Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[AV1611VET]

I live in the UK so have never come across fundamentalist evolution deniers.

They're all under cover, are they?

And for the record, doesn't the UK have one of the largest mosques in Europe?

 

[Speedwell]

Where did I say anyone was not welcome? I just asked a question I was seeking an answer to. No reason to be pugilistic.

Sorry, but many biblical creationists here do hold that view.

 

[Ancient of Days]

I did not indicate that you had. Yet, asking why certain people are here seems to imply that you don't think they should be. To me.

"And you got answers".

That is NOT for you to decide.


"I did not indicate that you had." Yes you did,
"you should welcome outside voices"

 

[tyke]

They're all under cover, are they?

Dunno about that AV. I'm 63 now and have taught and been active in my local community for more years than I remember and have never come across any fundamentalists of any persuasion.

And for the record, doesn't the UK have one of the largest mosques in Europe?

More than likely it does - but that only reflects Britain's involvement in the Indian subcontinent in the 19th - 20th century. Many Pakistani, Bangladeshis etc came to live over here for various reasons. Anyway, this is off topic.

 

[Jimmy D]

Dunno about that AV. I'm 63 now and have taught and been active in my local community for more years than I remember and have never come across any fundamentalists of any persuasion.

The only ones I've spoken to are the Jehovah's Witnesses. When they tried to push their ID ideas on me I invited them in for a chat, they were quite taken aback - Thanks to Christian forums!

 

[AV1611VET]

Anyway, this is off topic.

Before you go, I hope you realize that England:

1. Gave us the King James Bible.
2. Was home to one of the greatest men who ever walked the earth (Charles Spurgeon).
3. Had one of the greatest churches in existence at one time (Metropolitan Tabernacle).
4. Gave us one of the greatest scientists outside of the Bible ever (Isaac Newton).

Then she went south rather quickly.

 

[AV1611VET]

The only ones I've spoken to are the Jehovah's Witnesses. When they tried to push their ID ideas on me I invited them in for a chat, they were quite taken aback - Thanks to Christian forums!

I find it very hard to believe people in the UK have limited exposure to creationism.

It blows my mind.

 

[tyke]

I find it very hard to believe people in the UK have limited exposure to creationism.

It blows my mind.

I hope I don't speak out of turn by saying that exposure to creationism is just as limited throughout the rest of Europe.

 

[pshun2404]

I hope I don't speak out of turn by saying that exposure to creationism is just as limited throughout the rest of Europe.

Why is it atheists always have to shift the focus of each topic and thereby avoid dealing with the facts, reasoning, and opinions of the OP presented by their opposition? Notice how they have succeeded in this thread which is no longer abut Speciation or its appearance in the wild...now explore TAS's new thread on cladograms and witness the same exact continuous attempt. It is hillarious (and sadly so predictable).

 

[tas8831]

Why is it atheists always have to shift the focus of each topic and thereby avoid dealing with the facts, reasoning, and opinions of the OP presented by their opposition? Notice how they have succeeded in this thread which is no longer abut Speciation or its appearance in the wild...now explore TAS's new thread on cladograms and witness the same exact continuous attempt. It is hillarious (and sadly so predictable).

Why did you bring up ERVs in a thread you started about the coccyx? To try to hide your ignorance of anatomy?

What is predictable is that creationists will eagerly pontificate on issues that they have no business pontificating on, then whine and cry foul when called out on their errors.

And hey - it is not my fault that you cannot interpret cladograms despite thinking you can.

 

[AV1611VET]

I hope I don't speak out of turn by saying that exposure to creationism is just as limited throughout the rest of Europe.

Hmmm.

Didn't creationists blow up some stuff over there?

Shall I post a youtube so people can tell me how disgusted they are with my morbid sense of making points?

 

[HitchSlap]

Before you go, I hope you realize that England:

1. Gave us the King James Bible.
2. Was home to one of the greatest men who ever walked the earth (Charles Spurgeon).
3. Had one of the greatest churches in existence at one time (Metropolitan Tabernacle).
4. Gave us one of the greatest scientists outside of the Bible ever (Isaac Newton).

Then she went south rather quickly.

You forgot Charles Darwin!

 

[Speedwell]

Hmmm.

Didn't creationists blow up some stuff over there?

Shall I post a youtube so people can tell me how disgusted they are with my morbid sense of making points?

True, many conservative Muslims are YECs, but it's not the most important thing about their religion to them, as it is to Evangelical Protestant YECs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Trying to miss the point are you?

HOW do 'wolves mating' produce Mastiffs and Poodles?

You claim it is all hybridization all the way down, yet cannot provide a mechanism for the original variation.

In fact, you steadfastly ignore such requests to discuss it.

How did perfect genome Adam and perfect genome Eve - middle easterners both - give rise to Asians and Africans IF, according to you , all new variants are derived via hybridization?

It’s being discussed, with someone that discusses the science instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks because that’s all he has.

See post 257

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's a trivial point, and has little bearing on the topic at hand, but yet again you are shown to be wrong.

Chinook Population Genetic Analysis (preliminary)
The Chinook breed was founded in 1917 from a single male dog, Chinook, and two [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es, a German Shepherd and a Belgian Shepherd.

Oh dear, maybe try a bit of research before making such assertions in the future?

It's a trivial point, and has little bearing on the topic at hand, but yet again you are shown to be wrong.

Chinook Population Genetic Analysis (preliminary)
The Chinook breed was founded in 1917 from a single male dog, Chinook, and two [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]es, a German Shepherd and a Belgian Shepherd.

Oh dear, maybe try a bit of research before making such assertions in the future?

No sorry, that came later.

Chinook History & Training/Temperament

“By blending a Mastiff type dog with Greenland Husky, German and Belgian Shepherds, Walden succeeded in creating an American breed of sled dog with power, endurance and trainability, with a friendly, gentle nature, and with a distinctive tawny color.”

Which is confirmed in all other sources.

Chinook (dog) - Wikipedia

“The breed derives principally from one male ancestor born in 1917, named "Chinook", who was Walden's lead dog and stud. "Chinook" derived from a crossbreeding of husky stock from the Peary North Pole expedition with a large, tawny Mastiff-like male. Photos of "Chinook" show a drop-eared dog with a broad Mastiff head and muzzle. Walden's leader was bred to Belgian Sheepdogs, German Shepherd Dogs, Canadian Eskimo Dogs and perhaps other breeds; the progeny were bred back to him to set the desired type and was apparently a strong reproducer of his own traits.“

You really got to learn how to decipher what you read.

It is trivial. The important part is it was accomplished through interbreeding, not mutations. But the Grants tried to explain that to you when it comes to finches too.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Happy winter solstice, saturnalia, whatever it was called before christianity hijacked it.

That’s because you would have complained had they removed Halloween or Thanksgiving to hold it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"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...

Oh, lol, I so wish I had thought of that one, but it is so apt and indisputable.... but I expect will go over their heads.

Why look, it did from their response.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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!

Their own logic is above them.

It seems everyone agrees cats won’t produce dogs, but will just produce more cats. Yet then contradict themselves and claim something, we don’t know what as it’s missing, produced apes and man. Apes will produce more apes of variation, as humans will produce more humans of variation, as cats will produce more cats of variation, as amphibians will produce more amphibians of variation, as fish will produce more fish of variation.

Fish have no more been observed to produce amphibians, then amphibians have been observed to produce reptiles. Then they claim the fossil record has ample evidence to support their claim until asked for this common ancestor. Then suddenly what had ample evidence is incomplete and barely has enough to talk about.

They’ll show you fish fossils, show you amphibian fossils and say see, there’s proof something evolved into amphibians. Yet when asked to provide evidence that this something exists, why now it’s too sparse and incomplete.

They don’t accept their own logic. Cats don’t become dogs or anything, they will just produce more cats. Lungfish didn’t become amphibians, reptiles or mammals, they just produce more lungfish.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here’s the real kicker if you think about it. Evolutionists have no self rationalization skills, but can only regurgitate what they are told to believe.

Fission and fusion of Darwin's finches populations

“In each cohort, hybrids and backcrosses survived as good as, or even better than, pure G. fortis and G. scandens.”

“Introgressive hybridization has been widespread throughout the archipelago in the recent past, and may have been a persistent feature throughout the early history of the radiation.”

Evolution of Darwin’s finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing

“Here we report the results of whole-genome re-sequencing of 120 individuals representing all of the Darwin’s finch species and two close relatives. Phylogenetic analysis reveals important discrepancies with the phenotype-based taxonomy. We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry.”

So according to genetic analysis interspecific gene flow occurred throughout the radiation leading to mixed ancestory. Hybridization, correct?

Confirmed by the Grants who agree it happened in the recent past and may have been persistent throughout the early history.

So in reality there are no such entities as pure G. fortis and G. scandens, they are one and all of mixed ancestory, they are all hybrids to begin with. In reality hybrids are being crossed and backcrossed with other hybrids. Just the fact they think birds of mixed ancestory are pure anything, shows how confused evolutionists have become and can not rationalize any longer.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ow boy....


Cats, tigers, lions, ... = felines.
Humans, chimps, gorilla's,... = primates

The ancestor of humans and chimps was a primate.
This primate produced more primates: humans and chimps.

The ancestor cats, tigers, etc was a feline.
This feline produced more felines: cats, tigers, lions,...

Felines, canines, primates,... = mammals.

The ancestor of felines, primates, etc was a mammal.
This mammal produced more mammals: felines, primates, canines, etc

Reptiles, amphibians, mammals = vertebrates.

The ancestor of reptiles, amphibians, mammals was a vertebrate.
This vertebrate produced more vertebrates: reptiles, amphibians, mammals, etc


Once more: speciation is a vertical process.
Felines do not produce canines.
Felines produce more felines.

Primates do not produce felines.
Primtes produce more primates.

Mammals produce more mammals.
Vertebrates produce more vertebrates.


At no point in our evolutionary history did one "type" become another "type", nore is it required.



So this seems to be yet another case of a creationist trying to argue against a theory that he does not understand.

I'll just leave this diagram here and let you ponder the implications:

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/6/760/F1.large.jpg

By that logic we are still invertebrates, since according to you we evolved from invertebrates. So invertebrates, one type, did not become another type, vertebrates? Fish, one type, did not become amphibians, another type? Amphibians, one type, did not become reptiles, another type and mammals, still another type?

Your own logic is defeated by your own logic.