Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Justatruthseeker]

Speaking of trash...


"Senile"?

Did you mean "single"?

And is it a letter or a nucleotide?

Take your pick, it’s you that brought up single-nucleotide polymorph. Don’t know what your talking about to begin with?

“For example, at a specific base position in the human genome, the C nucleotide may appear in most individuals, but in a minority of individuals, the position is occupied by an A.”

Aren’t you tired of straw men yet?

And did you copy paste that from a PDF? Because sometimes when you copy from a PDF or save a PDF as a word doc the OCR software is screwy.

How’s the one above, that satisfactory to you, or do you need a copy paste error to cop out on that too? Oh look, a mutation. Lol.

Or are you just as clueless as I suspect and did not even notice that "senile genetic loci" does not even make sense?

Or is it just spelling errors is your only argument? Seems that’s your only argument lately.,,.

And where does that variation come from?

We discussed that already, memory short?

interbreeding? how?

If you need the birds and bees explained to you, go ask your parents.

So cute how you cannot tell the difference between "single nucleotide polymorphism" and "genetic polymorphism."

So cute you don’t understand how polymorphism works.

Polymorphism (biology) - Wikipedia

Why do you still pretend to understand any of this? You make these truly laughable, easily - trivially - proven false assertions, and you actually try to back them up with links, but you either do not read the links or do not understand them, and just post them because they showed up in your keyword search.

Single nucleotide polymorphism - from YOUR LINK, the title of citation 3 -

"The evolution of phenotypic polymorphism: randomized strategies versus evolutionary branching"."

So you don't know what phenotype is?

Or did you think that I wouldn't (dumb mistake)?

I am laughing at your hubris and exceptionally prominant expression of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You are so far out of the loop you cannot even tell how far out you are.




In reality, we see yet another creationist that lacks sufficient knowledge of basic genetics to understand how little they know.

Alleles are NOT generated by combining other alleles during reproduction.

A SNP is NOT a genetic polymorphism.

My gosh, did you not even bother to even TRY to understand the wiki page? The opening paragraph:

Polymorphism[1] in biology and zoology is the occurrence of two or more clearly different morphs or forms, also referred to as alternative phenotypes, in the population of a species. To be classified as such, morphs must occupy the same habitat at the same time and belong to a panmictic population (one with random mating).[2]

Three mechanisms may cause polymorphism:[3]

Genetic polymorphism – where the phenotype of each individual is genetically determined
A conditional development strategy, where the phenotype of each individual is set by environmental cues
A mixed development strategy, where the phenotype is randomly assigned during development
​

For crying out loud - you COPY-PASTED part of it! And you still didn't see any clues that SNP is NOT a genetic or phenotypic polymorphism?????

You HAVE to be a troll. I cannot believe that an adult human can be this clueless.

I can't even bring myself to go on dismantling this nonsense, but I will leave your silliness with a parting shot at your sad misrepresentation of me (bolstered by malice or ignorance, can't decide which):





You don't know what an allele is! LOL!

Says the man that doesn’t understand that single-nucleotide polymorphism is the difference in one letter, say from A to C. Oh I better make that C to A or I’ll get blamed for a mutation, I mean copy paste error.

Lol, your hubris is incredible considering you don’t even understand your own subject.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

SNP = genetic polymorphism = phenotypic polymorphism.

According to you, and nobody ever in the world, but you.

No, according to you, you brought it up in your defense, not me.

Right - so why misrepresent me in the first palce?

Is it in your nature?

Did you mean place instead of palce?

Or how did you put it “are you just as clueless as I suspect and did not even notice that “first palce” does not even make sense?”

Just one page back from that one, we see that there are lots of other viral vectors, too.

Yep, 99% of which are not understood yet.

I like how easy you make it to undermine your assertions and pretense to superior knowledge.

Except you haven’t, just in your own mind where fantasy reigns.

It affects both.

You creationists just love to argue AGAINST low-probability phenomena when it suits you, yet here you are embracing low-probability phenomena.

Says the man that denies that changes to multiple genetic loci at the same time versus one in a blue moon is less effective on the long run, lol.

Hilarious.

You are, we agree.

Via misrepresentation.

Got it. Jesus would be so proud!


Makes precisely zero sense.

You should have just omitted that part in your response, for your response shows that you do not understand how infection even occurs, do not understand what random means in this context.

But whatever.


What response - 'cool'? Yeah, what you posted was cool - it is also irrelevant. Like pretty much everything else you quote, paste, or paraphrase, your use of it was misdirected.

No, irrelevant is your not being able to respond with a real answer.

It is like this.

A kid comes up and asks who my favorite baseball player is. I respond "Joe DiMaggio." He says "Mine is Flip Wilson." I say, "Flip Wilson was not a baseball player." The kid says "You are just mad because Wilson is better that DiMaggio!."

In my shock, I have no response.

Therefore, Flip Wilson is a better baseball player than DiMaggio?

According to the creationist logic, I guess so.

Is that in line with your thinking single-nucleotide polymorphism had nothing to do with single letters?

No, I think senile fits quite well with you.

 

[pitabread]

Lol, your hubris is incredible considering you don’t even understand your own subject.

It's pretty obvious to anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of biology that you've been bluffing your way through these discussions. Once again, glass houses and all that.

 

[pitabread]

Here’s another flawed evolutionary belief.

“A number of groups surveyed associations of single-nucleotide polymorphisms with eye color, with fairly consistent results: variation in the HERC2 and OCA2 genes, which are next to each other on chromosome 15, plays a major role in determining eye color."

Tell us all, won't you, what is meant by "single-nucleotide polymorphisms "?”

Why variation of a single letter or nucleotide which makes two alleles at a senile genetic loci.

Which when combined by interbreeding, generates new single-nucleotide polymorphism.

“Three mechanisms may cause polymorphism:[3]

• Genetic polymorphism – where the phenotype of each individual is genetically determined
• A conditional development strategy, where the phenotype of each individual is set by environmental cues
• A mixed development strategy, where the phenotype is randomly assigned during development”

So in reality we find these polymorphism are randomly assigned during development. I.e. during interbreeding and the combining of these alleles to generate new alleles.

But notice evolutionary supporters recognize new alleles are being generated, then refuse to accept they are randomly being generated during interbreeding, even when they recognize new alleles are being generated during interbreeding.

Do you see their inherent illogic? That new alleles are beings randomly generated during development from interbreeding, but somehow these new random polymorphism are irrelevant, and only the ones that randomly change them over millions of years are important.

I’ll say it again. Pure evolutionary PR trash....

 

[Jimmy D]

You have yet to show any Speciation, slow or otherwise, until you ignore those definitions.

You don't agree the taxonomic system, I know, it's getting boring responding to the same nonsense every post.

Their research data is not in question. That finches are interbreeding is not in question. What is in question is calling subspecies separate species due to reproductive isolation that never existed.

You don't agree the taxonomic system, I know, it's getting boring responding to the same nonsense every post.

Then you would also agree that inability to breed is not a defining feature of separate species as well? If breeding doesn’t mean same species, then not breeding doesn’t mean separate.

But to accept your claims as well as theirs, we must ignore the very definitions they wrote.

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”

Exactly the situation with those finches. You have yet to provide one scientific reason to ignore the scientific definitions.

You don't agree the taxonomic system, I know, it's getting boring responding to the same nonsense every post.

From the mainland, which then through interbreeding, just as with dogs, produced separate subspecies. Shown to you already when the ground finch from the mainland flew over to the islands and mated with a tree finch that had ground finch genes.

Way to miss the point. I'm talking about the original population, obviously.

The clue was in "original population".

Do you want me to define original population for you, or maybe they're imaginary to you as you can't "observe them".

The data is not being challenged. It’s your interpretation of the data and your ignoring the scientific definitions that is. Not sure if you can understand the difference in your brainwashed state.

You don't agree the taxonomic system, I know, it's getting boring responding to the same nonsense every post.

 

[Jimmy D]

The data is not being challenged. It’s your interpretation of the data and your ignoring the scientific definitions that is.

Can you interpret this for me then please, I appear to be too stupid too understand it myself.

What Darwin's Finches Can Teach Us about the Evolutionary Origin and Regulation of Biodiversity | BioScience | Oxford Academic

Darwin's finches on the Galápagos Islands are particularly suitable for asking evolutionary questions about adaptation and the multiplication of species: how these processes happen and how to interpret them. All 14 species of Darwin's finches are closely related, having been derived from a common ancestor 2 million to 3 million years ago.

...........

Populations of the same species occur on different islands, and in some cases they have different ecologies. This allows us to investigate the reasons for their divergence. Closely related species occur together on the same island and differ. This allows us to investigate the nature of the reproductive barrier between them and the question of how and why species stay apart. Thus, considering populations across the entire archipelago, we can see all stages of the speciation process, from start to finish, at the same time.

.............

Speciation: The end

Speciation is completed when two populations that have diverged in allopatry can coexist with little or no interbreeding. Medium ground finches and cactus finches occupy different ecological niches, although their diets overlap. The ecological differences presumably permit coexistence in sympatry, in an environment (e.g., Daphne Major) whose food supply fluctuates in abundance and composition. To paraphrase David Lack (1947), the species are ecologically isolated through niche differences that evolved by natural selection in allopatry. The differences may have been enhanced by selection in sympatry, thereby reducing interspecific competition for food. But how do the species maintain coexistence without interbreeding? What are the differences that keep them reproductively isolated, and how did the differences evolve?


..............

Oh look, the Grants understand the taxonomic system...

The radiation began when the initial species split into two lineages of Certhidea warbler finches (figure 8) after the initial pathway had been taken. One group of populations (Certhidea olivacea) inhabits moist upland forest, and the other group (Certhidea fusca) occupies lower habitats on other, mainly low, islands. Remarkably, despite their long separation, the two groups have retained similar mate recognition systems, and for that reason we refer to them as lineages and not species .


.............

Look at this ... SPECIATION from one lineage!

One of the warbler finch lineages gave rise to all other finch species. Early products of the diversification were the vegetarian finch (Platyspiza crassirostris), the Cocos finch (Pinaroloxias inornata) on either Galápagos or Cocos Island (Grant and Grant 2002b), and the sharp-beaked ground finch (G. difficilis). The most recent products were a group of ground finch species (Geospiza) and a group of tree finch species (Camarhynchus and Cactospiza) (figure 8).

...............

Finally - Allopatric speciation

According to the standard allopatric model, speciation begins with the establishment of a new population, continues with the divergence of that population from its parent population, and is completed when members of two diverged populations can coexist in sympatry without interbreeding. We stand a virtually negligible chance of observing the whole process under natural circumstances. Nevertheless, it is possible to make relevant observations in nature of all steps in the process. We have described the strong role played by environmental change at each of the three steps in the speciation of Darwin's finches.

..................

Now, please stop embarrassing yourself by acting as if you have a better understanding of the evolution of these finches than professional biologists who have studied them for over thirty years.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but the robo-penguin in the image isnt an artificial penguin.

For it to be an actual penguin, it would have to be an actual penguin.
And the fact that you instantly recognize it as being not a real penguin, just makes the point.

is just a robo-penguin made from plastic.

Which makes it an artificial (not a real) penguin.....

we talked about an artificial penguin and you already agree that such apenguin will be a robot.

No. You are being confusing again by interchanging words as if they are synonymous.
"not a real penguin" isn't necessarily a robot.

For example, here's a "not a real" penguin, which isn't a robot:

so according to this criteria an artificial penguin is a robot were a natural penguin isnt.

Nope.

Rather: a natural penguin is a real penguin. Not-real penguins are manufactured. Likely in factories. Sometimes, by (human) hand.

And not-real penguins are not "identical" to real penguins.

And this argument of yours, really has to be one of the most insane I've ever heared.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so what about this case?:

Lineage-Specific Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans and Orangutans

"We performed two analyses to determine whether these 12 shared map intervals might indeed be orthologous. First, we examined the distribution of shared sites between species (Table S3). We found that the distribution is inconsistent with the generally accepted phylogeny of catarrhine primates"

That paper is far too technical for me to understand so, unlike you, I am unwilling to pick out a single sentence that seems to say what I want it to say to then pretend that it fully supports my case.

I'll just note that the authors of that paper don't seem to be of the opinion that whatever that paper is about, is problematic for evolution theory.

Perhaps someone like @sfs can shed some technical light on that one.

 

[Jimmy D]

But please, support your claim. Which of the processes of Speciation did they undergo?

Someone’s gone a bit quiet.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Someone’s gone a bit quiet.

He's done the same to me in another thread. Bizarrely it came right after he was shown to be incontrovertibly wrong.

 

[tas8831]

sure. a two ferarri f40 cars arent identical too. but they are still a ferarri f40 cars. so a penguin is also a robot.

That makes zero sense.

Ferraris do not mate.

Penguins do.

You are refuted completely.

 

[sfs]

That paper is far too technical for me to understand so, unlike you, I am unwilling to pick out a single sentence that seems to say what I want it to say to then pretend that it fully supports my case.

I'll just note that the authors of that paper don't seem to be of the opinion that whatever that paper is about, is problematic for evolution theory.

Perhaps someone like @sfs can shed some technical light on that one.

We've been through this before. Based on crudely locating insertion points, the authors found 12 endogenous retrovirus insertions that might have been in the same location in multiple species. If these were truly in the same location in both species -- and thus probably represented a single, shared insertion -- they would violate the accepted phylogenetic tree for primates.

Being scientists, what the authors did was test this possibility. They examined three of the putative shared insertions in detail. In one case, they couldn't tell whether the site was actually shared or not because the region was so repetitive. In two cases, though, they could tell exactly where the insertions were, and they were not actually shared between species. There was no violation of the phylogeny, and the idea that this undercuts common descent is nonsense.

 

[tas8831]

Waiting for pshun24:

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.

 

[tas8831]

Someone’s gone a bit quiet.

Give him time.

It takes hours, sometimes days, to do enough keyword searches to find a juicy quote that can be presented out of context!

 

[tas8831]

Seems like only yesterday...This thread, last December...

Take your pick, it’s you that brought up single-nucleotide polymorph. Don’t know what your talking about to begin with?

Yes i do.

And that is how I can tell that YOU don't - YOU conflated SNP with genetic polymorphism because YOU do not understand that they are not the same thing.

YOU wrote " senile genetic loci."


YOU pasted from wiki about genetic polymorphisms, not knowing that that is NOT an SNP.

YOU claimed that I had written that interbreeding creates new alleles when I had written the opposite.

You are out of your league, and you cannot stand it (or recognize it).

 

[tas8831]

Rather: a natural penguin is a real penguin. Not-real penguins are manufactured. Likely in factories. Sometimes, by (human) hand.

And not-real penguins are not "identical" to real penguins.

And this argument of yours, really has to be one of the most insane I've ever heared.

And what is his actual point in making this crazy 'argument'?

That since we can't tell a real penguin from a robot, God created Adam?

Even if one were to grant him his premise re: penguins and Ferraris and the like... So what?

What does any of that have to do with anything???

I sort of feel sorry for the guy.

Sort of.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And what is his actual point in making this crazy 'argument'?

For some reason, he thinks that if we can imagine a self-replicating robot that is identical to a natural biological organism, it somehow turns into an argument against evolution. Or something.

So to summarize, he is of the opinion that we can use imaginary evidence to argue against established science.

I sort of feel sorry for the guy.
Sort of.

I don't.
In fact, I just tell myself that he is just a troll who isn't actually serious with this argument.
Because the alternative would make me lose hope in human kind.

 

[tyke]

I think he is very confused . He is trying to prove ID is a "real thing" by trying to compare living organisms to man made robots - but he makes insane leaps of logic that don't make any sense at all.

I don't particularly feel sorry for him - I agree with others that he is a trollhoping he can get someone to agree with him.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't agree the taxonomic system, I know, it's getting boring responding to the same nonsense every post.

Agreed, it’s getting tiresome you can’t accept your own scientific definitions.... and try to worm out of them time after time with failure each time.

Way to miss the point. I'm talking about the original population, obviously.

The clue was in "original population".

Which were, umm, finches?

Do you want me to define original population for you, or maybe they're imaginary to you as you can't "observe them".

Oh no, the DNA data was quite clear they were always interchanging genomes. That you confuse the original population as something different is just avoidance.

It’s like modern dogs. Wolves are their original population. And guess what, they are all still the same species.

Such spurious unsupported claims you make. Each and every time.

First you want to ignore your own scientific deffinition, then make unsupported claims the original population was somehow different, when the DNA shows the have the same DNA that was traced back to them. And corroborating data, dogs, shows they remain the same species as the original population....

Such spurious unsupported claims you make....

And then when asked to support your claims of speciation, can’t point to one single valid process.

 

[Kylie]

Which were, umm, finches?

And they were created finches from scratch?