Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[pshun2404]

Tell me exactly how a BONE can be stimulated by the parasympathetic nervous system?

WHAT???? How the hell did you twist that out of what I wrote? I don't think this is true (and never said it) or even somehow relevant. You twist so badly you give a bad rep to Chubby Checker.

 

[xianghua]

If you saw a walking creature made from organic components and had a self-replicating system, how could you tell it was a robot?

its like saying that if you will find a car made from organic components and had a self-replicating system, how could you tell it was a car?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And you have observed this divergence far enough to become definitive with anything? How long is a long time, after we are all dead and gone so no one can prove anything? Is this another one of those ad hoc assumptions we are to take for granted even if never observed?

Not all events must be observed in order to be known.

For example, by only observing the circumstantial evidence exhibited in this picture:

We can conclude that it burned there. We don't need to actually observe the fire raging, to know that.

Dogs if left to natural occurrences like famine, etc instead of man interfering would have encompassed hundreds of millions of years to produce but a few breeds, but in the end would still be the same species.

Good luck supporting that claim.

And yet despite your claim Darwin specifically states in his books that he classified them as separate species based upon the belief they were reproductively isolated. It is that which he believed led to different beaks and separate species.

Without going in on this particular subject, since I don't have enough knowledge about it, I'ld just like to point out how bizarre I think it is to be using quotes of Darwin when trying to argue agains 21ste century biology.

Darwin didn't even know about DNA. While the dude is credited for the discovery of the concept of Natural Selection and, in broad terms, the idea that all species share a common ancestor, there was a LOT he did not know about. There were also quite a few things that he got wrong, obviously.

But why dwell on it? His ideas are 200 years old or whatever. Biology learned a thing or two since then.

Must we now go to the definition of speciation to see how it supposedly occurs?

The definition of "species" does not explain how speciation works. It merely defines what a species is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your understand wrong, it is not that they cannot it is that they do not (there are many reasons for this within sub-species of other animals as well)

And by not doing it, they become genetically isolated. Which inevitably leads to a complete inability of interbreeding as they would diverged further and further from one another.

.All observations in nature and as tested and performed in labs show that speciation ONLY produces different varieties (sub species) of the same creature!

Obviously..... speciation is a vertical process.
Cats will not start producing dogs. They produce more cats.

Every species is a "variation" within the "group" of the ancestral species.

Go with the real observable test demonstrated evidence on this one...

We are.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Would you care to quote the part that says that please? I can't find it.

Oh sorry, it actually requires you look at the claimed dates and do some math.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your last three or four posts have been spot on...good job! Yes they blur and even change definitions as convenient and never can simply say "Sorry! I guess we were wr-wr-wr-wrong...!"

Please.... the only side here that happily admits being wrong when actually being wrong, is the science side. In fact, that's when scientists are most excited: when it turns our they were wrong. Because it means learning and making progress.

"Being wrong" is not in your average creationist's handbook or dictionary. They can't be wrong, because they have the bible. And if reality disagrees, it's reality that is wrong - not their faith based beliefs.

[qutoe]
They have a real problem once convinced of a claim, separating the the real observable testable data from the story they have been persuaded is true.[/QUOTE]

Textbook projection.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No.

I asked the creationist (non)expert whether or not they were humans or apes.

Possibly human, ape, ape.

Apparently, neither of you can draw your own conclusions without seeing what the evo said first, and then only to argue the opposite.

All based upon external features, but we know external features are no indicator of species. I could take a young ape skull, which is almost human like, lacking the connectors older apes have, and an artist if told it was a human would draw it up and put clothes on it looking just like a man based upon how old I said it was. The next artist if I told them ape, would then draw it apelike.

I was unaware than actually answering each point a creationist makes would be considered diverting.

Why not, you claim when yours aren’t answered it’s diverting.

Then again, since you and most creationists have a distinct tendency to ignore most of what other people write, I can see how this level of integrity is troublesome.

Self conflicted often?

But as I am being accused of going off-topic for replying to what a creationist wrote, how about this - can YOU interpret this cladogram:

You do, afterall, write a lot about such things and portray yourself as having sufficient knowledge of them and the methods that produce them to dismiss and mischaracterize it all.

Yes I can interpret it. Fantasy, because as soon as you get to every single branching, the common ancestor will be missing. Instead we will see one distinct species separated from another distinct species. The two only joined by this non-existent common ancestor. Then you’ll claim lack of fossils, even if we have those after the claimed split on either branch and those before the split, but never the species that actually split so the theory can be tested.

The rest is irrelevant concerning me.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

WHY???


Assertions are for losers - let us see your rationale and supporting evidence.

WHY would you expect the offspring of a breeding pair with perfect middle eastern genomes to take on Asian, African, Nordic, etc. features over a few hundred generations?

What is your EXPLANATION for why you expect this?

What is your explanation for why they have middle eastern genomes?

And unlike you, I understand WHY closely related things have differing appearances.

I don’t think you do, or you would understand that mating produced over 100 breeds of dog from an imperfect wolf genome.

You still cannot explain where the Asian and African came from in the first place if your assertion that new variation only comes from hybridization has merit.


You keep running away from that like a frightened child... for some reason...

I also notice that you could not tell which skull was 'fully human' and which was 'fully ape' despite pretending to know.

Answered.

You just think answered already means running because you keep ignoring we produced over 100 breeds of dog from one wolf stock. Then also refuse to accept that a mere 12-15 races can be produced the same way.

So let’s see, someone domesticated wolves, started selectively breeding them, ended up with genetically distinct breeds through simple selection for traits.

Then you continually refuse to accept that humans did the same thing to themselves. People with Asian like features started mating with only those with Asian like features. You know, Asians tended to mate only with other Asians and Africans tended to mate only with other Africans, except where their ranges overlapped.

So tell us all, we know dogs came about from the domestication and selective breeding of those wolves for specific traits. Then you see humans did the same thing. Then you find it confusing that we split into 12-15 races like wolves split into 100+ breeds through interbreeding.

I find your consistent refusal to accept reality quite disturbing.

Every single animal alive tends to do this. Grizzly bears tend to mate with grizzly bears. Polar bears tend to mate with polar bears. But where their ranges overlap we get variation or the pizzly or grolar.

You just refuse to accept that like with dogs the population of domesticated wolves was small, so continued cross breeding occurred and combined with trait selection, eventually led to over 150 recognized breeds.

Then refuse to accept that when the human population was small.....

No, refusal to apply the same process to humans is your avoidance tactic so you don’t have to face reality.

Wolves were not the original pair, they produced several breeds of wolf. Yet from just a few of those breeds we ended up with over 150.

Face reality tas and stop running.

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh sorry, it actually requires you look at the claimed dates and do some math.

So much for asking politely. I'll assume this is a case of deflection then, as usual.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As I said in the OP, these people tap dance around and avoid answering anything that goes against their belief system. I doubt very much you will receive a fully evidenced reply.

You’ve had it handed to you countless times.

If we can breed over 150 different breeds from wolves, what in your right mind makes you think we can’t breed 12-15 races from human stock?

Ignoring the answer doesn’t make it not an answer.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not all events must be observed in order to be known.

For example, by only observing the circumstantial evidence exhibited in this picture:

* pic *

We can conclude that it burned there. We don't need to actually observe the fire raging, to know that.

Merry Christmas!

 

[PsychoSarah]

And yet do a google search on african and Caucasian babies. Look for yourself which features dominate.

You said ALL of them. Ever heard of a widow's peak? Much more common in Caucasian people, and it is a dominant gene (it's a feature of the hair line, a bit subtle but it is when it points down towards the middle of the forehead). Skin color genes have incomplete dominance, so children of people with drastically different skin tones are usually an intermediate color. Nose shape and cheekbone structure are variable in terms of inheritance. In fact, I can think of only 2 traits I'd associate as "African" that are inherited in an outright dominant fashion (air quotes because so many different groups have these traits): curly hair and brown eyes.

Generally speaking, the most common traits humans have overall lean more towards recessive genes than dominant ones. This is because, in evolutionary terms, it's easier to have true breeding individuals for a recessive trait than it is to have them for a dominant trait (because people that express the most recessive form of a trait usually can't be carriers of the dominant allele, because if they were, they wouldn't be expressing that recessive trait). Uni-brows aren't the norm, but the gene associated with them is dominant.

Might have done you some good.

lol, I did read the Wiki, because something Wikipedia is really good for is as a source for other sources. I was actually being cheeky a bit with the dog breed I chose, because I have been telling you, dog breeds are not a good standard for degrees of difference. They are entirely arbitrary.

Keep ignoring the reality that all dogs come from wolves.

I'm... not? Since when do you think as much?

And of those, how many were bred to climb cliff faces after birds? One?

I'm not going to look through every dog breed to find out, but I bet Swiss herding dogs, such as the Greater Swiss Mountain dog, would benefit greatly from being able to scale rocky, mountainous terrain.

Can, just grabbed the first one that popped up. But here, let’s show how wrong you are since you insist on not checking your facts before opening your mouth.

How many fossils have been found? (Page 1) - Fossils - Ask a Biologist Q&A

“In terms of the number of individual fossils there are probably countless billions. Most large Natural History Museums will have a collection of several million.”


Except they estimate they’ve found about all the genus.

Will we ever run out of dinosaur bones?

“Using a statistical technique known as the abundance-based coverage estimator, scientists estimate that in the 165-million-year period that dinosaurs roamed the Earth, there were some 1,844 different genera, from carnivorous dinosaurs like the Velociraptor to herbivores like the Stegosaurus. Since humans started searching for dinosaur bones in 1824, it's estimated that we've found remnants from 29 percent of these types, mostly in the last 20 years (a jump largely attributable to increased manpower and discoveries in Argentina and China). If we keep at the current pace of new discovery, it's likely that we'll hit something like "peak dinosaur," with 50 percent of all dinosaur genera discovered, by 2037. Within the next 100 to 140 years, we will have found 90 percent.”

Assuming that all of them have fossilized. Furthermore, did you even read your own quote? Here, I'll bold the part you should have taken notice of. So... why do you think the fossil record should be complete again?

Also, I was responding using your own "source" which I didn't even view as reliable... which you now disagree with because it was inconvenient. Fancy that. Got you to find better sources, though, nice.

I’ll still be alive in 2037 and we still won’t have found transitional or common ancestors.

That's pretty presumptuous. The not finding transitional fossil part, that is.

You got no transitional fossils. Present away, every single one will be human or nonhuman.

There, I fixed that for you.

Then present your best go-to and let’s get it done already....

Why wouldn't I want to put my best foot forward instead? Want to talk about the strongest evidence for evolution? Because it isn't fossils.

I already know that people, including myself, have shown you a plethora of different transitional fossils that you just wave away by claiming them to be "ape" or "human". That is, rather than accept them as transitionals, you want to lump them into categories that would make all species farther from each other in terms of taxonomy. "Intermediate between amphibian and fish? Pish posh, clearly, this creature is just fish, only fish, the amphibian traits don't matter, it's just a fish." This is why I'd rather not talk about fossils with you; fossil identities are just barely uncertain enough that you feel like you can comfortably identify them however you want and ignore their actual classifications.

If your scared and just want to make claims, just say so.

XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD What do I have to be scared of? The idea of evolution being disproven interests me. I like it when mainstream theories are challenged.

And yet when it comes down to the nitty gritty all you’ll do is show me humans, whales and horses. Never will you show me a single common ancestor that split to become ape and man. Lots of apes, lots of men, but zilch on the common ancestor.

What's this thing? http://occupyilluminati.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/19ed3_oe52d223a8.jpg

Back it up, produce it, you are being called out on your claims...

Claims of what?

You didn’t look up anything.
Ever get tired of not doing research and continually be shown to be wrong. Won’t call it what it really is....

No, but I do get tired of my ADHD causing me to misread things from time to time. I sincerely did read the Wiki and some of the sources it links, but I am human after all. Regardless, the Chinook is your safe space of using dog breeds when you have yet to justify even using dog breeds as a standard by which to measure differences in populations and how they arise.

Oh that’s right, once creation stops the world quits turning.
Ha, what? Confusion between the theory and the observation? We observe that populations change over time, and the theory of evolution exists to explain how and why. The change is an absolute fact.

Don’t try that line especially when I offered to let you pick any traits you wanted, even if most favorable to you.

That was never the point of the experiment; the point was that it was an evolution experiment anyone could do, and that creationists be the ones running it. Test evolution for yourself. And you rejected the opportunity.

That’s how positive I am, and yet you haven’t taken me up on that, pretending you can’t do it because someone doesn’t pick the traits for you.

-_- dude, I am performing the experiment, I just have to wait for the tank to cycle, yeesh. It proceeding didn't count on you specifically.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

WHAT???? How the hell did you twist that out of what I wrote? I don't think this is true (and never said it) or even somehow relevant. You twist so badly you give a bad rep to Chubby Checker.

Lol, I was about to ask him the same thing, since it controls “rest functions” during sleep. That was his gotcha, thinking you’d fall for it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So much for asking politely. I'll assume this is a case of deflection then, as usual.

Why not, you already assume non-existing common ancestors existed, what’s one more in a long line of assumptions.

Go reread, do some math. That’s your problem, you want everything handed to you with no work, so when the evolutionists hand you beliefs you accept them without checking to see if the facts align. Case in point.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You said ALL of them. Ever heard of a widow's peak? Much more common in Caucasian people, and it is a dominant gene (it's a feature of the hair line, a bit subtle but it is when it points down towards the middle of the forehead). Skin color genes have incomplete dominance, so children of people with drastically different skin tones are usually an intermediate color. Nose shape and cheekbone structure are variable in terms of inheritance. In fact, I can think of only 2 traits I'd associate as "African" that are inherited in an outright dominant fashion (air quotes because so many different groups have these traits): curly hair and brown eyes.

Generally speaking, the most common traits humans have overall lean more towards recessive genes than dominant ones. This is because, in evolutionary terms, it's easier to have true breeding individuals for a recessive trait than it is to have them for a dominant trait (because people that express the most recessive form of a trait usually can't be carriers of the dominant allele, because if they were, they wouldn't be expressing that recessive trait). Uni-brows aren't the norm, but the gene associated with them is dominant.





lol, I did read the Wiki, because something Wikipedia is really good for is as a source for other sources. I was actually being cheeky a bit with the dog breed I chose, because I have been telling you, dog breeds are not a good standard for degrees of difference. They are entirely arbitrary.




I'm... not? Since when do you think as much?



I'm not going to look through every dog breed to find out, but I bet Swiss herding dogs, such as the Greater Swiss Mountain dog, would benefit greatly from being able to scale rocky, mountainous terrain.




Assuming that all of them have fossilized. Furthermore, did you even read your own quote? Here, I'll bold the part you should have taken notice of. So... why do you think the fossil record should be complete again?

Also, I was responding using your own "source" which I didn't even view as reliable... which you now disagree with because it was inconvenient. Fancy that. Got you to find better sources, though, nice.


That's pretty presumptuous. The not finding transitional fossil part, that is.



There, I fixed that for you.



Why wouldn't I want to put my best foot forward instead? Want to talk about the strongest evidence for evolution? Because it isn't fossils.

I already know that people, including myself, have shown you a plethora of different transitional fossils that you just wave away by claiming them to be "ape" or "human". That is, rather than accept them as transitionals, you want to lump them into categories that would make all species farther from each other in terms of taxonomy. "Intermediate between amphibian and fish? Pish posh, clearly, this creature is just fish, only fish, the amphibian traits don't matter, it's just a fish." This is why I'd rather not talk about fossils with you; fossil identities are just barely uncertain enough that you feel like you can comfortably identify them however you want and ignore their actual classifications.


XD XD XD XD XD XD XD XD What do I have to be scared of? The idea of evolution being disproven interests me. I like it when mainstream theories are challenged.



What's this thing? http://occupyilluminati.com/wp-content/plugins/rss-poster/cache/19ed3_oe52d223a8.jpg


Claims of what?


No, but I do get tired of my ADHD causing me to misread things from time to time. I sincerely did read the Wiki and some of the sources it links, but I am human after all. Regardless, the Chinook is your safe space of using dog breeds when you have yet to justify even using dog breeds as a standard by which to measure differences in populations and how they arise.

Let’s see, what I got from all this is when asked to provide your best evidence you hee hawed around the subject and failed to present it. I’ll tale that as meaning you have none.

Why shouldn’t dogs be an excellent example?

Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Every animal alive does this.

Polar bear mates with grizzly and produces the pizzly. Grizzly mates with polar bear and produces the grolar. Just depending on which is male and female.

Ground finch mates with tree finch and produces as an yet unnamed finch.

Tigers mate with lions and produce Ligers. Ligers mate with lions and produce the Li-Liger.

All of these animals have undergone countless mutations, yet despite this, it is only when they interbreed that a new form arises.

Contemplate on this and you’ll realize it’s the only time you have observed new subspecies arise in the species.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Not all events must be observed in order to be known.

For example, by only observing the circumstantial evidence exhibited in this picture:

View attachment 214976

We can conclude that it burned there. We don't need to actually observe the fire raging, to know that.


"Not all events must be observed in order to be known." To stay true to that logic you should have posted a blank picture and then come to a conclusion. You refuted yourself...

"Not all events must be observed in order to be known." To stay true to that logic you should have posted a blank picture and then come to a conclusion. You refuted yourself...

 

[pshun2404]

And by not doing it, they become genetically isolated. Which inevitably leads to a complete inability of interbreeding as they would diverged further and further from one another.

Obviously..... speciation is a vertical process.
Cats will not start producing dogs. They produce more cats.

Every species is a "variation" within the "group" of the ancestral species.

We are.

There ya go! And since this is true, JTS's real issue and point made is supported. No evidence that any type of creature evolved into another type. Cats into additional types of cats yes...but fish into amphibians or apes into humans? NO!

 

[tas8831]

ok. so a robot need a designer by definition?

A human designer, by definition, yes.

Because we know that humans make robots.

 

[Jimmy D]

Why not, you already assume non-existing common ancestors existed, what’s one more in a long line of assumptions.

Go reread, do some math. That’s your problem, you want everything handed to you with no work, so when the evolutionists hand you beliefs you accept them without checking to see if the facts align. Case in point.

LOL, Yeah, I'm going to go over a lengthy scientific paper checking all their calculations to prove a point to a stranger on the internet. How do I know what your referring to, your sentence doesn't even make sense....

"Interesting on that he says fossils agree them we find out their actual dating does not. By 30 million years."

So who to believe? Someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about biology and paleontology (remember the time you hadn't even heard of subfossils, that was a good one!) or the authors of the paper?

 

[tas8831]

You are diverting by trying to make this a discussion of some creationist point and about the veracity of God (absolutely nothing to do with the OP or discussion in general)....

Ah, so you were diverting in the coccyx thread when you rambled on about ERVs and the like -

Got it.

And the first two, regardless of how they have been "classified" are ape (or a mix match hodge podge reconstructed invention). the protruding lower jaw (and slanted face) together with a heavily protruding brow ridge, ape-like eye sockets, and a distinct sagital crest all spell APE.

Cool.

And an attempt at well poisoning to top it off!

They spell APE to you - but why should anyone care?

Your background is in brainwashing (by your own admission, the only thing you've done actual 'research' on), not physical anthropology - and it is DEFINITELY not in anatomy. Your laughable fairy tale claims about the coccyx prove that! LOL!




And thanks for doing the creationist jig and ignoring most of the post!

Please explain this cladogram to us all, since you portray yourself as knowing all about them:

And finally, superstar -


You just claimed Homo erectus is an ape - but your buddy justa wrote that "I simply claim humans have always been humans. If you want to call them Neanderthals, or H. Erectus, that’s fine."

You just pooped in Justa's flowerbed.