- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
You are about 10 pages too late when they posted their definition of species and then totally ignored it....
Upvote
0
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.
You are about 10 pages too late when they posted their definition of species and then totally ignored it....There goes this thread.
its just geting worse:
Ancient whale jawbone found in Antarctica
if its true then the first whale appeared before its suppose ancestors (again like the tiktaalik example).
The definition of species can be a bit ambiquise, the rule of thumb is that speciation occurs when two species can no longer interbreed. Now there are exceptions, there can be distinct species that can still interbreed, Polar Bears and Grizzlies or Troglodytes and Bonobos for instance.You are about 10 pages too late when they posted their definition of species and then totally ignored it....
Neither do I, but its your imaginary picture....No, I do not believe Eohippus was an ancient member of the horse species. It was about 18" high, had four long toes with small hoofs on each front leg, and three on each back leg. It browsed on leaves. It was by no means a horse or zebra (Equus). It was in the same family as a horse. That does not make it a horse, any more than being in the same family as your kids makes you your kids.
Everything looks transitional to evolutionists, even if every fossil ever found is the same from the first to the last.....It sure looks like a transitional.
Each distinct in the fossil record from the first to the last. With only imaginary lines drawn to imaginary ancestors supporting your imaginary links.Look again. There is a whole series of creatures, leading from land animals to whales.
First, please open your eyes and read the explanation I have posted many times. Do you care to actually respond to the actual argument about cousins of ancestors?
And yet our cousins are the same species...... even the same species as their ancestors.
The definition of species can be a bit ambiquise, the rule of thumb is that speciation occurs when two species can no longer interbreed. Now there are exceptions, there can be distinct species that can still interbreed, Polar Bears and Grizzlies or Troglodytes and Bonobos for instance.
Evolution is the change of traits over time, it's a phenomenon in nature, nothing more. Distinctly different species can interbreed in certain instances but the rule of thumb is that species do not interbreed with other species.No, because if they are interbreeding it is simply a mistake in classification classifying them as separate species before they discovered they could interbreed... Like Darwin did with finches... like biologists did with bears... etc, etc, etc....
Biological species concept - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The biological species concept gives an explanation of how species form (speciation). A biological species is a group of individuals that can breed together (panmixia). However, they cannot breed with other groups. In other words, the group is reproductively isolated from other groups."
So if you believe Polar Bears and Grizzly Bears are separate species.... you would be wrong. But then they classified them as separate species when they believed they could not interbreed.
Definition of SPECIES
"comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding"
Species - Biology-Online Dictionary
"In order to be considered into a species rank, the group of organisms wherein two of its members are capable of reproducing fertile offspring (especially through sexual reproduction). There are certain groups though that can still be further subdivided into subgroups (i.e. subspecies, such as varieties, formae, etc.)."
species Definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary
"biology a set of animals or plants, members of which have similar characteristics to each other and which can breed with each other"
Defining a species
"A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.
For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator."
"...So we meet again: When another storm reintroduces the island flies to the mainland, they will not readily mate with the mainland flies since they've evolved different courtship behaviors. The few that do mate with the mainland flies, produce inviable eggs because of other genetic differences between the two populations. The lineage has split now that genes cannot flow between the populations...."
species | Learn Science at Scitable
There is not two species hybridizing, because if they mate they are one species. Simply error in the classification of them as separate species that has never been corrected when finally discovered they could interbreed.
As I said before, evolution is error after uncorrected error after uncorrected error.
Might be a rule of thumb, but nature doesn't like to play by our rules. There are tons of situations in which Species A and Species B interbreed, Species B and Species C interbreed, but Species A and C cannot interbreed. You can't qualify all 3 populations as the same species, since not all of them can interbreed, so they end up as being classified as different species. Furthermore, it is also a matter of long term reproductive ability. Nepenthes (tropical pitcher plants) species can interbreed across the board (hundreds of crosses, I know of no two species that cannot produce offspring together). There are quite a few natural hybrids of the species that grow in close proximity. However, eventually, continued hybridization loses species traits, and future offspring will not be fertile if they are not back-crossed with a parent species. Although reduced fertility begins to be very noticeable in plants with 4 different species in their lineage, first generation hybrids can be infertile in rare cases. Hence the many species in which any of the same genus can interbreed.Evolution is the change of traits over time, it's a phenomenon in nature, nothing more. Distinctly different species can interbreed in certain instances but the rule of thumb is that species do not interbreed with other species.
Evolution is the change of traits over time, it's a phenomenon in nature, nothing more. Distinctly different species can interbreed in certain instances but the rule of thumb is that species do not interbreed with other species.
Might be a rule of thumb, but nature doesn't like to play by our rules. There are tons of situations in which Species A and Species B interbreed, Species B and Species C interbreed, but Species A and C cannot interbreed. You can't qualify all 3 populations as the same species, since not all of them can interbreed, so they end up as being classified as different species. Furthermore, it is also a matter of long term reproductive ability. Nepenthes (tropical pitcher plants) species can interbreed across the board (hundreds of crosses, I know of no two species that cannot produce offspring together). There are quite a few natural hybrids of the species that grow in close proximity. However, eventually, continued hybridization loses species traits, and future offspring will not be fertile if they are not back-crossed with a parent species. Although reduced fertility begins to be very noticeable in plants with 4 different species in their lineage, first generation hybrids can be infertile in rare cases. Hence the many species in which any of the same genus can interbreed.
Furthermore, barriers to reproduction must be considered. Two bird species that might occasionally interbreed will never fully establish genetic drift between their populations. Species of birds may only rarely interbreed with closely related species due to differences in mating season, mating ritual (do males have a "dance", etc.), and sexual selection (one species might have a red spot, which females of that species find attractive, that males of the other species lack entirely).
Even stranger situations may exist: there are no modern humans that share mitochondrial DNA with Neanderthals, yet their are modern humans with traces of Neanderthal sequences in their nucleic DNA. Since mitochondrial DNA is practically exclusively inherited from female parents, this suggests that crosses between Neanderthals and humans in which the Neanderthal was female were infertile, but crosses in which the Neanderthal was male were fertile. That, or all offspring of this cross that were fertile were exclusively male. Which reminds me, a very small portion of female donkeys (never the males) are fertile.
Where are you getting this? The actual number is around 6 trillion.
Each person has 23 pairs of chromosomes. For each of his father's 23 pairs, each person gets one or the other of the pair. For each of his mother's 23 pairs, each person gets one of each pair. Those 46 combine to make 23 chromosomes for the offspring. That is 2^46 combinations, about 7 trillion.
If you begin with one pair of dogs, then all you have is 2 chromosomes at each site for the male and 2 for the female. That really doesn't give much room for variation on any given trait.
There is not a single instance when separate species interbred with another species,
except incorrectly classifying those subspecies as separate species. Finches are not separate species, they are subspecies of the same species, which is why they can interbreed. They are so closely related because they are in fact one species.
If they would correct their classifications then there would not be a single instance of separate species mating. The second two animals interbreed, or even have the possibility of interbreeding, they are one species.
You all just keep arguing semantics while ignoring the scientific definitions.
Uh no, the records of the ancient Chinese are not skewed by any time dilation. They are based on actual historical records, and they show that Chinese history went right up through the supposed date of the global flood with nobody noticing. See Noah's Flood .not really since your calculations based upon decay rates dont take into account time dilation. So that you are off by a few thousand years in the recent past and hundreds of millions to billions in the far past is not surprising.
Again it can be seen that the pheonotype of animals progressed with time, and it can be inferred that the DNA also progressed as the phenotype progressed. Knowing what we know today about DNA and changes of animals, the most likely explanation for why the DNA and the phenotype advanced with time is that the animals evolved. Add on top of that all the other evidence for evolution, and we have a convincing case.i actually refer to this one:
Ferrari Evolution
now, base on your argument- we now need to conclude that those cars evolved from each other? of course not. so the same can be said to the fossils case: we cant conclude any evolution.
It depends on the spinning motor. Some are designed, some maybe not.so basically a spinning motor isnt evidence for design according to this.
It depends on the spinning motor. Some are designed, some maybe not.but we actually do know that a car or a robot or a motor are evidence for design.
Trilobites thrived in the Cambrian and continued on beyond the Ordovician. That disproves your claim that all Cambrian life was wiped out at the end of the Cambrian. Your simple picture even shows Trilobites in the Ordovician.Ok, at the end of the Cambrian explosion (wont ask you for the beginning, please show me any forms that exists in the layer afterwards found in that layer? I cant prove it to you since they dont exist...
Each layer contains only distinct forms not found in the layers above except thos that survived - as listed above, and those found in the upper layers are not found in the layer below.
Uh no, Punk Eek has nothing to do with explaining why all Cambrian life got wiped out before the Ordovician. After all, we can see that it never happened.It's why evolutionists invented “punctuated equilibrium.”
Oh for instance, a global flood would leave a global layer of debris, with the largest and heaviest rocks at the bottom gradiating up to smaller and lighter objects and finer particles at the top of the pile. We find plenty of evidence of local floods, but nothing of a global flood.What evidence would it leave? Not a sharp demarcation line as all the other extinctions and creation of new life. The life that existed before the flood was brought through it, so no change in creatures would be seen in the sedimentary layers.
Oh, puhleeeze. I have been emphatic in saying that dogs derived from many wolves and wild dogs that contributed to the modern dog genome. I have been emphatic in saying it was not just 2 dogs that were the parents of all dogs. It was probably thousands of them that contributed genes. I actually have been saying the exact opposite of what you claim I am saying.you know for a fact that over 100 dogs came from just a couple wolves.......
From your article:Regrowth on Mount St Helens 07-31-2011
So much for that timeline theory of new growth.....
35 years after Mount St. Helens eruption, nature returns
Uh, how hot would this water be that is 400 miles below the earth's surface? Had enough of this come up to cover the earth, Noah would have vaporized.Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface
and so much for that belief too. But you never understood what breaking open the fountains of the deep meant. The Bible writers knew of that water thousands of years before scientists finally got around to looking.
That's odd, because when I look at horse evolution, I see major changes in form from first to last. Want me to post the pictures again?I still cant get over the fact that every form is set in appearance from the first to the last.
They cant find one single common ancestor, draw lines from these set forms to this assumed common ancestor that can never be found, then call it established fact. Ridiculous the state these people have let science de-evolve to.
Wow, previously you had said Eohippus was a member of the horse species. Now you appear to be agreeing with me that Eohippus was not an ancient member of the horse species.Neither do I, but its your imaginary picture....
Nobody said the rates of change of all features were constant. Evolution varied randomly in different directions, eventually reaching the horse and zebra.There was, for instance, no constant and overall increase in size... The feet did not steadily change from four toes to three and then to one... Each is distinct from the first to the last.
Right, if we all have is Hyracotherium or Eohippus, they do not look like a horse. And yet somehow, just several posts back, you said the Eohippus was a member of the horse species.As Simpson admitted in an article appearing some years ago in the magazine Natural History, "The description of Owen would not seem amiss if our mental image of Hyracotherium were not so colored by later knowledge [?] that it was ancestral to the horse." ("Resurrection of the Dawn Horse," George Gaylord Simpson, Natural History. November, 1940.)
Any paleontologist wanting to preserve his professional status would never have considered Hyracotherium or Eohippus a horse in 1839. They all called it exactly what it was.
"When in 1839 part of a skull was found... in London days, even the most eminent paleontologists of the day little suspected that the 'Eohippus' belonged to the horse family... in fact Sir Richard Owen named its genus Hyracotherium... when he compared it with conies (hyrax), pigs and rodents." (Time, Life and Man, R. A. Stirton, p. 465.)
Ah, this thread has arrived. No thread on evolution is complete without the obligatory Colin Patterson quote."[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record . . It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test." *Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L. D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma, p. 89.
And yet our cousins are the same species...... even the same species as their ancestors.
Uh, no I do not want to ignore alleles.Oh, now all of a sudden you want to ignore alleles and the innumerable combinations available in which they can be written. Isn't it evolutionists that are claiming a change in alleles can change characteristics of the offspring? Just a sad, sad attempt at rationalizing it in your own mind.....
But they'll be glad to tell me my DNA says I came from a common ancestor, won't they?[Sarcasm]
My Dentist can't tell me how many molecules are in my teeth. Ridiculous the state these Dentists have let their profession devolve.
My Family Doctor can't tell me how many hairs are on my head. Ridiculous the state these Doctors have let their profession devolve.
[/Sarcasm]
Yes, most doctors acknowledge the known knowns of science.But they'll be glad to tell me my DNA says I came from a common ancestor, won't they?
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?