For the umpteenth time: Greenish Warblers
Plus, for the third time, Abert's squirrel.
For the gazillion time. warblers remaining warblers and squirrels remaing sqirrels is not evidencde of evolution.
Yes, until they are not. Decide now. Are you equating "kind" with "species" or with "clade"?
Define "glade."
"Never"? "No mutation has ever...."? Pretty strong statements. Do you have the research to back that up?
Don't need research. Just a basic understanding of what mutations can and cannot do. Mutation do not add characteristics, they ony alter a characterisic the kid would have gotten without he mutation. Iwill lgfive you the same example I always give and am sure you have read: The albinp ws going to get sdkin(teh characteristic). The mutation altered the skin it got, but it will never change the kid into somewthing its parents were not.
Do you have any research to show a mutation actually changed the species of the offspring?
Science is inductive, not deductive. It does not pretend to have discovered everything.
It does not have to pretend, it has actually proven many hhings, In fact science advances on what has been proven in the past.
If you asked a naturalist in 1600 whether there were any black swans, he would say no, but he would not say that they could "never" be discovered. In fact, they were. They are Australian
That is not about science, but the analogy is good: that there were black swans is a proven fact, just like there is more than one blood type is a proven fact.
We have, or at least, we have presented evidence we believe shows it. If it is not the kind of evidence you want, you have to tell us what the kind of evidence you want looks like.
I have told you many tiems and you keep offering statements that it has happened. I will tell you one more time; presenet the BIOLOGICAL evidendce as to HOW, what you says is possible.
If you are saying mutation ae a mechanims mfor evolution. Thell me HOW it is biologically possible.
>>Have you decided that you no longer believe that mutation is real?<<
Of course they are real. It has been scientifically proven.
What you are describing is true (or would be if stated more clearly) when the genes are inherited without mutation. Even with mutation, it is mostly true, but the allele or gene the offspring inherits is on that in the parent is only in the seminal cell. All of the parent's other cells are unmutated. The grandparent did not have it, and the parent did not inherit it.
Okay, wonderful. If the grandparent did not have the gene for a trait, neither did the parents and neither will the kids. That is irrelevant. Whatever genes the parents have can mutate, but the mutation will not cause the kids to become a species sits parents were not.
An A does not become a B. No one who knows anything about evolution believes that.
That is nonsense. If an A does not become a B at soem point in the progression, there is no evolution The basic idea in evolution is CHANGE throuth time.
I even stated so at the begining of the post in which I explained how breeding and Natural Selection work.
You have not said HOW. You just gave me an example as if that proved itg.
In that post, you accept that over time, with controlled breeding a pack of dogs can become a pack of foxhounds, or bloodhounds, or a pack of collies or shepherds. You also accept that nature can shape this breeding or at least you seemed to.
First, all of the kinds you mention are all the same kind.species if your prefer. All you have done is reinforce "after it kind." Second, nature cannot do what you say. It is controlled by the gene of the parents. If you mix a collie with a shepherd, you don't get either one, but you still get a dog.
So what scientific reasoning can you give me for claiming that with even more time, more separation from other breeds, more specialization two different breeds can never become so separate as to become separate species.
Time will not change genetics. What genetics do is set in cement and has been scientificlly proven. Evolution NEEDS that typoe of speculation because they have real scienific eplanation as to HOW is possible and it gives the faithful hope.
And then explain
exactly why the Eastern and Western breeds of the Greenish Warbler are, in your opinion,
not separate species. They cannot breed with one another and in time they will only continue to become less and less similar.
Why can't they breed? We know that to much inner breeding in dogs cause them not to be able to breed, but they are still dogs.
