Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm on my mobile, so I can't cut and paste (or at least I have not been able to work it out), but YouTube regular potholer54 has a nice video which makes the same point, entitled "Ring Species -- the Abridged Version." He uses the Greenish Warbler as his example. The middle group on the Eastern side has since gone extinct due to urbanization destroying their habitat, so the northeastern group is now isolated and can no longer be linked to the others.
You might also want to check out his video "Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not Like That!)."
<_<I've already watched all his videos.
And what is your evidence for this?That may be, but my statement still stands. He does not understandDNA.
That was Smidlee. His name was on the quote I replied to. I know you aren't very good at paying attention, but please, at least try.I don't think I used "central dogma." So I hve no idea wht it has to do wtih natural selecdtion.
... at this point I still wasn't talking to you.No. I mean natural selecdtion is not a mechanims for evolution.
So, my claim stands. New kinds have been observed to form.First I beleive "kind" and "species" are the same. If thye can mate and producue offspring, they are the same whatever you want to call ie. If they can't they are not the same.
I didn't say "mostly". I said "most definitely". It was right in front of you when you quoted it.It has not . It is ALWAYS been statements like you just said---new kinds have mostly been produced in observable time.
What do you mean by "how"?Where is the biological HOW?
Speciation is not a mechanism of evolution, it is an outcome of evolution. When you've got that into you head, we can try again with explanations.One more thing. Give me the definition of speciation and explain, biologically of course, how it is a mechanism for evolution.
Pretty large, actually. The first life form would have had to reproduce without the complex protein machinery that modern cells use to copy their DNA and divide. DNA is relatively stable and likes being wound up in a double helix, which is pretty much the opposite of what you need in a self-replicating molecule.If all life forms we have today, have DNA, what are the chances the dirst one did not also have it?
This.So what other "how" is there? What, exactly, are you looking for by way of an answer to your "how" question?
Science is not a body of knowledge. It's a way of finding things out. One of the things we've found out is that "species" is a very hard thing to define.It seems amazing to me that science with all of its knoweldge has not settled on a definition of "species."
Probably from this post:I dont know wher you got that idea.
frogman2x said:First of all you have no real evicence that natural selelction is a fact. The kids don't get to select what traits they will get.
You change your mind rather quickly.I think just the opposite.
Can't remember anyone other than you saying that.Someone said the offspring chooses the chracteristic.
Then you misunderstood them. Indeed, the idea that offspring get to select their traits is completely wrong. Natural selection doesn't mean that.At least that is how I understood their statement. That is completely wrong.
Be careful, Journal of Cosmology appears to have a bit of a reputation.
They have, and I'll happily join them if you like. "Proof" means demonstrating something to be absolutely true given that your starting premises are correct. Science doesn't do that.Have you not noticed that none of your evo buds have come to your defense in this?
No. Something is proven through taking a bunch of premises and deducing their logical consequences. Mathematics does proofs. The scientific method works in a different way.It is amazing that anyone with a 3 diget IQ would say science doe not prove things. How is something proven? Let me tell you. Through OBSERVATION and being able to repeat it.
Be careful, Journal of Cosmology appears to have a bit of a reputation.
Journal of Cosmology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That is a slightly distorted version of the most common definition of species. But there is nothing in that definition to exclude speciation.
Your secondary definition of "kind" (that it always reproduces after its own), the one you say will always be true no matter how many generations and breedings, is, worded a little differently, one of the definiing characteristics of aclade. So, as I said you define "kind" as "species" (when asked for a definition), but you speak ("argue") of it as a clade. So which is it?
There are several very clear definitions of species. They are not identical because each, in some circumstances becomes useless. For example "Mating and together producing offspring" is meaningless in species (like ferns) that do not reproduce that way.
What it "has not settled on" is a definition of "kind." Partly because it is not needed. And partly because when it is used by Con men to preach against science,
it has an annoying habit of meaning "species" at the beginning of a sentence, and "clade" at the end, except when it means "genus," "class," "order," or "family."
Ah, but "species" (the word science uses) is well defined. It is "kind" (the word Creationist con men use) that is not defined, so they can juggle through many ideas which are not the same thing at all, and not be caught ot by those whose thinking has become vague and nebulous.
]READ MY COMMENT AGAIN
. I did not claim that you believed that is what actually happens. I claimed that the nature of your response is such that it appears that you think that evolutionists teach that.
It was not me, or any of the posters on this forum who said anything like that. I have never heard anyone claim that, ever. And why did you think that attacking that (strawman) position would have anything to do with what I'd posted?
Finally, since you did not comment on the quoted post (reposted, at your request, I assume that you do not disagree with it?
Then you must be reading very selectively because at least two of us have agreed with him (me and Ollie Franz).
He makes an art form of ignoring evidence....
Broadly speaking yes that just about covers it.Let me clear it up for you. Evolution teaches that all life forms originated from a single source and over the years has evolved into the great variety we have today. Is that accurate or not?
They have ideas how the first life form came into being but are not completely sure so most people say 'we don't know', they do know however what it evolved into and what it continued to evolve into and where we're at today.Of course they have no idea how that life form originated or what it was or what it evolved into. You have no idea what the second, third, fourth, into infinity was. You start with an unscientific guess and have been guessing ever since.
Repeating an observation is still just observing a fact.
If science had proven what your blood type was, then doctors who knew your parents blood types would not have to test and observe it. they would already know it.
Exactly! There is no such thing as a false fact. That is because a fact is a description of an observed single event. It cannot be proved or disproved.
It simply is. Before observing the fact, we can't predict it.
In many cases we can assign a probability to its likelihood. Knowing your parents blood types, and the genes that produced them, we can say, for example, that there is a 25% chance that your blood type is AB. After obsevation, that probability does not matter. We know, whatever the odds might have been, that you are, indeed AB.
And what is your evidence for this?
That was Smidlee. His name was on the quote I replied to. I know you aren't very good at paying attention, but please, at least try.
If all you are interested in is making snide remarks, go back to the playground and insult the children there.
People with 3 digit IQs can understand the difference between proof and observation?I just can't understand how anyone with a 3 diget IQ can claim science has not prove there is more than one blood type or that DNA does exist.
"Guessing" and "proving" are not the only two options...You need to tell ther Noble prize folks to stop given the science prize for guessing.
It's clearly not all I'm interested in given my posting history with you. At one point, I was interested in humouring you. Now I'm just tired and frustrated.If all you are interested in is making snide remarks, go back to the playground and insult the children there.
Broadly speaking yes that just about covers it.
They have ideas how the first life form came into being but are not completely sure so most people say 'we don't know', they do know however what it evolved into and what it continued to evolve into and where we're at today.
On the other hand you and your ilk are sure you know how it all started because an old book written by people who knew very little about themselves and even less about the world around them told you a supernatural god did it.
If I was a complete loony I would say: Your version seems to make the most sense so I suggest we all go with that.
But I'm not so I won't.
The do not have clue how it came into being or what it was. They start with a guess and have continued guessing for over 100 years. So with your great science intellect, tell me wha the first life form evolved into. Then tell me what the seocnd life form evolved into.
And people of your ilk don't know how the universe started, so there you start with another unscientific guess. You are not even good guessers. You make unscientific guesses and call it science. How absurd. But since people of you ilk think they know every thing abort science, explain to me how matter created itself out of nothing and I will gladly become one of your ilk.
How did you determine those people knew very little about them selves or the world arond them? Another guess you can't prove. FYI, the folks wrote what God told them to write. But people of your ilk are smarter than those goat herders right?
Still you can't explain how the unverse or life originatd and they can.
It seems like people of your ilk don't have the intellectualy capacity to discuss something without making snide remarks. Howeve I enjoy your snide remarks. It shows everyone what ilk of a person you really are.
I am looking forward to your explanation of how matter created itself out of nothing. I feel with your great intellect on this subject you will also provide the science that made it possible. No more guessing please. People of my ilk require evidence and we prefer it to be scientific.
People with 3 digit IQs can understand the difference between proof and observation?
"Guessing" and "proving" are not the only two options...
It's clearly not all I'm interested in given my posting history with you.At one point, I was interested in humouring you.Then why use snide remarks at all? Do you not consider yourself a polite person.
Dear Fay, Science knows that without liquid water, a cell cannot survive. God tells us He created and brought forth, from the water, EVERY living creature that moves. This is PROOF of God since today's scientists STILL are willingly ignorant of God's Truth. NO man, who lived thousands of years before Science, could possibly have known and correctly written this Scientific fact in Genesis.Broadly speaking yes that just about covers it.
They have ideas how the first life form came into being but are not completely sure so most people say 'we don't know', they do know however what it evolved into and what it continued to evolve into and where we're at today.
On the other hand you and your ilk are sure you know how it all started because an old book written by people who knew very little about themselves and even less about the world around them told you a supernatural god did it.
If I was a complete loony I would say: Your version seems to make the most sense so I suggest we all go with that.
But I'm not so I won't.
Do we need to be omniscient before we can know something is not true?
Do you need to be omniscient to know that Muhammad did not fly up to heaven on a winged horse?<<
You do unless you can prove he didn't
Scripture says that Jesus's ascension was a literal, bodily return to heaven. He rose from the ground gradually and visibly, observed by many intent onlookers. As the disciples strained to catch a last glimpse of Jesus, a cloud hid Him from their view, and two angels appeared and promised Christ's return "in just the same way that you have watched Him go" (Acts 1:11).
Do you need to be omniscient to know that the above is just a story and it didn't really happen?
You do unless you can prove it is just a story. Can you do that?
Dear Fay, Science knows that without liquid water, a cell cannot survive. God tells us He created and brought forth, from the water, EVERY living creature that moves. This is PROOF of God since today's scientists STILL are willingly ignorant of God's Truth. NO man, who lived thousands of years before Science, could possibly have known and correctly written this Scientific fact in Genesis.
False, since ancient theology does NOT agree with Scripture. The Bible does agree with scripture, science, and history, revealing that ONLY God could have authored Genesis, and that is what He claims.
Genesis also tells us we live in a Multiverse.
The Big Bang was on the 3rd Day.
That Adam was a Special Creation who was made BEFORE any other living creature.
That darkness existed BEFORE light.
That the Stars did not light until long AFTER the Big Bang of our Cosmos.
That every living creature including Natual mankind (prehistoric man) came forth from the water on the 5th Day, long after the first Human was made.
That the formula for making Billions of humans is to mix prehistoric mankind with Adam's descendants.
These are but a few of the things written in Genesis which NO ancient man could have possibly known and written 3k years ago. It's PROOF of God.
Some of today's scientists THINK that they know more than God about the Creation. Can you explain their obvious ignorance of God's Scientific Truth written more than 3k years ago?
In Love,
Aman
Don't you believe in creatio ex nihilo? Care to elucidate for us how that works?
No. It happens when you repeatedly offer evidence, attempt to explain it, and after ninety pages, this guy who can't even get the concept of natural selection straight keeps insisting that you didn't.That always happens when you can't offer the scientific evidence for your dogma.
Are you so eager to be on my ignore list? Did I perhaps not amuse you as much as you claim?I am sure I have graduated to your ignore list, so you have a nice day and go amuse someone else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?