Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[tas8831]

since you agree that an artificial penguin is a robot

I agree that a robot penguin is a robot.

and since an object that is identical to a robot is a robot then a "natural" penguin is a robot too be definition.

Not even close.

One penguin is not identical to another.

You only get identical with human-made things.

Not even identical twins are truly identical.

You should learn some biology and can the inapt analogies and tortured argument-via-definition.

 

[tyke]

Oh you may celebrate it differently, but celebrate it you do

How do you get to tell a Belgian citizen what they do and don't celebrate in their country.
My word.........!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yet he still claims that it is interbreeding/hybridization that produced the 'original' variation that produced Asians from middle easterners.

And you still reject that the Grants came to the conclusion that interbreeding affected numerous genetic loci simultaneously and was 2 to 3 magnitudes more important than mutations. Mutations affect one gene loci, if they even manage to do anything, as we all understand the majority are neutral, then harmful, then in rare circumstances beneficial. So one mutation may take effect every 20,000 generations (E coli), while interbreeding affects those multiple genetic loci with every single mating.

That’s how you get from wolf to chiwawah in a few thousand years. That’s how ground finch mating with tree finch got to a new variation.

And while I can provide and have done so, numerous examples of change in form through interbreeding, you have yet to provide any.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How do you get to tell a Belgian citizen what they do and don't celebrate in their country.
My word.........!

The same way you ignore the facts and I accept them.

http://www.familyholiday.net/halloween-holiday-traditions-in-belgium/

Why look, even pictures of Belgium people celebrating it, despite your claims they don’t.

So...... believe you or believe pictures of them doing what you say they don’t? Sorry, you loose out on any kind of sincerity and trust.

 

[tas8831]

Deflection an personal attacks is all they have, that’s why they continually engage in both.

So why do you refuse to tell us where your original Asian and African came from, seeing as how, according to you, it is all interbreeding/hybridization, and also according to you, Adam and Eve had "perfect" non-Asian, non-African genomes.

Surely even you must know that you need 2 different things to hybridize. So where did the variation come from to get the original Asians and Africans from?

What two non-Asians mated to produce an Asian?

And how do you know?

EVIDENCE PLEASE.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Indeed. And nevertheless, his birth is celebrated on 25th of december.

Which incidently, also happens to be the birthdays of Mithras, Osiris, Adonis, etc.
Funny, isn't it?

Oh we agree the Catholic Church has a long history of combining pagan beliefs into Christian beliefs. But then it’s those that claimed to be Christians that led the crusades and inquisition both.

We were warned to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.

Which is why pshun and I both agree it’s unscriptual, but you didn’t bother to acknowledge that part.

 

[tas8831]

And though what you have said here is 100% correct and has been demonstrated here

Yes - it is so true. Cats do not give birth to dogs.

My gosh, evolution is wr-wr-wr-wrong!

But wait - I've not seen dust be formed into a human before.... Hmmm....

(and on dozens of other forums)

So you have sporead your great knowledge of cladograms and coccyces on DOZENS of forums? My goodness... I only found 3...

it is like a reasoning cog is stuck (typical mostly with of victims of cults and sufferers of Stockholm)

Your projection is a hoot!

and they automatically go into a thinking loop that eventually brings them back to insisting again on the originally undemonstrated claim. Others have "faith" in their hypothesis so will not (as opposed to cannot) admit to anything that shows the emperor has no clothes.

More projecting from the brainwashing and coccyx expert.

Still refuse to admit that your OP on the coccyx was just about 100% wrong?


Stuck cog, I guess.


I mean, that stuff is amazing...

"because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites."


list in order of appearance of errors:

1 plural used to denote a single thing
confusing a plexus with a ganglion
confusing anatomy (twice)
fabricating autonomic function (referring to a ganglion and not even the coccyx - fabricating and conflation)
confusion of parasympathetic/sympathetic
confusion re: nerve impulse transmission

I give that a F+ - the + for effort...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's when you type paragraphes like that one, that one can know that you don't understand the evolutionary process at all.

The common ancestor of humans and chimps was some kind of ape primate.
That primate produced more primates. One lineage became chimps and the other became humans. Both still primates.

Just like lions, housecats and tigers are still felines.
Just like all of the above are still mammals.

Yet invertebrates produced vertebrates, so we are still invertebrates by your own reasoning?

At no point in evolutionary history, did one "type" of animal give birth to another "type" of animal.
Just like at not point in history, did a latin-speaking mother raise a spanish-speaking child.

And yet invertebrates produced vertebrates. Fish produced amphibians. Amphibians produced reptiles and mammals.

Your own claims of ancestory falsify your statements.

Sure it is. For example, find a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then a primate.

It’s not my fault you think infection by viruses when two separate kinds lived in proximity means shared ancestory.

Genetic engineers understand quite well that virus attack specific cells with shared similarities. It’s this that allows them to target specific cells for genetic manipulation.

You simply confuse time of infection and reinfection by foreign virus as meaning shared descent. Just a mistake based upon your flawed starting point.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes - it is so true. Cats do not give birth to dogs.

My gosh, evolution is wr-wr-wr-wrong!

But wait - I've not seen dust be formed into a human before.... Hmmm....

Didn’t think that through did you. What do you think your abiogenesis had to work with?

More projecting from the brainwashing and coccyx expert.

Still refuse to admit that your OP on the coccyx was just about 100% wrong?


"because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites."


list in order of apeparance of errors:

1 plural used to denote a single thing
confusing a plexus with a ganglion
confusing anatomy (twice)
fabricating autonomic function (referring to a ganglion and not even the coccyx - fabricating and conflation)
confusion of parasympathetic/sympathetic
confusion re: nerve impulse transmission

I give that a F+ - the + for effort...

The coccyx also aids humans in balancing while sitting, not walking or climbing trees. And there is no evidence at all it once helped them climb trees.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So why do you refuse to tell us where your original Asian and African came from, seeing as how, according to you, it is all interbreeding/hybridization, and also according to you, Adam and Eve had "perfect" non-Asian, non-African genomes.

And yet the wolf does not have poodle genomes, but produced one anyways through interbreeding.

Because here you are again, ignoring that interbreeding affects multiple genetic loci simultaneously.

Surely even you must know that you need 2 different things to hybridize. So where did the variation come from to get the original Asians and Africans from?

What two non-Asians mated to produce an Asian?

And how do you know?

EVIDENCE PLEASE.

Are you claiming we didn’t get poodles from one breed of middle eastern wolf? The biologists would disagree with you.

And here you go again. You all keep refusing to accept facts. The human genome is whatever percentage non-functional you care to use from mutational damage.

Fact one : to now be more non-functional, something must first be less non-functional. Can you even accept facts, that’s the next question. To get less you must start with more. To subtract 3 apples from 5 apples to get 2 apples, you must start with 5 apples. 3 more than you now have.

As long as you continue to ignore the facts, you will never understand.

 

[tas8831]

Yet he still claims that it is interbreeding/hybridization that produced the 'original' variation that produced Asians from middle easterners.

And you still reject that the Grants came to the conclusion that interbreeding affected numerous genetic loci simultaneously and was 2 to 3 magnitudes more important than mutations.

No, I reject your earlier depiction of it.

Mutations affect one gene loci,

Loci is plural.

if they even manage to do anything, as we all understand the majority are neutral, then harmful, then in rare circumstances beneficial. So one mutation may take effect every 20,000 generations (E coli), while interbreeding affects those multiple genetic loci with every single mating.

Every single mating?

Interesting.

That’s how you get from wolf to chiwawah [sic] in a few thousand years.

No, it really isn't.

i am surprised that you linked to the fox paper - did you not read it, or did you not understand it? For I saw several mentions of mutant genes and the like - things which you say are irrelevant.

From the paper you linked:

"As Morey pointed out, inbreeding might well have been rampant during the early steps of dog domestication. But it certainly cannot explain the novel traits we have observed in our
foxes, for two reasons. "

and, in a figure caption:

"Piebald coat color is one of the most striking mutations among domestic animals. The pattern is seen frequently in dogs (border collie, top right), pigs, horses and cows. Belyaev's hypothesis predicted that a similar mutation he called Star, seen occasionally in farmed foxes, would occur with increasing frequency in foxes selected for tamability."

And in your Grant paper - something I suppose you ignored (or never got to, since you had already found your juicy quote):


" Despite the low production of hybrids, by 2007, over 30% of the population of G. scandens possessed alleles whose origin could be traced back to G. fortis. The two populations had become more similar to each other morphologically and genetically..."


2 populations became MORE SIMILAR due to sharing of alleles... Hmmm... doesn't bode well for your claim of Asians and Africans and Inuit and Aborigine and Nordic from a perfect-genomed pair of middle easterners...


And where do alleles come from, again?

Ah yes:

where do alleles come from? - Google Search



But no, you go on asserting (with zero evidence) your fantasies.

That’s how ground finch mating with tree finch got to a new variation.

How did ground finch and tree finch come to possess different alleles in the first place?

I find it simultaneously frustrating and hilarious that you keep digging your own hole deeper yet refuse to even try to see it.

And while I can provide and have done so, numerous examples of change in form through interbreeding, you have yet to provide any.

That is fantastic.

What you still cannot do is provide evidence that we can get an Asian or an African from a middle easterner with 'perfect' created genomes via interbreeding, since, by definition, they would be interbreeding with other middle easterners with no new alleles.

 

[tas8831]

Right! So you were incorrect about the unrelated Christmas Zinger...you could have simply admitted as such...

Such irony...

Tell us about how shared ERV loci in humans and chimps is all just random...

Tell us how the coccyx receives parasympathetic stimulation and 'anchors' the coccygeal AND sciatic nerves!

LOL!

 

[tas8831]

And to end with: it wasn't "unrelated". It was in reply to a specific post that made a specific point. I was countering that specific point. It was very much related to that point.

You probably know this, but pshun likes to point out how everyone else goes off-topic, even when responding directly to something he or another creationist has written, yet comes up with stories (or ignores it entirely) when it is pointed out that he went off topic... Typical.

 

[tas8831]

Would you feel better if every time I had to type when a Husky mated with a Mastiff type dog

If dogs came from wolves, how did you get a Husky and a mastiff in the first place?

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.

How does interbreeding create variation if mutation does not create the mutant alleles in the first place?

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.

You can't seem to grasp that interbreeding would be moot if there were no alleles to mix and match in the first place.

You truly seem to think that any allele can recombine or mix and match with any other allele, no matter what the alleles are - that is the ONLY way your fantasy could even hope to have merit.

But reality does not operate that way.

Mendel proved that.

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.

My goodness...

No clues whatsoever...

The very paper you quoted from indicated that it is continuous traits for which interbreeding is more 'important':


“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”




Do you know what a continuous trait is?

A continuous trait is one that exists along a continuum - like height. They do not create 'new' traits.

I strongly urge you to learn some basic genetics, re-think your fantasy claims, and re-formulate them as needed.

 

[pshun2404]

No. Did you not read the post, or are you unable to work out how many 3+22 is?
I'll help out: it's 25.

There's nothing to admit.
Christmass IS a continuation of pagan festivities. Almost every culture, especially in the northern hemisphere, throughout history has festivities (both religious and not religious) pinned to one or more days from the 20th to the 25th of december.

Even the christmass tree, is literally an old pagan tradition.

Is this really news to you? As the other poster said, it's widely known that Jesus' birthday would not have been in december. Yet, that's when it is "officially" celebrated. In a period that was considered holy/divine/reason-to-celebrate to almost all pre-christian ancient cultures - for very different reasons then the christian holiday.

During Saturnalia, Romans used to decorate their houses with evergreen plants etc, things now associated with christmass.

Ancient Vikings worshipped trees and also did special things with them during the winter festivities.

Then there's also "Yule tide", the ancient winter fest of the winter solstice from ancient germanic people who worshipped Odin. It was later literally rebranded as "christmastide".

So yes.... "christmass", most definatly is a pre-christian pagan festival, that got hijacked by christianity and rebranded as "christmass".

The only thing all these holidays have in common, is that they all land in the period of the winter solstice. Most cultures then placed it in a context of their religious beliefs.

It doesn't take a scholar to work out why early christians choose that date to celebrate the birth of Jesus.... Which wasn't in december.

And to end with: it wasn't "unrelated". It was in reply to a specific post that made a specific point. I was countering that specific point. It was very much related to that point.

You said "Christmas IS a continuation of pagan festivities. Almost every culture, especially in the northern hemisphere, throughout history has festivities (both religious and not religious) pinned to one or more days from the 20th to the 25th of december."

Yes there are many pagan practices that were later associated with the celebration of Christmas. I agree 100 % with that and that occurred because unlike other "religions" (tha man made parts of the experience of spirit things) Christianity had no culture (as do Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and so on). One could be a Hindu and still accept what God was providing in Christ's willful sacrifice.

However you are incorrect on why the 25th of December was chosen. There are two courses of Abijah each year. At the time (300 to 400 years after Christ) the course chosen moving forward led to this late Dec early Jan dating. The other course leads to Set/Oct (around Tabernacles) which is further supportred in the Scriptures. For example, we KNOW from the festivals in John that Jesus was about 33 1/2 when crucified under Pilate. This was on Passover...in the Hebrew calendar if one counts back the 6 months (the 1/2) one arrives at Sept/Oct and there is much much more.

However I am not above considering that the Roman church at that time may have seen the two dates and concluded "this one fits better with the pagans and we can use it to draw them in" or some other reasoning...I do not care because Christmas is not a real Christian holiday just a day selected to celebrate the Nativity (Jesus never taught it, the Apostles never taught it and no local body practiced it for 300 years).

 

[pshun2404]

Yet he still claims that it is interbreeding/hybridization that produced the 'original' variation that produced Asians from middle easterners.

And you are still confused about this alleged Adam and Eve middle easterners thing. Biblically, they would have more likely have been brown skinned (with the potential for lighter and darker shades) Indo-Parthean/Persian. Eden (the Biblical pangea) extended from the Tigris Euphrates area all the way to encompassing the whole land of Ethiopia (lit. Cush, hence also at least Sudan, Niger, and so on)

The alleged garden was planted "eastward in Eden" which indicates the area mentioned above.

 

[pshun2404]

So we should not divert on these side topics the Atheists brought up. We should get back to the discussion at hand.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, I reject your earlier depiction of it.

My depiction of it has never changed. You asked for evidence I provided it, now you simply move the goaploposts to allow yourself to ignore reality.

Loci is plural.

Ok, your mutation affects one locus, while interbreeding affects multiple loci simultaneously. Does that make you feel better?

Every single mating?

Interesting.

Every single solitary one, that’s why parents can have 10 children and none of them are identicle.

No, it really isn't.

i am surprised that you linked to the fox paper - did you not read it, or did you not understand it? For I saw several mentions of mutant genes and the like - things which you say are irrelevant.

From the paper you linked:

"As Morey pointed out, inbreeding might well have been rampant during the early steps of dog domestication. But it certainly cannot explain the novel traits we have observed in our
foxes, for two reasons. "

and, in a figure caption:

"Piebald coat color is one of the most striking mutations among domestic animals. The pattern is seen frequently in dogs (border collie, top right), pigs, horses and cows. Belyaev's hypothesis predicted that a similar mutation he called Star, seen occasionally in farmed foxes, would occur with increasing frequency in foxes selected for tamability."

And in your Grant paper - something I suppose you ignored (or never got to, since you had already found your juicy quote):


" Despite the low production of hybrids, by 2007, over 30% of the population of G. scandens possessed alleles whose origin could be traced back to G. fortis. The two populations had become more similar to each other morphologically and genetically..."


2 populations became MORE SIMILAR due to sharing of alleles... Hmmm... doesn't bode well for your claim of Asians and Africans and Inuit and Aborigine and Nordic from a perfect-genomed pair of middle easterners...


And where do alleles come from, again?

Ah yes:

where do alleles come from? - Google Search



But no, you go on asserting (with zero evidence) your fantasies.





How did ground finch and tree finch come to possess different alleles in the first place?

I find it simultaneously frustrating and hilarious that you keep digging your own hole deeper yet refuse to even try to see it.






That is fantastic.

What you still cannot do is provide evidence that we can get an Asian or an African from a middle easterner with 'perfect' created genomes via interbreeding, since, by definition, they would be interbreeding with other middle easterners with no new alleles.

We agree that mutations can affect coat color. I’ve repeatedly asked you to show were it can cause change in form, you continually fail to do so.

How did the ground finch and tree finch get separate allies to begin with? You didn’t read to well, the tree finch already had ground finch genomes within it. They all have mixed ancestory. They are not separate species. Through interbreeding the genetic loci were affected. It changes in ways similar to mutations, except it happens naturally and is rarely harmful.

If interbreeding was merely copying of the same allele, then children’s would not have different shades of the same eye color, but exact same shades as the parent the dominant trait was inherited from. So the interbreeding and combining of chromosomes, changed the original allele slightly. Can you show me 4 children born to the same parents that have the same shade as either parent.

Myths of Human Genetics: Eye Color

You are simply confused and don’t understand anything about ainheritance and genetic mixing.

“One of the oldest myths in human genetics is that having blue eyes is determined by a single gene, with the allele for blue eyes recessive to the allele for non-blue eyes (green, brown, or hazel). Many people who know nothing else about genetics think that two blue-eyed parents cannot have a brown-eyed child.”

“Eye color is not an example of a simple genetic trait, and blue eyes are not determined by a recessive allele at one gene. Instead, eye color is determined by variation at several different genes and the interactions between them, and this makes it possible for two blue-eyed parents to have brown-eyed children.”

This interaction happens because of interbreeding, and the interactions of those several different genes during the building of the genome.

Again, you are trying to make a complex interaction simple, because that’s the only way you can get your mutations to work, by having one allele control things, which does not happen.

 

[Astrophile]

We were warned to beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.

Did the Chinook come from a hybrid of two different breeds of sheep?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The finches became more similar in select circumstances, because of mating preferences:

“Species differ conspicuously in song, body size, and beak size and shape, and it is these features that we suspected were being used by the birds to discriminate between members of their own and different species.”

And the fact that drought cut the populations down from hundreds of individuals to less than 100.

“Depending on environmental conditions, the population of G. fortis ranges from well over 1500 to less than 100 individuals, whereas the G. scandens population ranges from approximately 600 to less than 60 individuals. G. magnirostris established a breeding population on Daphne in 1982–1983 and its numbers gradually increased to a maximum of approximately 350 in 2003 (Grant & Grant 2006).”

I’m sure you understand what happens during bottlenecks, the time of the genetic studies. But since then the birds have continued to diversify.

Combined with food source, small G fortis were favored.

“The extraordinary El Niño event in 1982–1983 completely altered the ecology of the islands, changing it from a large and hard seed environment dominated by Tribulusand Opuntia seeds to one dominated by the small and soft seeds produced in combination by 24 species of grass and herbs. Vines smothered the low-growing Tribulus plants and Opuntia bushes. Under these altered conditions in 1985, small pointed-beaked G. fortissurvived disproportionately well (Gibbs & Grant 1987).”

So that the main breeding stock was at this tome G fortis, it is no surprise the population tended to mix more towards the G fortis side, since that was what was available for them to mate with.

Just as when you take poodle and another breed, then continually mate the offspring back to poodle, you get offspring more related to poodle than the other breed. But then the poodle remain poodle, the other breed remains the other breed, and the new mixed breed closer to poodles, remains its breed, unless you continue to mix it back with poodles, until finally poodles and it will blend into one form.

Nothing magical or unexplained going on, just your selective sight.