Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[pitabread]

Your own source disagrees with you.

“On January 17, 1917, a litter of seven puppies was born on Wonalancet Farm to Walden's Greenland Husky, Ningo (a granddaughter of Polaris, Admiral Robert Peary's lead dog from his 1909 Arctic expedition); and sired by Kim, a large mixed breed dog of unknown origin that had been picked up as a stray.”

And all agree that it looked like a Mastiff.

Not sure where the disagreement is because what you quoted reinforced what I said.

The original "Chinook" dog was of unknown/mixed ancestry. What you quoted supports that.

The point is that these continued claims of yours that "Mastiff+Husky = Chinook" is at best, misleading. At worse, it's outright false. That is all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Indeed. So then, do you retract your claim that we can't use evidence of the present to determine events that happened in the past?

Or did you forget that that was the point of the fire analogy?

Not really, as was pointed out to you the evidence of the present indicates those finches were never reproductively isolated and so never underwent speciation. Your just refusing to use the evidence.

And as was also pointed out to you, if unobserved, the picture should be blank, and then draw conclusions from a blank picture. Like non-existent common ancestors. A blank picture you then interpret from a fossil record you then claim is incomplete.

That reminds me of an old joke about a pure white picture entitled a white cat in a snowstorm.....

So far I, have only your assertion about this. And from past experience, I know that it's generally a bad idea to just accept your baseless assertions at face value.

See post 257

So this is the point where you support this claim of yours with actual data and evidence.

See post 257 and 319 for relevant sources. Now what, the balls in your court. Where’s yours? I’ve seen nothing from you but claims. Oh and a picture of something observed even when aren’t supposed to be able to observe it....

Then why are you asking if wolves evolved into dogs the past couple thousand years?
Since you accept they did...

Because they didn’t evolve, a few were selectively bred. The other wolves not interfered with have remained wolves. Evolution does not exist. Species do not speciate. They simply form different varieties of the same species.

In reality, no "natural disasters" are required for selection pressures to change.
Selection pressures change whenever the overall environment, the habitat, changes.

Such as a natural disaster, see Allopatric speciation.

Speciation - Wikipedia

But you’ll never tell me which one led to those finches being separate species.

These changes can be subtle or they can be rather big. The bigger they are, by the way, the more chances of actually going extinct. Very sudden big changes can potentially upset eco-systems to such a degree that species don't have enough time to properly adapt to the new reality.

The current consensus is that the evolution of dogs goes hand in hand with the rise of humans. Human populations migrating tend to have quite some impact on the habitat they leave behind as well as the habitat they move into.

No the current consensus is they were bred for specific traits, namely docility as the Russian silver fox experiment shows.

Man's new best friend? A forgotten Russian experiment in fox domestication

DNA and fossil evidence suggests that it happened during the past several 10 thousand years.

What is your beef with that?

We agree, but no speciation happened. They are still all the same species.

The breeds of dogs, sure. They are breed in artificial selection programs.
How about the original dogs, that evolved from wolves?

No dogs evolved from wolves. Wolves were interbred, their descendants matched to others with desirable traits for domestication. See above link to actual domestication experiments with foxes. You might learn something and stop making outrageous claims.

Or just migration, a change in diet, the slow and steady formation of a river, climate patterns, increased solar activity,.......

Any number of reasons, including man. But again, the accelerated timetable of dogs show you speciation does not occurr.

We find ourselves in an ever-changing environment, which in turn plays a big role in selection pressures. Change doesn't need to be dramatic.

Yet every fossil appears suddenly, fully formed and distinct. Just as when grizzly bear mates with polar bear and the grolar or prizzly appears suddenly, fully formed. Not gradually.

No. Natural selection, would be the natural rate. Not the "slower" rate - whatever that means.

I’d say millions of years versus thousands is slower. Call it natural if you like.

It's artificial selection that makes it speed up, in function of the trait that is being artificially selected. It's because there, you can change the selection parameters at will and literally create new ones. In nature, it doesn't quite happen that way. It can go quick, it can go slow. There's nobody arbitrarily deciding what comes next.

Yet we never observe it in nature, only when we speed it up. And dogs show you that the natural, when speeded up, still produces nothing but the same species....

How did "we" cause changes on wolves?

All explained in actual domestication experiments with foxes....

I'm pretty sure that dogs and wolves aren't the same species............

Pretty sure don’t cut it.

Gray wolf - Wikipedia

Dogs are the subspecies.

Subspecies of Canis lupus - Wikipedia

Kind of like how wolves interbreed with...... wolves, to produce dogs?

Exactly how we got dogs, hmmmm?

Now if you want to wait a million years we’ll watch them do it on their own.

So.... there are more then 200.000 scientific papers dealing with biological evolution. Do you think that "change over time" is the only thing they state?

I'm pretty sure that these papers go into a bit more detail.

And will in 200 years be as relevant as you now consider Darwin’s papers?

But you agree that dogs, a species, evolved from wolves, another species?

We’ve already shown your pretty sure wasn’t sure at all. No, I agree that dogs, a subspecies of the wolf species, was bred from wolves, the species of which dogs are. Further separated into breeds.

So dogs didn't evolve from wolves?

You really need to start making up your mind.

Nothing evolves, in your meaning of the word. That’s why dogs are merely subspecies of wolves.

What? No idea what you are saying here....
It seems like you don't know yourself what it is exactly that you accept concerning the origin of dogs.

Is that your excuse? Well you might actually be confused, since you didn’t understand what someone meant with a blank picture, since you claimed it was unobserved.

It doesn't. Which is why it took an Einstein to come up with it and why Newton failed where Einstein succeeded.

Hmm science disagrees. And Newton’s laws are used to calculate moon landings, not Einstein’s.

http://www.math.uchicago.edu/~may/VIGRE/VIGRE2010/REUPapers/Tolish.pdf

“We will conclude by seeing how relativistic gravity reduces to Newtonian gravity when considering slow moving particles in weak, unchanging gravitational fields.

So far we have found that every single claim made by you has been false, while accusing those that show you to be wrong, to be wrong.

I forgot how intellectually dishonest you were, I guess.

Bye.

Says the man just shown to be wrong on every claim he made, while claiming its others that are wrong. I’d call you what you are, but then I would get banned.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not sure where the disagreement is because what you quoted reinforced what I said.

The original "Chinook" dog was of unknown/mixed ancestry. What you quoted supports that.

The point is that these continued claims of yours that "Mastiff+Husky = Chinook" is at best, misleading. At worse, it's outright false. That is all.

Please, that’s not what you said at all. You claimed it was Chinook which was bred with the Husky. Don’t try your feeble attempt at self rationalization with me. I’m not here to stroke your ego and could care less if you feel slighted because you were shown to be wrong and now try to double-talk your way out of it.

You all want to go the ad hominem attack route you better think twice cause I won’t hesitate to fight fire with fire.

We can go quote your original post, which statement here is at best, misleading, at worst, outright false. And it’s worse.

You can even go edit yours to try to hide the truth, but you can’t edit mine which quotes you.

When it really doesn’t matter at all what was bred, since it was interbreeding which created the Chinook, because your mutations can’t do anything.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That sounds like a verifiable claim - source please.

Post 257. Try reading posts in threads now and then and I won’t have to keep repeating myself 20 times.

But you are still ignoring the obvious - how did the creatures doing the interbreeding aris in the first place?

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...DD39A88?doi=10.1.1.722.7853&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Interbreeding, what do you think we are discussing?

If you tribal fantasies are correct, and Jehovah created a single breeding pair (or 7 pair if you are 'clean') Kind, then HOW do we get ANY variation at all from which to hybridize?

By selecting for traits from a genome more variable to begin with. Didn’t foxes teach you anything?

Didn’t you learn anything in grade school? To get less, you must have more. If the genome is now a percentage non-functional it was once that same percentage more functional.

To subtract 3 from 5, you start with 5, not 3.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

I’ve answered several times, you are just bad at math and rationalization. You can’t have something now that is less functional and not once have had something more functional.

Maybe when your arm stops working you’ll just assume it never worked... that’s your reasoning.

 

[Astrophile]

I live in the UK so have never come across fundamentalist evolution deniers. I find the views expressed here and the reasons given for the denial to be very interesting and entertaining. I have no intention of even trying to change anyone's views or beliefs (as if I could anyway).

You're lucky. I first met a fundamentalist evolution denier at university during the 1970s, and then met more of them in a Christian group at work, also during the 1970s. These evolution deniers indirectly contributed to my rejecting Christianity and becoming an atheist.

 

[Astrophile]

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

Why don't Christians complain that non-Christians have hijacked All Saints' Day and replaced it with Halloween?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Here, you all need to learn something about interbreeding.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...DD39A88?doi=10.1.1.722.7853&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why don't Christians complain that non-Christians have hijacked All Saints' Day and replaced it with Halloween?

Why should I, we aren’t to venerate humans.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're lucky. I first met a fundamentalist evolution denier at university during the 1970s, and then met more of them in a Christian group at work, also during the 1970s. These evolution deniers indirectly contributed to my rejecting Christianity and becoming an atheist.

Religious fanatics are the worst. Whether the religion is creation or evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

Why should I, we aren’t to venerate humans.

At least some of the saints were real people who deserved respect. However Halloween started, it has degenerated into an anti-Christian superstition and a commercialised one to boot.

 

[pitabread]

Please, that’s not what you said at all. You claimed it was Chinook which was bred with the Husky.

Yeah, I re-read my original post and it is misleading.

To clarify, the specific Chinook dog is the result of an offspring between a Husky and a mixed ancestry dog. And then the Chinook dog was subsequently bred with Huskies (among other breeds) to produce what is essentially the "Chinook" breed of dogs.

The point is again that you don't just take any old Husky and Mastiff and cross them and get the Chinook breed. It's a result of a specific original pairing and the offspring of that pairing which was a specific individual dog named Chinook.

You all want to go the ad hominem attack route you better think twice cause I won’t hesitate to fight fire with fire.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

At least some of the saints were real people who deserved respect. However Halloween started, it has degenerated into an anti-Christian superstition and a commercialised one to boot.

I respect everything they did. But I’m not going to worship them or pray to them.

So has Christmass, Easter, 4th of July, all of them. Money talks. Everything else walks.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yeah, I re-read my original post and it is misleading.

To clarify, the specific Chinook dog is the result of an offspring between a Husky and a mixed ancestry dog. And then the Chinook dog was subsequently bred with Huskies (among other breeds) to produce what is essentially the "Chinook" breed of dogs.

The point is again that you don't just take any old Husky and Mastiff and cross them and get the Chinook breed. It's a result of a specific original pairing and the offspring of that pairing which was a specific individual dog named Chinook.

Would you feel better if every time I had to type when a Husky mated with a Mastiff type dog and then it’s offspring were mated with German shepherds, Belgian sheep dogs, Canadian Eskimo dogs and perhaps other dogs then bred back to Chinook to create the Chinook? I’ve known it was never just the Husky and Mastiff but I ain’t typing all that just to prove the point it’s interbreeding, and not mutation which causes changes in subspecies, breeds, strains, variants, whatever they want to call something day to day.

I’d be here all day typing if I had to do that every time since you all can’t seem to grasp the importance of interbreeding.

But it’s the act of interbreeding which causes the changes, and as the Grants informed you because it affects almost the entire genome when they combine. A mutation may affect a single allele, which is why interbreeding is on the conservative estimate 2 to 3 orders of magnitude more important.

More IMO as you have 20,000 protein coding genes, each containing two alleles. So mutation affects even if I grant you 100 mutations at every birth, 100 alleles, but the vast majority do nothing at all. So we revise that down to 3 that make a minuscule change. Compared with the combining of alleles from both parents, making a change of 40,000 alleles.

Yes change. No child with blue, brown, green or any color eyes has the exact same shade as the parent that allele was inherited from, showing that it has been changed during recombination. If it remained the exact same as the parent it was inherited from, it would remain the exact same shade. Hence the child becomes a unique individual, sharing alleles from both parents, but not exactly the same as was the parents. A change of 40,000 to 3.

There is no comparison in importance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.



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.

How Many Christian Fundamentalists Are There in the UK?

 

[pitabread]

Would you feel better if every time I had to type when a Husky mated with a Mastiff type dog and then it’s offspring were mated with German shepherds, Belgian sheep dogs, Canadian Eskimo dogs and perhaps other dogs then bred back to Chinook to create the Chinook?

Yes, you do that.

I’d be here all day typing if I had to do that every time since you all can’t seem to grasp the importance of interbreeding.

I don't think anyone denies the importance of genetic recombination. But it's not the be-all-and-end-all of evolutionary change. Rather, it's one of a number of evolutionary mechanisms at work.

For some odd reason, you've decided to fixate on it.

So we revise that down to 3 that make a minuscule change. Compared with the combining of alleles from both parents, making a change of 40,000 alleles.

A single mutation can potentially have a dramatic effect on an organism's resultant phenotype. It needs to be understood that there is a discordance between changes to genotype and phenotype. It's possible to have large-scale changes to genotypes with little resulting effect on the phenotype, and vise-versa small changes to the genotype can have large changes to the phenotype.

It all comes to down what specifically is being changed.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So, do you accept what that link is talking about?

Because it says dogs evolved from wolves.



So, did dogs evolve from wolves?

Depends, what you mean by evolved?

If you mean change from interbreeding of subspecies within the species combining genomes and creating new subspecies, sure.

If you mean change from one species to another, no.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“ a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”

You see, I accept dogs came from wolves through interbreeding, but your use of the word evolution and how you think of it is what colors your beliefs.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, you do that.

Yah, count on it.

I don't think anyone denies the importance of genetic recombination. But it's not the be-all-and-end-all of evolutionary change. Rather, it's one of a number of evolutionary mechanisms at work.

For some odd reason, you've decided to fixate on it.

Because I’ve shown you major change in appearance, what you base your classification of the fossil record on, even when change of appearance says nothing about species.

You on the other hand have shown no major change in appearance from any of these other processes.

So why should one believe it can do little more than what you have shown, hair color, eye color.... beak size.

Which no one seems to want to use to support speciation in finches.

A single mutation can potentially have a dramatic effect on an organism's resultant phenotype. It needs to be understood that there is a discordance between changes to genotype and phenotype. It's possible to have large-scale changes to genotypes with little resulting effect on the phenotype, and vise-versa small changes to the genotype can have large changes to the phenotype.

It all comes to down what specifically is being changed.

Such as what dramatic effect? Blonde hair? Show me one that caused as dramatic a change as from wolf to chiwahwah? And please, no over millions of years incorrect interpretation of fossils who’s change in appearance is the same as wolf to chiwahwah. Through interbreeding that you have mistaken as change in species. Verifiable, please.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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

Well ignore em, it’s a free society for now. You are entitled to any opinion you like. To speak that opinion in any public forum you like.

As are creationists. Unless the public forum is school.

They can stick to the Christian only section if they have a problem with it. Even God gives Satan a chance to defend his viewpoint, regardless of if it’s incorrect.

 

[Speedwell]

As are creationists. Unless the public forum is school.

Why should creationists have any more influence over the public school curriculum than any other religious group?

 

[Speedwell]

How Many Christian Fundamentalists Are There in the UK?

Yes, but they lack the coordinated political agenda and the regional devotion to the Lost Cause which unifies and motivates US creationists. Yes, there are creationists in the UK, but no Religious Right.