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.
Except you are simply assuming he names everything in a few hours. The Bible remains completely silent on how long Adam remained in the garden.
But yet Adam was able to understand what both mating was for "multiply and fill the earth" and what death was, the punishment for sin.
I don't know what god you worship, but my God would never punish those unable to comprehend the consequences. The only logical conclusion is that Adam observed animals mate, give birth, live out their lives and die while he was in the garden. Now perhaps you might believe you could comprehend what death was if you had never observed it, but I think you would be fooling yourself to believe that.
This made him realize he was alone, the only one of his kind. So much so that he chose to willingly enter death with Eve than to loose her.
What evolution?
Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook and variation enters the species. Asian mates with African and produces the Afro-Asian and variation enters the species. Neither the Husky nor the Mastiff evolved into the Chinook. The Husky remained Husky, the Mastiff remained Mastiff. Just as we see in the fossil record as every single one of them remains the same from the oldest fossil found to the youngest fossil found.
I don't need the pseudoscience of a Husky evolving into a Chinook without mating with the Mastiff to explain variation within the species. I got direct empirical evidence how it occurs without proposing pseudoscience far in the past. And evolution has nothing to do with it at all.
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.
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.
We already know how animal design changes with time: mutations and natural selection. Why do you insist that in the past it had to be like the way car design changes today?
so a car or a robot arent necessarily evidece for design if they are made from organic components? ok. in this case you need a great evidence that its possible. because as far as we know those objects can be made only by a designer. so you need a good proof that they can evolve. can you give such a proof?We know how car motor designs are changed. Engineers sit at their desks and make changes to the drawings.
We know how designs of cells are changed. Mutations modify the DNA, which gets selected by natural selection.
I conclude that car motors in the past probably changed by a very similar process that they change today (engineers change the drawings) and that cells probably changed in the past by a very similar process that they change now (mutations and natural selection change the DNA).
two reasons:
1)we have a good evidence that there is no step wise from one kind to another. so they cant evolve from each other (in general and not specific about the horse case).
2)we dont have any evidence that its possible.
as for the horse evolution- i already said that its possible that they indeed evolved from each other. so why you back again to this case?
Anything is speculation, but speculating he was there to watch animals live out there lives so could comprehend the punishment for sin sure beats any alternative.It says Adam named them, the rest is a combination of speculation and poor satire.
And Asians despite undergoing a claimed 50 mutations at birth, still remain Asians, as does every animal....The change of alleles (traits) in populations over time.
What substantive proof? Ever seen them mate? Got DNA Data? All you got is people like yourself that can't tell the same species when finches are interbreeding right in front of your noses. Not a good start to instill confidence, let alone they couldn't even get babies and adults of the same species correct.That's nice but I try to get more substantive proof when it comes to fossils, that's just how I roll.
Not sure you have a cup of tea, you all switch back and forth between brews so much.I don't know that the example is my cup of tea but thanks for the exchange just the same.
Not one of those links say anything other than what every one has been telling you about classification of species (apart from the extremely short dictionary entries which only provide a simplistic definition).
We get it, you think that if you provide a different definition of species to the one everyone else uses it somehow negates the evidence for evolution.... it doesn't.
As for Polar Bears, no one is "making a mistake" apart from you, insisting on your own definition of species (which no one else is using)......
Most brown bears have about 2 percent genetic material from polar bears, but one population, the ABC Islands bears has between 5 percent and 10 percent polar bear genes, indicating more frequent and recent mating.[27] Polar bears can breed with brown bears to produce fertile grizzly–polar bear hybrids,[21][28] rather than indicating that they have only recently diverged, the new evidence suggests more frequent mating has continued over a longer period of time, and thus the two bears remain genetically similar.[27] However, because neither species can survive long in the other's ecological niche, and because they have different morphology, metabolism, social and feeding behaviours, and other phenotypic characteristics, the two bears are generally classified as separate species.[29]
Polar bear - Wikipedia
There is plenty of detailed research into the genomes of Polar bears and their evolution if you're interested.
POPULATION GENOMICS REVEAL RECENT SPECIATION AND RAPID EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION IN POLAR BEARS
Polar bears are uniquely adapted to life in the High Arctic and have undergone drastic physiological changes in response to Arctic climates and a hyperlipid diet of primarily marine mammal prey. We analyzed 89 complete genomes of polar bear and brown bear using population genomic modeling and show that the species diverged only 479–343 thousand years BP. We find that genes on the polar bear lineage have been under stronger positive selection than in brown bears; nine of the top 16 genes under strong positive selection are associated with cardiomyopathy and vascular disease, implying important reorganization of the cardio-vascular system. One of the genes showing the strongest evidence of selection, APOB, encodes the primary lipoprotein component of low-density lipoprotein (LDL); functional mutations in APOB may explain how polar bears are able to cope with life-long elevated LDL levels that are associated with high risk of heart disease in humans
Do you reject the rigorous research that suggests that Polar Bears adapted to their harsh environment?
Your "husky + mastiff = chinook" argument states that the Polar Bear could only come about as a hybrid between two bear subspecies does it not, do you care to demonstrate that with anything other than puerile speculation?
Why are you insisting we believe that fossil A evolved into fossil C when the only proof of change within species you have is when subspecies A mates with Subspecies B and produces subspecies C?Why are you so fixated on your idea that cars are analogous for biological evolution after you have repeatedly been told that they are not the same thing?
The question is, why do you think that's the only "proof?"Why are you insisting we believe that fossil A evolved into fossil C when the only proof of change within species you have is when subspecies A mates with Subspecies B and produces subspecies C?
HUh? That is what I said: all dogs descended from the gray wolf. But there were probably thousands of individual gray wolves and wild dogs that contributed to the current dog genome. That helps to explain all the variety there. You however try to claim it all came from two dogs 4000 years ago, which is ridiculous. The species would have bottlenecked.Oh concerning your dog argument.
Origin of the domestic dog - Wikipedia
"The closest living relative of the dog is the gray wolf and there is no evidence of any other canine contributing to its genetic lineage."
I am talking about the findings of science. I do not need to repeat every experiment ever done. If others have found the ocean basins have no sign of a global flood, I can report that finding.You have yet to dig into a single basin in the ocean, what you talking about????
Uh, sure some plants can survive in saltwater.Says the person that is supposed to believe in adaptation........
Mangrove, the Tree That Captures Carbon, Filters Saltwater, and Stops Storms | DiscoverMagazine.com
Plants you can water with seawater give hope to coastal farmers
And where would animals from the ark migrate to find food? There would be no grass or plants, for all that would have been destroyed in the flood. Even if the land was fertile, and Noah had seeds, how could he possibly plant enough seeds to get crops growing ahead of the ravenous horde leaving the ark?And hence animals migrate.....
You are getting a lot of mileage out of a metaphor.Except it was warm, which is why it rained for 40 days and nights. You do understand when warm water meets cooler higher atmosphere air it condenses as rain, don't you? Perhaps you just dont understand what fountains are.
Underground Temperature
"the temperatures in this last were proved to be largely affected by convection, the water at the top being too warm, and that at the bottom not warm enough."
"whereas the temperatures actually observed at those depths in the well at La Chapelle in October, 1873, when the water had been undisturbed for a year and four months, were 59'5° and 76°. It thus appears pi'obable that the upper part of the well is warmed, and the lower part cooled, by convection."
"We have thus direct. evidence that convection had made the temperature at 3,390 feet 205° R., or 46° F."
"A well sunk at Yakoutsk, in Siberia, to the depth of feet, disclosed the fact that the ground was permanently frozen to this depth, and probably to the depth of 700 feet."
No geologists want us to believe that both temperature and pressure continue to increase the deeper one goes. And yet near the core we have rock that is so porous it holds up to three oceans worth of water. If pressure continued to increase beyond a few miles, this rock would not be porous, but would be totally solid and incapable of holding water.... So again, we can go by theory or by the fact we know ringwoodite is extremely porous and exists in quantity near the earth's core. Of course if people accepted science these false beliefs would not creep in, since the deeper one goes the more rock is also above one, so that gravitational forces lessen as one nears the center, not increase. And thus we can see while millions of cubic meters of porous rock exist where geologists believe it shouldn't due to incorrect beliefs about increasing pressure.....
So you will have to excuse me if i accept direct empirical evidence of porous rock near the core, not solid rock from extreme pressure...... Hmm, theory over data, which to choose.....
And where did the Husky and Mastiff come from? Eventually you have all the dogs coming from 2 dogs in the ark that were very different from most of the modern dogs. So even for you it is not simply a matter of dogs cross breeding. Even you say that dogs changed in time, that they started with an initial wolf/wild dog pair that changed to all the variety we see today. That is evolution. That is faster evolution than I claim. I claim that thousands of wolves/dogs evolved into the modern variety over a period of many thousands of years.But as long as you keep insisting the Husky evolved into the Chinook (so to speak) without mating with the Mastiff, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Uh, no, your parents did not have 70 alleles at each locus. Like all humans, they had two. There may be 70 alleles in the human species for that locus, but your parents only had two each.Except the ABO locus which is the most studied genetically because of blood diseases has been found to contain at the minimum of 70 alleles. So even if the alleles were to copy without any change there is 70x70 possible combinations from each parent. Now we throw in all the combinations possible when alleles are transcribed in different orders, all the alleles yet undiscovered at the other loci, and the number does indeed become astronomical just for the human species variation alone......
Why wouldnt I consider how many possible combinations of genes are available for the baby? That's um, what makes the baby...... Why would someone try to exclude it in the first place?
You can "generally" classify them any way you want, but you just make species a useless definition since anybody can classify anything they want as a species. It means nothing anymore and says nothing anymore.
So since you agree ecological niche is a valid reason, then you see no problem with classifying Bob who lives in the high rises of NY a separate species from that of Kamingo who lives on the plains of Africa?
But go ahead, continue to make your designation of species useless. Basically species can now be anything someone wants them to be. The species designation is not only meaningless but has become unfalsifiable, making evolutiom a useless theory.
Your definition of "species" isn't correct. It isn't even the general species definition taught in high school. You are so off on what defines a species and REFUSE the corrections I have made. Read this, not just the first few sentences, the whole thing, and educated yourself Defining a species yes, the next pages too, as much as you can stand to read.You mean have I heard them refuse to follow their own definition when they crossbreed plants and animals? Sure, I recognize pseudoscience when I see it from refusing to follow their own definitions.....
Was it creationists that showed that the birds could interbreed? No. Do the birds live on separate islands quite a distance away from each other, and are adapted to the specific environments on those islands? Yes, which is an indicator that they stay on those islands for the majority of the time. This makes interbreeding less likely. However, no one ever said that NONE of these species interbreed. A few of the scientists mentioned in your source (which I will address further) weren't even surprised by it.That is so nonfactual its actually pathetic. Why before the grants began to study a few of them they said none of them could interbreed. Then you got the DNA data that says they have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands, every last one of them. That you have yet to observe it says nothing, since for 200 years they were humpin like rabbits and you never once saw it..... Claimed then what you claim now, that they couldn't....
Genomes reveal Darwin finches' messy family tree - BBC News
And yet, their populations retain quite distinct physiological and genetic traits, suited to the particular island they are native to. The significance of that is that it indicates that interbreeding between the species is fairly restricted; that is, two birds of different species are far less likely to mate than birds of the same species."The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.
This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands."
It happens, and it is interesting when it happens. Hybridization that greatly impacts evolution. Some speculate that the red hair gene present in some human populations may actually have been inherited through a hybridization event with Neanderthals. Humans and Neanderthals aren't the same species, we even have their DNA to confirm that. Heck, that we have no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA suggests that females from that cross were infertile (as mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, not the father), and many humans don't have traces of Neanderthal DNA at all, thus genetic drift never encompassed the population (interbreeding was very uncommon)."In fact, the team's findings suggest that hybridisation is very important to these birds' evolution. In particular, they saw that the rise and fall of pointed beaks in one species - once again, the medium ground finch - was driven by hybridisation with a different, pointed-beak species."
What part are you emptily claiming is nonfactual? That all finches aren't in the same genus? Because one quick google search would show you that finches all share the family level of classification, not genus. I count 51 different genus that finches belong to. Furthermore, not all finches have the same breeding season or are attracted to each other, thus they will REFUSE to mate. For example, male Goldfinches are yellow, and male House finches have portions of their bodies which are anywhere from bright red to pale orange or yellow. Female house finches will ONLY mate with the males with the most red coloration, and thus would have no interest in the bright yellow Goldfinch males. Additionally, the mating season for Goldfinches is much later in the year than House finches (which actually choose their mate in the winter prior to their mating season, during which Goldfinches happen to be at their most drab). These birds will NEVER interbreed. This is the barrier to reproduction known as sexual selection, and this is a valid reason to consider two populations separate species.Another nonfactual claim.....
Tigers and lions have bred with each other in captivity. Emphasis on "in captivity". Any hybrid of two species that is the result of human intervention, just so you know, is irrelevant entirely to species classification. Any amount of hybridization that is too small to allow for fluid gene flow between populations long term prevents the populations from merging and thus they will continue to diverge until, eventually, they cannot mate. Any time the hybrids produced are infertile or have significantly reduced mating success (a common occurrence with bird hybrids), this prevents the populations from merging as these are mostly genetic dead ends."She told the BBC: "The fact that they're finding this hybridisation going on - this genetic mixing - it's quite a seminal finding."
Yah it is, but the question now remains, will they continue the pseudoscience or correct the mistaken classifications?
Did you think that when I said all finches cannot interbreed that I was only referring to Galapagos finches? Because I wasn't. I was talking about all the finches in the world, of which many do not interbreed. But again, being able to breed and interbreeding enough to break the species barrier are two different things. You, apparently, cannot understand that. I refer you to this page specifically, text under the title "Reduction of gene flow" Causes of speciation""When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings.""
Doesnt sound like biological incompatibility to me.....
What for? Taxonomy is an imperfect system, so it is not uncommon for labels to change. However, it becomes a huge pain in the butt because the dividing line between species becomes so blurry that whether or not two groups belong to the same species or not often becomes a matter of contention. Genus labels change a bit less frequently."Prof Peter Keightley from the University of Edinburgh, though largely convinced by the results, was less surprised that the finches had interbred so extensively.
"These islands are pretty close together. So it's not surprising that they are flying from one island to the other," he said."
"Some of the traditional species might not, in fact, be genuinely distinct, he added."
What? Shoot him, quick........
I mentioned hybrid vigor in my prior post, what the heck? I guess you didn't know what that was, despite the meaning being fairly intuitive. That "increased health" doesn't always mean increased reproductive success, and only applies to the first hybrid generation, not the offspring of the hybrids. I hope you won't ignore that. My nepenthes hybrids with two different species in their lineage grow better than either parent. My hybrid with three different species in it's lineage grows about as well as a pure species. My hybrid with 4 species in its lineage is pretty lonely, though, since out of only a couple dozen fertile seeds out of the 100 seeds I received from that cross, only 2 made it to their first birthday, and only 1 is still alive. So many survived from the 2 species hybrid seed that I've had to gradually give them away over the course of 2 years to keep them from taking over my life. Yet, not every plant from that cross was a "winner"; there are always genetic failures, even in the best circumstances.And yet those claimed finches are indeed producing fertile offspring healthier than the originals..... But youll ignore that, right?
-_- I'm not ignoring it at all. Hybridization can be an important part of evolution. Heck, species populations separated from each other can actually MERGE through reproduction and genetic drift, becoming a new species generated through hybridization. However, the cross-breeding of the Galapagos finches hasn't been frequent enough to do that. Whether it be mating preference or that the birds don't fly to different islands much, the hybrids aren't numerous enough to begin breaking down the species distinctions between the finches. Like how wolves and domestic dogs sometimes have offspring with each other that is perfectly healthy, it's just not frequent enough.And yet there they are, producing fertile offspring. I'll accept that part of the definition too, so what's your problem with ignoring all of it just because they do?
I remind you that taxonomy is an imperfect system. Bacteria (and maybe archaea do it too, since they are also prokaryotic) can integrate genes from dead bacteria into their genome through contact. And those dead bacteria genes don't have to belong to the same species as the bacteria integrating them. As you can imagine, this makes bacteria taxonomy a huge pain in the testes, as well as determining bacterial evolutionary pathways. I don't think that will ever be completely worked out.We are not discussing bacteria. They are still working that out.
The bacterial species definition in the genomic era | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
"The bacterial species definition, despite its eminent practical significance for identification, diagnosis, quarantine and diversity surveys, remains a very difficult issue to advance. Genomics now offers novel insights into intra-species diversity and the potential for emergence of a more soundly based system."
Except that doesnt seem to be working out either....
Defining bacterial species in the genomic era: insights from the genus Acinetobacter
You do know that we willfully use an imperfect system for taxonomy, right? Hence why bacteria have species names, even though their taxonomy is so complicated. It's always been a work in progress, heck, in the beginning, one of the Kingdom classes was "mineral". Freaking nonliving rocks. The idea is to keep improving it, not leave organisms without labels until the system reaches some standard of perfection. It changes as needed as we go. That's why it's so complicated. It's also why the high school definition is only suitable for people not going into a biology field."In pursuit of this goal, we generated a set of thirteen new draft genome sequences, representing ten species, combined them with other publically available genome sequences and analyzed these 38 strains belonging to the genus. We found that analyses based on 16S rRNA gene sequences were not capable of delineating accepted species...... Among rapid distance-based methods, we found average-nucleotide identity (ANI) analyses delivered results consistent with traditional and phylogenetic classifications, whereas gene content based approaches appear to be too strongly influenced by the effects of horizontal gene transfer to agree with previously accepted species."
So when they figure out a definition that fit bacteria I guess we will know....
-_- I don't even know how you managed to get that from your sources, especially not the latter one, which proposes that genomic testing would be a more reliable and faster method of determining bacterial species taxonomy than the previous method of using the traits the bacteria have, such as their growth habits. As genetic testing has only very recently become cheap and relatively fast, it is thus quite recent that this method was applicable to improving the taxonomy of the many species of bacteria. I mean, using an old method in a lab, it can take hours just to get the DNA out of a cell, and that's the easy part. The first organism had it's genes sequenced in the same year I was born (and I'm only 22). It's a fairly new capability, so it is no shock that it is taking some time to root itself into various scientific disciplines. Your other source is just too old to be relevant to the genetic testing we can do now.Or not since they seem to be ignoring the DNA data too because it doesnt fit their beliefs. Yet that same HGT is claimed to be able to prove human descent, lol, just got to love their inconsistencies.....
Well, this source is exceedingly outdated in terms of genomic studies, since it's from 2006 The bacterial species definition in the genomic era | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological SciencesAnd yet the professionals are ignoring the definition for animals and admitting they dont really know how to classify bacteria since even DNA tests are failing to differentiate between "claimed" species. Probably because almost all of the species tested were actually subspecies......
There, that answers all the bufoonery we have been hearing about species.Your definition of "species" isn't correct. It isn't even the general species definition taught in high school. You are so off on what defines a species and REFUSE the corrections I have made. Read this, not just the first few sentences, the whole thing, and educated yourself Defining a species yes, the next pages too, as much as you can stand to read.
-_- also, I mentioned natural hybrids. That is, hybrids that occurred without human intervention, when it comes to plants. Since the offspring of these hybrids (and ones we force to happen) begin to exhibit reduced fertility and failure to thrive, the hybrids themselves are not considered to be a bridge between species that should be considered the same. That is, they are genetic dead ends. Also, the unnatural hybrids we force to happen aren't a part of natural selection at all.
Was it creationists that showed that the birds could interbreed? No. Do the birds live on separate islands quite a distance away from each other, and are adapted to the specific environments on those islands? Yes, which is an indicator that they stay on those islands for the majority of the time. This makes interbreeding less likely. However, no one ever said that NONE of these species interbreed. A few of the scientists mentioned in your source (which I will address further) weren't even surprised by it.
Last sentence of your source: "Meanwhile Prof Andersson and his colleagues, despite having shown convincingly that the finches' family history is decidedly blurry, actually argue for the addition of three new species to the existing tally of 15."
Furthermore, if you had actually bothered to read the source, you'd know that cross-breeding events are not the norm. They don't do it enough to establish enough genetic drift to merge the populations. Do you know what genetic drift is and the significance of it?
And yet, their populations retain quite distinct physiological and genetic traits, suited to the particular island they are native to. The significance of that is that it indicates that interbreeding between the species is fairly restricted; that is, two birds of different species are far less likely to mate than birds of the same species.
It happens, and it is interesting when it happens. Hybridization that greatly impacts evolution. Some speculate that the red hair gene present in some human populations may actually have been inherited through a hybridization event with Neanderthals. Humans and Neanderthals aren't the same species, we even have their DNA to confirm that. Heck, that we have no Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA suggests that females from that cross were infertile (as mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, not the father), and many humans don't have traces of Neanderthal DNA at all, thus genetic drift never encompassed the population (interbreeding was very uncommon).
Doesn't make the groups the same species, but it is fascinating nevertheless.
What part are you emptily claiming is nonfactual? That all finches aren't in the same genus? Because one quick google search would show you that finches all share the family level of classification, not genus. I count 51 different genus that finches belong to. Furthermore, not all finches have the same breeding season or are attracted to each other, thus they will REFUSE to mate. For example, male Goldfinches are yellow, and male House finches have portions of their bodies which are anywhere from bright red to pale orange or yellow. Female house finches will ONLY mate with the males with the most red coloration, and thus would have no interest in the bright yellow Goldfinch males. Additionally, the mating season for Goldfinches is much later in the year than House finches (which actually choose their mate in the winter prior to their mating season, during which Goldfinches happen to be at their most drab). These birds will NEVER interbreed. This is the barrier to reproduction known as sexual selection, and this is a valid reason to consider two populations separate species.
Tigers and lions have bred with each other in captivity. Emphasis on "in captivity". Any hybrid of two species that is the result of human intervention, just so you know, is irrelevant entirely to species classification. Any amount of hybridization that is too small to allow for fluid gene flow between populations long term prevents the populations from merging and thus they will continue to diverge until, eventually, they cannot mate. Any time the hybrids produced are infertile or have significantly reduced mating success (a common occurrence with bird hybrids), this prevents the populations from merging as these are mostly genetic dead ends.
Did you think that when I said all finches cannot interbreed that I was only referring to Galapagos finches? Because I wasn't. I was talking about all the finches in the world, of which many do not interbreed. But again, being able to breed and interbreeding enough to break the species barrier are two different things. You, apparently, cannot understand that. I refer you to this page specifically, text under the title "Reduction of gene flow" Causes of speciation
What for? Taxonomy is an imperfect system, so it is not uncommon for labels to change. However, it becomes a huge pain in the butt because the dividing line between species becomes so blurry that whether or not two groups belong to the same species or not often becomes a matter of contention. Genus labels change a bit less frequently.
I mentioned hybrid vigor in my prior post, what the heck? I guess you didn't know what that was, despite the meaning being fairly intuitive. That "increased health" doesn't always mean increased reproductive success, and only applies to the first hybrid generation, not the offspring of the hybrids. I hope you won't ignore that. My nepenthes hybrids with two different species in their lineage grow better than either parent. My hybrid with three different species in it's lineage grows about as well as a pure species. My hybrid with 4 species in its lineage is pretty lonely, though, since out of only a couple dozen fertile seeds out of the 100 seeds I received from that cross, only 2 made it to their first birthday, and only 1 is still alive. So many survived from the 2 species hybrid seed that I've had to gradually give them away over the course of 2 years to keep them from taking over my life. Yet, not every plant from that cross was a "winner"; there are always genetic failures, even in the best circumstances.
-_- I'm not ignoring it at all. Hybridization can be an important part of evolution. Heck, species populations separated from each other can actually MERGE through reproduction and genetic drift, becoming a new species generated through hybridization. However, the cross-breeding of the Galapagos finches hasn't been frequent enough to do that. Whether it be mating preference or that the birds don't fly to different islands much, the hybrids aren't numerous enough to begin breaking down the species distinctions between the finches. Like how wolves and domestic dogs sometimes have offspring with each other that is perfectly healthy, it's just not frequent enough.
I appreciate, however, that you have been listening to what I had to say about how the offspring had to be fertile. Now we can move on a bit to discuss some of the gray area that is "species", if you so desire.
I remind you that taxonomy is an imperfect system. Bacteria (and maybe archaea do it too, since they are also prokaryotic) can integrate genes from dead bacteria into their genome through contact. And those dead bacteria genes don't have to belong to the same species as the bacteria integrating them. As you can imagine, this makes bacteria taxonomy a huge pain in the testes, as well as determining bacterial evolutionary pathways. I don't think that will ever be completely worked out.
You do know that we willfully use an imperfect system for taxonomy, right? Hence why bacteria have species names, even though their taxonomy is so complicated. It's always been a work in progress, heck, in the beginning, one of the Kingdom classes was "mineral". Freaking nonliving rocks. The idea is to keep improving it, not leave organisms without labels until the system reaches some standard of perfection. It changes as needed as we go. That's why it's so complicated. It's also why the high school definition is only suitable for people not going into a biology field.
Your error is in thinking that the definition for species in animals is complete.
-_- I don't even know how you managed to get that from your sources, especially not the latter one, which proposes that genomic testing would be a more reliable and faster method of determining bacterial species taxonomy than the previous method of using the traits the bacteria have, such as their growth habits. As genetic testing has only very recently become cheap and relatively fast, it is thus quite recent that this method was applicable to improving the taxonomy of the many species of bacteria. I mean, using an old method in a lab, it can take hours just to get the DNA out of a cell, and that's the easy part. The first organism had it's genes sequenced in the same year I was born (and I'm only 22). It's a fairly new capability, so it is no shock that it is taking some time to root itself into various scientific disciplines. Your other source is just too old to be relevant to the genetic testing we can do now.
Well, this source is exceedingly outdated in terms of genomic studies, since it's from 2006 The bacterial species definition in the genomic era | Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
And the other source you gave, which is from 2012 and a bit better in terms of being representative of the technology now, says the opposite of what you are claiming; that DNA tests would be very helpful with bacteria taxonomy. Defining bacterial species in the genomic era: insights from the genus Acinetobacter
A personal recommendation: make an honest attempt to never use sources more than 5 years old when it comes to scientific fields, as our capabilities can change rapidly, and new discoveries are made every year than make the previous articles progressively out of touch. And absolutely avoid sources older than a decade.
There, that answers all the bufoonery we have been hearing about species.
That's not true; consider our own species, for example. Members of our species from 40,000 years ago had more robust bones, only dark skin, and rectangular eye orbits (a rare trait in humans today). We can get DNA from those bodies which have been preserved due to the environment in which the body ended up, which is why we know about skin color. Our species has changed over time, and continues to do so.What changes over time? Every single fossil species discovered is the same from the youngest frisson found to the oldest...
Only fools insist that fossils we can't get DNA from are direct ancestors of any modern organisms or fossil organisms that came later. That's not why the fossil record is considered relevant to evolution. It's a matter of order of appearance, which is corroborated by DNA comparisons of modern organisms.Oh you mean those imaginary lines drawn to imaginary ancestors to support those imaginary links.
Because without human intervention in a laboratory that's the only way you've seen it happen. I know in fantasies it happens differently in the past where we can't observe it.The question is, why do you think that's the only "proof?"
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?