Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[lifepsyop]

Perhaps you could elaborate on your scepticism with this example. Why specifically do you reject this example of vestigial ear muscles as evidence of descent from a nonhuman ancestor?

First of all, it is absurd to characterize these traits as 'evidence' for common descent.

Evolutionists say the presence of those ear traits are because they were conserved from a distant common ancestor.
If those ear traits were absent then evolutionists would say natural selection removed them.
If they were unique in humans then evolutionists would say natural selection selected novel traits in a hominid lineage.

They are evidence for common descent in the same way that being able to predict a penny will land on heads or tails is evidence for one being psychic. Of course evolutionists love to use this type of illusion of evidence.

That being said, evolutionists have shown a disturbingly unscientific trend of labeling any trait whose function is not readily apparent as being "vestigial" for the sole purpose of trying to score points for their theory. Important functions have since been discovered in some of these "vestigial" traits, like the human appendix for example. At first, evolutionists characterized "vestigial" traits as being useless left-overs... they then quickly changed their tune so that "vestigial" means "only some function".. thus moving the concept of vestigiality into the realm of total equivocation and ambiguity, the evolutionists' favorite camping spot.

As far as the ear muscles go, just because there may be no apparent function for them, does not mean no function exists. Even if they serve no purpose in a fully developed human, that does not mean the developing tissues do not play some role in organizational or embyronic stages of the developing human.

In any case, I'm not in the least bit concerned of somehow proving what they are there for, as the evolutionist's argument is so woefully inept to begin with.

 

[lifepsyop]

Is this kind of morphological diversity typical within a species? Can you present other species with similar diversity?

Dogs are evidence of the potential morphological diversity within a species. Why do you seem to have such a problem with that?

Of course we know that the severity of dog variation is the result of selective breeding, but this does nothing to diminish the fact that reproductive isolation occurring in nature can potentially have similar effects. If you were actually approaching the problem scientifically (instead of imposing Darwinian mysticism) you might reasonably infer such isolation were occurring by the fossil data.

Only with evolutionists will you see dismissive hand-waving over actual observations of major shifts in morphology of dogs... yet insistence that dog morphology is the product of descent from fish-like animals with no observation or evidence at all.

 

[The Cadet]

Dogs are evidence of the potential morphological diversity within a species. Why do you seem to have such a problem with that?

Because it's unrepresentative of the norm. This potential diversity is almost never achieved as most of it is selected out. Most species occupy a niche, and usually that niche is not varied enough to allow for too many divergent selection pressures. A wolf with the kind of mutations that led to a Shi Tzu would die long before reaching breeding age.

Of course we know that the severity of dog variation is the result of selective breeding, but this does nothing to diminish the fact that reproductive isolation occurring in nature can potentially have similar effects. If you were actually approaching the problem scientifically (instead of imposing Darwinian mysticism) you might reasonably infer such isolation were occurring by the fossil data.

Where in nature does similar isolation occur? Is there any extant species not bred by humans that shows such morphological diversity? Where in the fossil record do you think that such diversity is being misinterpreted, and why?

In the case of many dog breeds, we're also dealing with a severe drop in fitness. Yesterday at my friend's apartment, I got to meet a Shi Tzu that was barely able to eat or see due to how its hair was grown and how its skull was structured. These are individual mutations which, in the wild, would lead to the creature almost certainly being weeded out of the population by predators long before they could be passed on; among breeders, however, these traits are explicitly bred as often as possible, in a way that also would not happen in nature. This is why I have such a problem with this example - it's simply not representative. I mean, just compare it even to the closest relative of the dog and you see how drastically different it is.

 

[lifepsyop]

Because it's unrepresentative of the norm. This potential diversity is almost never achieved as most of it is selected out. Most species occupy a niche, and usually that niche is not varied enough to allow for too many divergent selection pressures. A wolf with the kind of mutations that led to a Shi Tzu would die long before reaching breeding age.

But nobody is claiming that nature had to produce anything as severe as what we see in dogs, only that reproductive isolation in nature does have the potential to manifest marked intra-species morphological variation. I don't see what's so complicated about that. And selection pressures need not play any significant role at all in the case of genetic drift.

 

[The Cadet]

But nobody is claiming that nature had to produce anything as severe as what we see in dogs, only that reproductive isolation in nature does have the potential to manifest marked intra-species morphological variation. I don't see what's so complicated about that. And selection pressures need not play any significant role at all in the case of genetic drift.

I answered your question to the best of my ability, would you kindly answer mine? Is there any extant species not bred by humans that shows such morphological diversity? Where in the fossil record do you think that such diversity is being misinterpreted, and why? These are the important questions here, because without it it's only so much theoretical legwork. Let's have some concrete examples.

Although, strangely, I'm having trouble figuring out where we disagree. Reproductive isolation in nature has the potential to manifest marked intra-species morphological variation. Right, okay. So why can't this isolation lead to inter-species variation? Why can't this kind of isolation lead to the two populations being unable to produce fertile offspring?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Horizontal gene transfer is rare among us vertabrate animals. Its more common in plants and single celled bacteria.

But I'm glad you brought up the subject of ERV's, they certainly are evidence of shared ancestry among all us terrestrial four-limbed animals.

Assumptions and vague claims. Clearly more evidence is needed before any determination can be made of absolute. For every paper you show me where it is "claimed" HGT is not important, I can show you a paper that says the exact opposite. So without a doubt it is not even settled in the genetic sciences.

Two breeds mating bring forth a mongrel, which is a perfectly fine dog in its own right, but not a new breed . . . yet.
The chinook breed was not the result of a single mating.

http://www.chinook.org/history.html

And this is different than what I said how?

I've told you in many posts that once they start breeding amongst their own breed, they become set. They do not continue to evolve. The Husky once set remains a Husky. The Chinook once set remains a Chinook. The Chinese man once set remains a Chinese. You have evidence that says otherwise besides claims that they continue to evolve? No, I don't believe you do, so why would you attempt to imply otherwise, except that you have a preconceived belief that they do.

In fact, it doesn't matter how many breeding's it takes. That is a strawman. What is important is that the Chinook once set, NEVER evolves into anything, but ALWAYS remains a Chinook. So why pretend all T-Rex in the fossil record imply evolution, when T-Rex from the first to the last remain T-Rex - just like breeds?

Fossils? From historical records of dogs bred in modern times? This is a bizarre claim you are making. Here's a quote from the above link:

Chinook was bred to German Shepherd Dogs and Belgian Sheepdogs (at this time, all varieties were considered the same breed) from working backgrounds, Canadian Eskimo dogs, and perhaps other breeds. These offspring were bred back to Chinook, and to each other to create the Chinook breed. He was considered a sport of nature because he sired pups that resembled himself in size, color, drive and intelligence.

"He was considered a sport of nature because he sired pups that resembled himself in size, color, drive and intelligence."

Simply proves my point....... So are you suggesting in nature two interbreeding breeds brought together by natural occurrences would not continue to mate with the new breed also joining in? So why would you doubt the Triceratops and another breed mated and produced T. Horridus, who mated back with both triceratops and the other breed and eventually became fully T. Horridus, just as the fossil record shows? Not evolution, but the process of breed mating with breed. You just explained those forms that don't quite match either one is all - and did so without requiring anything to evolve into another or realizing you were doing it.

See? Multiple generations were involved in establishing the breed. The original dog that inspired the desire to create the breed would never have bred true except for the intense selection and careful breeding by men skilled in this technique.

And hence the appearance of new breeds in the fossil record takes an extremely long time, yes, because no one is there to direct the mating. It proceeds naturally over time.

Or the interbreeding of breeds brought together by natural occurrences, drought, flood, geological changes, etc. You've done nothing but prove my point - that no evolution is needed to explain what the fossil record shows. So accept your own conclusions and give up your false belief that one creature slowly evolves into another creature. It is as you stated, simply different breeds inter-mating.

You admit that much change is possible to see in creatures of common descent and yet you deny evolution is possible. A very strange mind set.

Not strange at all - did you see the Chinook "evolve" from the Husky due to mutation or through natural processes of gene transfer????? Be honest with yourself for once. What I find strange is you should know how normal reproduction works. You see the variation available just through normal sharing of genes between breeds, yet you insist an entirely different process than what you just explained above is happening in the past. That is a very strange mind set, to ignore what you see in favor of something never once seen.

And just seeing one in real life would still leave you thinking they were different species. Only the fact that they can all breed together makes them a single species, and its obvious the biggest of them cannot breed with the smallest of them . . . they just don't fit! So all we have to do is eliminate the middle breeds and presto, we would have two species right before our eyes!

Only if you lie to yourself and pretend they did not all originate from the same original species - and so are then at most merely subspecies, varieties, breeds, or formae - infraspecific taxa - not a separate species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

That mechanism, over millions and millions of years, is responsible for the development of the great panoply of life.

Agreed - two breed of the same kind mate and over time in the natural world produce a third, and so on and so forth. At no time does one "evolve" into the other. Once again, the Husky breed did not "evolve" into the Chinook. It mated with a Mastiff and other breds then entered the mix - and the Chinook breed came into existence. It's genes became set - and now it is only ever a Chinook, even if you claim it should continue to evolve. This will never happen until it is mated with a new breed that is set and the process begins again.

So why try to pretend that Triceratops are other than they are - a breed of dinosaur? And T. Horridus and T. Prorsus. And every single one of them of whichever Kind you care to consider. And is why all Triceratops remain Triceratops, just as Husky remains Husky.

 

[lifepsyop]

I answered your question to the best of my ability, would you kindly answer mine? Is there any extant species not bred by humans that shows such morphological diversity? Where in the fossil record do you think that such diversity is being misinterpreted, and why? These are the important questions here, because without it it's only so much theoretical legwork. Let's have some concrete examples.

Justa has been showing you examples, such as 'Ceratopsian' variations that exhibit varying levels of expression in horns and frill. It is more sensible to infer these changes as different expression levels within intra-species populations, instead of the Darwinian idea that they are distinctly different species that have "evolved" new traits.

As for an example observed in nature we could turn to finches. These are morphological changes that are rapidly fixated in intra-species finch populations. The populations become isolated because of environmental fluctuations brought on by seasonal changes. Thus within only a few years we observe many populations of the same species exhibiting marked cranio-facial variations. And they tend to revert back just as quickly as populations blend back together following seasonal cycles.

Although, strangely, I'm having trouble figuring out where we disagree. Reproductive isolation in nature has the potential to manifest marked intra-species morphological variation.

Because the intra-species variation has nothing to do with the "evolution" of new traits. The variation is caused by different levels of expression of pre-existing traits.

Right, okay. So why can't this isolation lead to inter-species variation? Why can't this kind of isolation lead to the two populations being unable to produce fertile offspring?

I don't doubt that increasingly isolated populations can potentially lose the ability to produce fertile offspring (and sure you can label this a different "species" if you want), but it will probably be accompanied by a significant lack of fitness brought on by the shallowing of the gene pool... not because the populations have "evolved" away from each other.

Reproductive isolation is not a mechanism driving onwards-and-upwards evolution of new body plans, the most it can do is exhaust the potential expression levels of pre-existing genetic traits. This is part of the reason that "speciation" is a useless concept in terms of an argument for universal common ancestry, because speciation is more likely a trajectory towards unhealthiness and eventual extinction.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

First of all, it is absurd to characterize these traits as 'evidence' for common descent.

Evolutionists say the presence of those ear traits are because they were conserved from a distant common ancestor.
If those ear traits were absent then evolutionists would say natural selection removed them.
If they were unique in humans then evolutionists would say natural selection selected novel traits in a hominid lineage.

They are evidence for common descent in the same way that being able to predict a penny will land on heads or tails is evidence for one being psychic. Of course evolutionists love to use this type of illusion of evidence.

That being said, evolutionists have shown a disturbingly unscientific trend of labeling any trait whose function is not readily apparent as being "vestigial" for the sole purpose of trying to score points for their theory. Important functions have since been discovered in some of these "vestigial" traits, like the human appendix for example. At first, evolutionists characterized "vestigial" traits as being useless left-overs... they then quickly changed their tune so that "vestigial" means "only some function".. thus moving the concept of vestigiality into the realm of total equivocation and ambiguity, the evolutionists' favorite camping spot.

As far as the ear muscles go, just because there may be no apparent function for them, does not mean no function exists. Even if they serve no purpose in a fully developed human, that does not mean the developing tissues do not play some role in organizational or embyronic stages of the developing human.

In any case, I'm not in the least bit concerned of somehow proving what they are there for, as the evolutionist's argument is so woefully inept to begin with.

That was quite heavy on assertion and quite light on data. This first part was just your usual argumentation based on the hypothetical actions of hypothetical scientists, which is not really support for your point because you could have your hypothetical scientists say anything.

And you're going back to your argument that the possibility of different patterns means that no pattern is evidence for evolution. We didn't get to finish with the plate tectonics example (thanks to fools getting the thread closed) that illustrated the flaw with your position, so let's continue that.

Fossil assemblage X shows that Australia and Antarctica were at one time attached.

A different assemblage could have shown that Australia was attached to North America.

Either arrangement shows that the continents have moved a great deal. Do you disagree with this?


Also, you note that vestigial structures are currently understood to be structures that retain little of their original function, but then your argument is focused on the idea that vestigial structures are useless.

 

[lifepsyop]

That was quite heavy on assertion and quite light on data. This first part was just your usual argumentation based on the hypothetical actions of hypothetical scientists, which is not really support for your point because you could have your hypothetical scientists say anything.

Those were not hypotheticals. That is textbook evolutionary reasoning.

Shared Trait Presence - evolution did it
Unique Trait Presence - evolution did it
Trait Absence - evolution did it
Expected similarities - evolution did it
Unexpected similarities - evolution did it
Expected differences - evolution did it
Unexpected differences - evolution did it

And you're going back to your argument that the possibility of different patterns means that no pattern is evidence for evolution.

No specific pattern is evidence for evolution, since so many could have been accommodated.

We didn't get to finish with the plate tectonics example (thanks to fools getting the thread closed) that illustrated the flaw with your position, so let's continue that.

Fossil assemblage X shows that Australia and Antarctica were at one time attached.
A different assemblage could have shown that Australia was attached to North America.
Either arrangement shows that the continents have moved a great deal. Do you disagree with this?

Sure, but remember that evolutionists are using the specific stratigraphic fossil ordering as evidence, not simply that an order exists at all. As far as public-relations goes, they know that wouldn't be persuasive enough, so evolutionists have to lead the public to believe that every major animal group is fossilized right where they expect it to be. That is one of the biggest illusions buttressing popular acceptance of evolution theory.

Also, you note that vestigial structures are currently understood to be structures that retain little of their original function, but then your argument is focused on the idea that vestigial structures are useless.

I suppose vestigiality (since it is a term already equivocated into oblivion) can mean either one.. if evolutionists believe they can still get away with a "zero function" position, then they'll go for it. If function is later identified, they'll just sidestep over to their "little function" position.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

And hence the appearance of new breeds in the fossil record takes an extremely long time, yes, because no one is there to direct the mating.

Does this mean you accept deep time?

 

[The Cadet]

Justa has been showing you examples, such as 'Ceratopsian' variations that exhibit varying levels of expression in horns and frill. It is more sensible to infer these changes as different expression levels within intra-species populations, instead of the Darwinian idea that they are distinctly different species that have "evolved" new traits.

First off, thanks for the clear and concise answers.

Right, so let's take a look at some of this. How can we tell that these are different species? This is honestly a question I'm not sure I'm quite capable of answering. So I went to the experts.

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?pid=28842#p28842

Haven't got an answer yet, but I'll let you know when I do.

As for an example observed in nature we could turn to finches. These are morphological changes that are rapidly fixated in intra-species finch populations. The populations become isolated because of environmental fluctuations brought on by seasonal changes. Thus within only a few years we observe many populations of the same species exhibiting marked cranio-facial variations. And they tend to revert back just as quickly as populations blend back together following seasonal cycles.

And yet, the morphological changes are nowhere near as pronounced. The bones clearly show very strong homology, with minor exceptions within the beak. This is one of those issues where the fuzziness of nature messes with our interest in nice, neat boxes - despite the interbreeding, the various finches are seen as different species.

Because the intra-species variation has nothing to do with the "evolution" of new traits. The variation is caused by different levels of expression of pre-existing traits.

Okay, this is a problem for two reasons.

Firstly, it once again reverses the tree of life, leaving us with the problem that we should see genetic diversity constantly winding down. This makes no sense, as we constantly see new forms of life throughout the fossil record. By what mechanism do these breeds evolve? Where, in other words, did the Husky and the Mastiff come from?

Secondly, genetics has actually shown us the mechanisms by which new traits can evolve. We understand these things now.
It's not news, and it's nothing special. And we've seen in numerous cases that totally new traits can evolve - bacteria evolving to eat Citrate or Nylon, for example. The mechanisms are well-understood. We can even look through our own genome, compare it to chimps, and see not just where we diverged, but how.

I don't doubt that increasingly isolated populations can potentially lose the ability to produce fertile offspring (and sure you can label this a different "species" if you want), but it will probably be accompanied by a significant lack of fitness brought on by the shallowing of the gene pool... not because the populations have "evolved" away from each other.

But we've seen increases in the gene pool not brought on by other "breeds" coming into the picture. And we understand
where the new genetic information comes from fairly well.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justa has been showing you examples, such as 'Ceratopsian' variations that exhibit varying levels of expression in horns and frill. It is more sensible to infer these changes as different expression levels within intra-species populations, instead of the Darwinian idea that they are distinctly different species that have "evolved" new traits.

As for an example observed in nature we could turn to finches. These are morphological changes that are rapidly fixated in intra-species finch populations. The populations become isolated because of environmental fluctuations brought on by seasonal changes. Thus within only a few years we observe many populations of the same species exhibiting marked cranio-facial variations. And they tend to revert back just as quickly as populations blend back together following seasonal cycles.

Because the intra-species variation has nothing to do with the "evolution" of new traits. The variation is caused by different levels of expression of pre-existing traits.

Agree with everything above!

I don't doubt that increasingly isolated populations can potentially lose the ability to produce fertile offspring (and sure you can label this a different "species" if you want), but it will probably be accompanied by a significant lack of fitness brought on by the shallowing of the gene pool... not because the populations have "evolved" away from each other.

Except thy CAN'T label them different species, even if they do anyways. Without violating their own definitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Those lost abilities once a species is defined - due to whatever adapted traits caused the change - leave it always the same species - merely infraspecific taxa thereof. They may call it a subspecies, variety, etc, but never a new species separate from the original pair.

EDIT: And this is why species versus Kind is a useless definition because they throw it around willy-nilly.

Reproductive isolation is not a mechanism driving onwards-and-upwards evolution of new body plans, the most it can do is exhaust the potential expression levels of pre-existing genetic traits. This is part of the reason that "speciation" is a useless concept in terms of an argument for universal common ancestry, because speciation is more likely a trajectory towards unhealthiness and eventual extinction.

Shown in every plant and animal husbandry ever conducted.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

 

[Justatruthseeker]

First off, thanks for the clear and concise answers.

Right, so let's take a look at some of this. How can we tell that these are different species? This is honestly a question I'm not sure I'm quite capable of answering. So I went to the experts.

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?pid=28842#p28842

Haven't got an answer yet, but I'll let you know when I do.

Please do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."

Human constructs based upon pre-conceived ideas.

There is usually no way to know if that fossil is even of the same species to begin with. Because if it was, everything after would be merely infraspecific taxa - not a new species, just as we observe in the real world. So you use similarities - but then refuse to use those same similarities and apply them to what we observe in real life. Similarities between breeds of the same species - and the differences between species.

And yet, the morphological changes are nowhere near as pronounced. The bones clearly show very strong homology, with minor exceptions within the beak. This is one of those issues where the fuzziness of nature messes with our interest in nice, neat boxes - despite the interbreeding, the various finches are seen as different species.

Because they incorrectly define them as different species - despite seeing the differences in muzzles of dogs we know are of the same species - just different breeds within that species. they have lost all cohesiveness with reality.

Okay, this is a problem for two reasons.

Firstly, it once again reverses the tree of life, leaving us with the problem that we should see genetic diversity constantly winding down. This makes no sense, as we constantly see new forms of life throughout the fossil record. By what mechanism do these breeds evolve? Where, in other words, did the Husky and the Mastiff come from?

Secondly, genetics has actually shown us the mechanisms by which new traits can evolve. We understand these things now.
It's not news, and it's nothing special. And we've seen in numerous cases that totally new traits can evolve - bacteria evolving to eat Citrate or Nylon, for example. The mechanisms are well-understood. We can even look through our own genome, compare it to chimps, and see not just where we diverged, but how.



But we've seen increases in the gene pool not brought on by other "breeds" coming into the picture. And we understand
where the new genetic information comes from fairly well.

And the less the breeds intermix - the more we force them to interbreed, the more problem peculiar to that breed appear. You see what you call evolution happening on an accelerated timetable - and in all cases it has led to the eventual inclusion of genetic defects within the differing breeds.

A man 1000 years ago could outwork any man today, life was harsh. Only our technology has allowed us to live longer - better medicine etc, not an evolving species. Deer are exactly the same as they were, until they mate with another breed of the Kind.

Just as a Chinese breed will remain the same until mated with an African breed. At which time a new breed will when they begin inter-mating - if needed for reasons of survival, isolation, etc, would again become set. A Husky remains a Husky, A Chinese man remains a Chinese man. Again, why should we pretend it happens any differently in the fossil record?

 

[sfs]

As for an example observed in nature we could turn to finches. These are morphological changes that are rapidly fixated in intra-species finch populations. The populations become isolated because of environmental fluctuations brought on by seasonal changes. Thus within only a few years we observe many populations of the same species exhibiting marked cranio-facial variations. And they tend to revert back just as quickly as populations blend back together following seasonal cycles.

Those are all different species, and hybridization is very rare between them. They most certainly do not blend back together again.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Those are all different species, and hybridization is very rare between them. They most certainly do not blend back together again.

No they are not, they are the same exact species - just different breeds. And yes they do.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago083531.html

The Galápagos finches are often touted as a great example of an adaptive radiation, showing how new species can arise through evolutionary processes. A new article in Nature by Galápagos finch researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant, "Speciation undone," confirms what we we've said here in the past -- Galápagos finch species are capable of interbreeding -- but adds a new twist: they're interbreeding so much that in multiple cases, two "species" may be fusing back into one species.

According to the article, "New observations suggest that two species of Darwin's finches are hybridizing on a Galápagos island, and that a third one has disappeared through interbreeding," as "one population of Darwin's finches has become extinct through interbreeding with another."

So first you incorrectly classified them as separate species, before you realized they interbreed, and at no time did one evolve into another, imagine that.

 

[lifepsyop]

Those are all different species, and hybridization is very rare between them. They most certainly do not blend back together again.

"The second striking result was that the success of matings between individuals of different species, gauged by the number of fledglings per clutch, was just as high as the success of matings between conspecific individuals. Moreover, matings between hybrids, or backcrosses of hybrids to the parental species, showed no consistent sign of reduced fitness. The admixture of fortis and scandens genomes, or fortis and fuliginosa genomes, in any proportion, had no detectable effect on the vigour of offspring. Hence, the ecological differences between species were not being maintained by selection against inviable intermediate types, at least after the El Niño event of 1983 that altered the vegetation of the island.

The pattern that the Grants and their collaborators discovered on Daphne Major, then, was a community of ecologically specialized groups that occasionally interbred to produce fully viable hybrids. Without divergent selection to maintain their distinctiveness, these groups should slowly coalesce, and this seems to be happening. Twenty years after the 1993 paper, the morphological differences between fortis and scandens have diminished appreciably, and a visit in mid-century might find only a single type, with no hint of the diversity that had once existed."

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/370/1666/20140287

 

[sfs]

No they are not, they are the same exact species - just different breeds. And yes they do.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/nature_galapago083531.html

The Galápagos finches are often touted as a great example of an adaptive radiation, showing how new species can arise through evolutionary processes.

Look again. The picture you posted was of Hawaiian honeycreepers, not Galapagos finches.

 

[The Cadet]

Please do!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

"A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group. This is especially important where the descendant group is sharply differentiated by gross anatomy and mode of living from the ancestral group. These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation. Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence. Therefore, we can't assume transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors."

Human constructs based upon pre-conceived ideas.

I think you're misunderstanding what they're saying here. The point here is that no matter what division we draw (unless we want to bring it down to "George Bush" "George Bush's Father" George Bush's Father's Father" - essentially treating each individual member of each species as its own separate box) will be placing boxes onto a continuum. Or, to call back to the classic picture:

The problem described by Wikipedia is that when looking at that picture, we have to drop the boxes "red" "purple" and "blue" at least somewhat arbitrarily*. It's entirely justifiable to claim that red ends at "All this micro-evolution" and that purple starts there. It's similarly justifiable to claim that red stops at "See, the common misunderstanding is". These sorts of classifications are necessary to provide sensible labels for these things, but unfortunately we're stuck trying to find discreet boundaries in a distinctly non-discreet process.

However, what you're implying is that any given separation of the above text into red, purple, and blue is false. That we can't separate at all because we're simply imposing our own definitions onto it. I think that's not something the author of that passage you quoted would agree with.


*Perhaps worth noting: this picture is actually not great for the purposes of this analogy, because with 256-bit RGB color and robust definitions of the color wheel, it's not arbitrary in quite the same way. But unless you want to measure the pixels, it still works okay.

There is usually no way to know if that fossil is even of the same species to begin with. Because if it was, everything after would be merely infraspecific taxa - not a new species, just as we observe in the real world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It may not be what you're looking for, but I get the feeling what you're looking for is something we simply could not observe. For most extant, complex animals, recorded history goes back at most a few thousand generations; records where we actually pay close attention go back only a fraction of that. You're not likely to get some massive speciation event within that short amount of time.

Because they incorrectly define them as different species - despite seeing the differences in muzzles of dogs we know are of the same species - just different breeds within that species. they have lost all cohesiveness with reality.

At this point you saying that the leading experts on the finches have incorrectly defined them with absolutely nothing beyond your bold-faced assertion to back it up is really unimpressive. Your continued reliance on dog breeds (an incredibly poor example) doubly so.

And the less the breeds intermix - the more we force them to interbreed, the more problem peculiar to that breed appear. You see what you call evolution happening on an accelerated timetable - and in all cases it has led to the eventual inclusion of genetic defects within the differing breeds.

Wait, what? The breed-specific problems are a result of massive inbreeding and specifically selecting for traits tied to deleterious effects! This sort of inbreeding is not the norm in evolution unless the species is very close to dying out. Standard breeding practices within different breeds do not lead to this kind of constant genetic defects - in fact, such defects generally get selected out. This is why I keep telling you that dogs are not a good example! A wolf with the kind of genetic defects that a bulldog has is a dead wolf, and won't pass on those defective genes. You are taking a very specific, very poor example and extrapolating from that to, well, everything. You want to understand why your argument is so bad? Stop using artificially selected animals. Find an example not bred by humans and use that instead. You'll find that you can't, because this does not happen in nature!

A man 1000 years ago could outwork any man today, [...]

That's a bold claim. Cite, please?

Just as a Chinese breed will remain the same until mated with an African breed.

And now we start talking about races. Great. Just what this discussion needed. The problem with this, however, is that human "races" are genetically incredibly similar. Referring to "breeds" in any sense is like saying I'm a different breed from my cousin.

At which time a new breed will when they begin inter-mating - if needed for reasons of survival, isolation, etc, would again become set. A Husky remains a Husky, A Chinese man remains a Chinese man. Again, why should we pretend it happens any differently in the fossil record?

Where did the Husky come from?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or, to call back to the classic picture:

This color exercise is misleading to the core.

It doesn't take "missing links" into consideration.

 

[sfs]

This color exercise is misleading to the core.

It doesn't take "missing links" into consideration.

On the contrary, it's got hundreds of missing links in it.