my post 150. Which I have already told you of. Are you just ignoring me now?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that the best you can do?

Isn't that good enough?

You want to know what a kind is: it is a genus of animal that was created to replenish the earth.

Answered your post 148 in my post 150.

No, you didn't.

 

[Jimmy D]

Then they are still not separate species.... since as you admitted it was a good indicator.

But let's go with your double-talk argument....

If two creatures interbreeding is not a foolproof indicator of same species..... then two creatures not interbreeding is not a foolproof indicator of separate species....

You want x to not always equal x, but y to always equal y. So if x is not always x, then y is not always y......

Which means neither of us can do math anymore since we don't know if x is x and y is y, so all of mathmatics just fell apart because of your arbitrary definitions.....

And hence this is why evolution always falls apart......

Well done, you’ve understood that the taxonomic system is fairly arbitrary.

Now if you could acknowledge the reason for that we’d be really getting somewhere.

I’ll give you a hint.. it’s to do with the varying degrees of relatedness between species, as Kylie pointed out above.

Seems to go against this quaint idea of set “kinds” to me.

 

[xianghua]

AH! So two populations which are genetically isolated!

Tell me, if we take a single group and divide it into two groups which are genetically isolated, what will happen to them?

nothing interesting actually.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

nothing interesting actually.

Really? Nothing interesting is going to happen if we genetically isolate two groups of the same animal?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But the offspring isn't a liger, is it? It's a liliger. Or a tiliger. You are talking about something you don't understand. And to make it worse, you don't seem to WANT to understand it. You just want to use it to go on about how your ideas are correct.

And? The offspring of a Mastiff and a Husky is a Chinook. Doesn't make the Chinook a hybrid, now does it?????

It's a hybrid.

Avoidance.....

What species is it then? They call those finches hybrids too, yet each is also called a distinct species......

What are you blabbering about? I never claimed that all ligers were sterile, did I? I said that MALES are sterile, while the females were fertile.

Then only the males would be a separate species??????

Trying to have a discussion is very painful. You can't keep track of what has been said, and you don't understand the things you are trying to talk about.

it is painful trying to watch you do and say anything to avoid answering the questions....

Once again you seem incapable of actually understanding what people are trying to tell you.

The source I quoted says:

"Because ligers are usually larger than either parent, it also puts the tigress at great risk in carrying the young and may require C-section deliveries or kill her in the process."
​

Do you know what the word MAY means? Because it doesn't seem like you do.

Ahhh, so now you want to go from "and since they are larger than lions and tigers, giving birth is dangerous and often requires the mother to have a C-section."

to suddenly MAY...

You are so full of double-talk you should wash your mouth out....

And apparently you didn't read my source from the Liger foundation itself..... which states that when born Ligers are no bigger than Tigers. They simply grow faster after birth......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well done, you’ve understood that the taxonomic system is fairly arbitrary.

Now if you could acknowledge the reason for that we’d be really getting somewhere.

Because you don't want to admit that finches mating right in front of their noses are the same species and therefore Darwin was wrong.....

For example the western populations of the Yellow-rumped Warbler (which have yellow throats) were previously considered a species, Audubon's Warbler, distinct from the eastern Myrtle Warblers (which have white throats), largely because of differences in appearance. Then it was discovered that the breeding ranges of Audubon's and Myrtle Warblers overlap broadly in a band from southeastern Alaska through central British Columbia to southern Alberta, and that the two "species" hybridize freely within this area. The forms intergrade, and taxonomists now consider them to be subspecies of a single species, the Yellow-rumped Warbler. Subspecies are simply populations or sets of populations within a species that are sufficiently distinct that taxonomists have found it convenient to formally name them, but not distinct enough to prevent hybridization where two populations come into contact.

I’ll give you a hint.. it’s to do with the varying degrees of relatedness between species, as Kylie pointed out above.

It has to do with ignoring they are the same species.....

For example the western populations of the Yellow-rumped Warbler (which have yellow throats) were previously considered a species, Audubon's Warbler, distinct from the eastern Myrtle Warblers (which have white throats), largely because of differences in appearance. Then it was discovered that the breeding ranges of Audubon's and Myrtle Warblers overlap broadly in a band from southeastern Alaska through central British Columbia to southern Alberta, and that the two "species" hybridize freely within this area. The forms intergrade, and taxonomists now consider them to be subspecies of a single species, the Yellow-rumped Warbler. Subspecies are simply populations or sets of populations within a species that are sufficiently distinct that taxonomists have found it convenient to formally name them, but not distinct enough to prevent hybridization where two populations come into contact.

Seems to go against this quaint idea of set “kinds” to me.

Seems to go against their own classifications.....

For example the western populations of the Yellow-rumped Warbler (which have yellow throats) were previously considered a species, Audubon's Warbler, distinct from the eastern Myrtle Warblers (which have white throats), largely because of differences in appearance. Then it was discovered that the breeding ranges of Audubon's and Myrtle Warblers overlap broadly in a band from southeastern Alaska through central British Columbia to southern Alberta, and that the two "species" hybridize freely within this area. The forms intergrade, and taxonomists now consider them to be subspecies of a single species, the Yellow-rumped Warbler. Subspecies are simply populations or sets of populations within a species that are sufficiently distinct that taxonomists have found it convenient to formally name them, but not distinct enough to prevent hybridization where two populations come into contact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And? The offspring of a Mastiff

and a Husky

is a Chinook.

Doesn't make the Chinook a hybrid, now does it?????

Like the fish my jaw is dropped in amazement.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Like the fish my jaw is dropped in amazement.

Mine did too with that strawman....

Chinook Dog Breed Information

This is evolutionists best attempt to avoid reality people, remember that.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Mine did too with that strawman....

Chinook Dog Breed Information

This is evolutionists best attempt to avoid reality people, remember that.....

Not a strawman, the term applied to the salmon long before adopted by the AKC. Your poor arguments only deserved a humorous response.

By the way, "evolutionist" is also a rather poor term. It is much better to say "realist".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not a strawman, the term applied to the salmon long before adopted by the AKC.

Debate that with the AKC if you have a problem with dog breed naming......... Why don't you also argue with them to get them properly classified as subspecies????

I mean, you all seem to be big on the need to properly classify things....

Your poor arguments only deserved a humorous response.

If that's your excuse for not being able to respond to the subject of the post. I guess it helps in your own mind to justify your contradictions....

By the way, "evolutionist" is also a rather poor term. It is much better to say "realist".

No, it would be much better to say lost in imaginations....... But you are correct, since evolution does not exist, there really isn't such a thing as an evolutionist, just a fantasy cult.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Debate that with the AKC if you have a problem with dog breed naming......... Why don't you also argue with them to get them properly classified as subspecies????

I mean, you all seem to be big on the need to properly classify things....




If that's your excuse for not being able to respond to the subject of the post. I guess it helps in your own mind to justify your contradictions....


No, it would be much better to say lost in imaginations....... But you are correct, since evolution does not exist, there really isn't such a thing as an evolutionist, just a fantasy cult.....

I merely get tired of your sad failed arguments. A bit of humor can help in such matters.

And I made no excuses. Once again try something new, tired old PRATT's only earn derision after a while.

And of course evolution exists. It is the only concept supported by scientific evidence. Why can't you find scientific evidence for your beliefs? I do know why you will fail.