Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Justatruthseeker]

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

No just one breed of wolf. You should take off your sheeps clothing.

It’s your rediculous theory that says sheep become something other than sheep.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

No, that’s what they are today.

I see poodles from wolves have taught you nothing, that what you see today, poodles, does not mean the original, the wolf, looks like the poodle. If we had no example of the wolf but from fossils, they would conclude wolves evolved into poodles. We know this is not true, that the poodle remains the same species.

Think about this as you contemplate the fossil remains of humans...... what they believe are separate species in the human lineage, are not. Just different breeds, races, subspecies, whatever they want to call them.

This is what Neanderthal was thought to look like in 1960.

Rediscovering Biology - Image Archive

Now we know if you put modern clothes on one they wouldn’t draw a second look walking downtown.

Beliefs shape how we perceive humanities ancestors. Beliefs they were apelike led them to incorrect beliefs of how they looked. They still hold incorrect beliefs of them being separate species.

We can’t say what Adam and Eve looked like. Variation occurs in every kind, the human kind not excluded. But our beliefs of their origins shape our view of them. Believing they evolved from apes led them to portray them as apelike. Believing them to have varied from humans, leads to today’s correct view of them. They just can’t get rid of the magic speciation episode, because their origin view is incorrect.

I am not objecting we originated in the Middle East, but we can’t say if middle eastern people today always looked the way they did.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

Speculation your honour!

 

[Jimmy D]

No just one breed of wolf. You should take off your sheeps clothing.

It’s your rediculous theory that says sheep become something other than sheep.

As you didn't respond first time I'll try again.

So for introgressive hybridization to occur two species must be at an early stage of the speciation process?

From the paper you linked to....

Divergence and a decline in introgression with time implies that introgression has the largest evolutionary effect after some morphological, ecological and genetic differences between species have arisen, but before the point is reached when genetic incompatibilities incur a severe fitness cost (Grant et al. 2004; Grant & Grant 2008).

In nature it occurs mainly between young species (figure 8), and is evident in several young adaptive radiations including those of butterflies (Mallett 2005), cichlid fish (Kocher 2004; Seehausen 2006) and primates (Arnold 2006; Patterson et al. 2006). With the lapse of time introgression declines, for two reasons: species diverge in morphological and behavioural traits and no longer recognize each other as potential mates (pre-mating isolation), and they diverge genetically with the result that if they interbreed their offspring are relatively inviable or infertile (post-mating isolation).

To any reasonable person that should suggest that there is another mechanism responsible for genetic divergence.

It also suggests that the two species that are hybridizing must have diverged relatively recently from their ancestral population, so the speciation process must surely be underway before they can hybridize?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you are saying that an object that is identical to a robot isnt a robot if its evolve by a natural process.

A robot is a mechanical device that is manufactured, likely in some factory.

A thing that reproduces, wasn't manufactured and was evolved by a natural process, would not be identical to a robot.

The things we know about that reproduce and evolve, are living biological organisms. Which aren't robots.


I invite you to join us back here on earth, in the real world.

ps: Transformers, is not a real story.

 

[DogmaHunter]

since you agree that an artificial 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.

Natural penguin:

Robot penguin:

Call me when you find a natural penguin that is "identical" to a robot penguin.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I’m not talking to them, I asked what you think it means.

Unlike you, I don't invent my own version of science out of thin air.
Nore do I get it from ancient religious books.

The “inter” part is quite apt.

Definition of INTERBREED

“: to breed together: such as
a : crossbreed
b : to breed within a closed population”

Definition of CROSSBREED

“: hybridize, cross; especially : to cross (two varieties or breeds) within the same species”

Ok. So you agree that mere breeding of wolves, produced dogs?

I’m still waiting for you to tell me what you think biologists mean when they use the word. Again, I am talking to you, not them, so it is your concept of it that is all that matters.

To evolve in the biological sense, put simplisticly:
Changes that gradually occur in a population over time in genotype and phenotype, through the process of reproduction with variation, followed by natural selection in a struggle for survival and spreading genes through reproduction.

The process in a nutshell:
- reproduce with modification
- compete & survive
- repeat

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

“Belgium is another country from those around the world best known for its own unique ways of celebrating of the Halloween traditions and a frightfully fantastic location to spend Halloween.-But holidays in Belgium are not celebrated in the same mainstream fanfare as it is in America. Halloween Traditions in Belgium with its different cultures is somewhat different. Most of the Belgium cities these days hold huge festivals and plenty of parties in honor of this holiday throughout.”

Oh you may celebrate it differently, but celebrate it you do. You yourself may not, but most in your nation do.

To call those "huge festivals" is a *slight* exaggeration.
I'll call it "themed town festivities".

What I meant was that there are no official holidays here for Halloween.
Those themed festivities are private undertakings for commercial purposes and they really aren't as common as that website is claiming.

Anyhow... back to point, your initial comment in bringing this up was quite absurd.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

At least 2 of those supposedly Belgian pictures, are halloween festivities in Euro Disney. Which is in Paris. Which is the capital of France. Which is not Belgium.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Oh we agree the Catholic Church has a long history of combining pagan beliefs into Christian beliefs.

So you agree, then? You're being confusing again.

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.

Wait, are you now saying that those who celebrate christmass on the 25th, aren't "real christians" and rather "wolves in sheeps clothing"?

More confusion.......

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

I just stated that christianity hijacked pagan festivities and labeled in "christmass". While doing so, I also provided a few examples of such pagan festivities, all of which include traditions and rituals that are now associated with christmass.

If you both agree to that, then I wonder what you are complaining about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Chordates. And Eukaryotes.

And yet invertebrates produced vertebrates. Fish produced amphibians. Amphibians produced reptiles and mammals.
Your own claims of ancestory falsify your statements.

Not really. The stuff you write here, once again, expose how little you truelly know about evolution and taxonomy.

Mammals and reptiles are sub-groups of amniota.
Amniota and amphibians are sub-groups of tetrapoda.

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

If what YOU imply is correct, then you should have no problems finding any 2 creatures that share more ERV's then with a creature that is more closely related according to evolution.

If you find such a thing, you'ld single handedly succeed where just about every creationist (and biologist) has failed: debunking evolution.

Good luck.

Genetic engineers understand quite well that virus attack specific cells with shared similarities.

Apparantly, you also don't understand the difference between a cell and a DNA molecule.

It’s this that allows them to target specific cells for genetic manipulation.

I'm not talking about cells. I'm talking about the DNA inside the cells.

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

Nope.

I suggest you inform yourself a bit on what ERV's are.

Endogenous retrovirus - Wikipedia

quote from the opening paragraph:

When integration of viral DNA occurs in the germ-line, it can give rise to an ERV, which can later become fixed in the gene pool of the host population.[1][7]

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Organic chemicals, most likely.
You can call that "dust" if you want.
But chances are that nobody will know what exactly you mean by that.

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.

Evolution 101: body parts can and are re-purposed all the time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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).

I don't care about the specific excuse for why the date was 25 and not 21 or whatever, nore did I claim a specific reason.

I merely said that christian christmass clearly is a hijack of various previous pagan celebrations, most -if not all- of which are connected to the winter solstice.
Christmass in all its forms and glory, is like a mixed bag of ancient pagan rituals and traditions from all over. There are aspects taken from saturnalia, aspects taken from yule tide, from viking festivities, etc.

That's all I said and you seem to agree.
So, just like I said to your friend here, I wonder what you people are complaining about.

 

[tas8831]

And you are still confused about this alleged Adam and Eve middle easterners thing.

And here comes the BS dodging...

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.

Yeah, great.

Since your equally well-informed compatriot justa refuses to back-up his assertions, maybe you can help him out -

explain to us all how a single breeding pair of 'brown skinned (with the potential for lighter and darker shades) Indo-Parthean/Persian' people with 'perfect' genomes can breed and produce offspring with Asian, African, Nordic, Inuit, etc. phenotypes.

All solely via interbreeding/inbreeding/hybridization (justa seems to want to use all of these interchangeably, so I will too).



With your amazing genetics knowledge, explain to all of us - with supporting evidence - how a single inbreeding pair can yield offspring who then inbreed with each other and eventually we get all manner of variation, without mutation.

Justa has hinted (but not really brought it up since) that it was because these mythical, evidenceless 'perfect' genomes of Adam and Eve (no evidence for their existence) housed all of the "allies" necessary to get Asians, and Africans and etc.


So help him out, bro. Use your 3 decades of study!

 

[tas8831]

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

Red herring much?

YOU believe that a tribal deity created humans from dust.

As I and others have outlined on here several times, evolution is not dependent on abiogenesis. But, unlike for creation, at least there are many people doing research on how abiogenesis might have happened.

But that is irrelevant.

The coccyx also aids humans in balancing while sitting, not walking or climbing trees.

That is simply false, irrelevant, and somewhat silly.

Under normal circumstances, humans do not actually sit on their coccyx, but on their ischia.

And there is no evidence at all it once helped them climb trees.

So, I guess you don't know that only a handful of primates use their tails to climb, and most tailed vertebrates do not climb trees at all.

All we have is another couple of your usual throw-away quips that have no basis in reality.

But seeing as you and pshun and now a mutual-back-patting duo, how about you help him with all his errors:

"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

 

[DogmaHunter]

So we should not divert on these side topics the Atheists brought up.

If you are talking about the point concerning christmass... I didn't bring that up.
A creationist did and it was in that context that I replied.

Just to be clear again.

 

[tas8831]

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

So you are unfamiliar with the fact that nearly all pathogens are species-specific? Typical.

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.

Is that how that works?

Do tell!

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

Right.

Well, according to this paper:

New bioinformatic tool for quick identification of functionally relevant endogenous retroviral inserts in human genome


there are ~700,000 identified sites in the human genome where ERVs/LRs are found.


In another paper, this figure is very nice - it shows the known integration sites in the human genome for 3 ERVs. There are a lot of them. This is the case for all ERVs - they integrate at specific DNA sequence sites which are all over the genome.

This means that when we see integration sites in 2 taxa at the same locus (as determined by the surrounding DNA sequence), it is a rare event.

And when we see the majority of such integration sites being shared by any 2 taxa, the data speaks for itself.

So if we just look at 1 ERV integrating at one specific site (1 in ~700000 = probability of 0.0000014 in one specimen), we get the probability that an ERV will integrate at the same site in 2 different specimens being 1.96E-12 = 0.00000000000196

For 2 specimens to share, at random, just 2 ERVs at specific loci, p= 3.8416E-24 = 0.00000000000000000000000384 (if we can trust calculator.net)

And so on.

If ya'll want to chalk it all up to chance alone, then ya'll have more confidence in mere chance than anyone I know.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

No, Mendel also incorrectly used simple genetic not matching the reality we understand.

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.”

If Mendel had been correct in his belief that one allele is what controlled traits, blue eyed parents would never be able to have brown eyed children. But it’s not a simple 4 possibility choice, but a in reality multi allele choice of more than your simple choices you want it to be.

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.

Yes, continuing varying traits are traits that are never the same, which falsifies your belief there are only 4 choices for each two allies inherited from parents.

I notice you don’t object when they claim a mutation creates a variation in a trait, only when interbreeding creates a variation in the same trait, right?

Hmm, so a mutation that affected the alleles of the genes that control height, would create a variation in, umm, height? Your explanations are laughable and so easily shown for what they are....

Shortsighted, brainwashed, evolutionary PR trash......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As you didn't respond first time I'll try again.

So for introgressive hybridization to occur two species must be at an early stage of the speciation process?

From the paper you linked to....

Divergence and a decline in introgression with time implies that introgression has the largest evolutionary effect after some morphological, ecological and genetic differences between species have arisen, but before the point is reached when genetic incompatibilities incur a severe fitness cost (Grant et al. 2004; Grant & Grant 2008).

In nature it occurs mainly between young species (figure 8), and is evident in several young adaptive radiations including those of butterflies (Mallett 2005), cichlid fish (Kocher 2004; Seehausen 2006) and primates (Arnold 2006; Patterson et al. 2006). With the lapse of time introgression declines, for two reasons: species diverge in morphological and behavioural traits and no longer recognize each other as potential mates (pre-mating isolation), and they diverge genetically with the result that if they interbreed their offspring are relatively inviable or infertile (post-mating isolation).

To any reasonable person that should suggest that there is another mechanism responsible for genetic divergence.

It also suggests that the two species that are hybridizing must have diverged relatively recently from their ancestral population, so the speciation process must surely be underway before they can hybridize?

Because we agree they are unable to follow their own definitions.

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.”

All it means is that they refuse to correct Darwin’s incorrect classification of them as separate species, due to his incorrect belief they were reproductively isolated.

Since DNA tests shows they are of mixed ancestory, they were never reproductively isolated and speciation never occurred. We are talking about different subspecies here of the same species, not separate species.

The very point of the entire thread, which you seem to be missing.

 

[Jimmy D]

Because we agree they are unable to follow their own definitions.

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.”

All it means is that they refuse to correct Darwin’s incorrect classification of them as separate species, due to his incorrect belief they were reproductively isolated.

Since DNA tests shows they are of mixed ancestory, they were never reproductively isolated and speciation never occurred. We are talking about different subspecies here of the same species, not separate species.

The very point of the entire thread, which you seem to be missing.

What part of early stage of the speciation process do you not understand?

What was the cause of their genetic divergence when they arrived on the island as the same species (or subspecies if you prefer)?

The two (sub) species that are hybridizing must have diverged relatively recently from their ancestral population, so the speciation process must surely be underway before they can hybridize?