Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Jimmy D]

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.

Couldn’t you see the next post? Your objections are clearly refuted in the Grant’s own words yet you plough on regardless. Who to believe, you or the Grants? It’s a conundrum alright!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

No, just unlike you two, I actually work for a living and dont spend all my free time on forums trying to promote your silly theory... that requires we ignore scientific definitions. But then that’s probably why you never link to scientific definitions to support your side.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Couldn’t you see the next post? Your objections are clearly refuted in the Grant’s own words yet you plough on regardless. Who to believe, you or the Grants? It’s a conundrum alright!

No, the Grants own words are in direct conflict with the scientific definitions. We agree they can not interpret the data without ignoring scientific definitions. Once again, the data is not in question, the interpretation is.

That the DNA data shows they have always been interbreeding and are of mixed ancestory is not in question. That they are interbreeding right in front of their noses is not in question.

That they can’t accept those factual observations... and must ignore the very scientific definitions they claim they follow, as must you...... well, that says everything that needs said. That the science and data is irrelevant, just your theory is important. They can’t bring themselves to admit Darwin was wrong in his belief they were reproductively isolated.

 

[xianghua]

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.


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



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:

View attachment 215708



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.

so if we will find a self replicating robot with DNA . will you agree that such a robot will be evidence for design?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

No, just unlike you two, I actually work for a living and dont spend all my free time on forums trying to promote your silly theory... that requires we ignore scientific definitions. But then that’s probably why you never link to scientific definitions to support your side.

Which scientific definitions have you asked for but not received?

 

[xianghua]

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.

so if those cases were indeed violate the accepted phylogeny you will admit that evolution is false?

 

[loveofourlord]

Bacteria represent an entire domain of life (one of the 3 domains).

This is what always gets me about creationists and "kinds". The further you move from humans, the broader the acceptance of evolutionary change becomes.

This is something I've never had adequatly explained but what needs, or how much needs to change in say a ecoli bacteria colony to no longer be considered ecoli, but a distinct enough bacteria? I mean given enough change it will no longer be reconizable as one.

 

[sfs]

so if those cases were indeed violate the accepted phylogeny you will admit that evolution is false?

Of course not. An idea that is supported by a huge range of evidence isn't to be discarded when one piece of evidence against it turns up. It would mean that this was evidence against common descent (as commonly understood), and would therefore require further investigation.

Since I answered your question, could you answer mine? Why do you keep referring to this study as if it provided some kind of evidence against common descent?

 

[xianghua]

Of course not. An idea that is supported by a huge range of evidence isn't to be discarded when one piece of evidence against it turns up. It would mean that this was evidence against common descent (as commonly understood), and would therefore require further investigation.

if so evolution cant be falsify. in any case you can say the same.

Why do you keep referring to this study as if it provided some kind of evidence against common descent?

because dogma hunter bring up this argument as evidence for evolution. so i bring up a counter evidence.

 

[sfs]

if so evolution cant be falsify. in any case you can say the same.

That's not remotely what I said. "A single piece of evidence won't overturn a well-supported theory" is very different from "This theory can't be falsified." And since we're dealing entirely with a fantasy world in which you actually have present evidence against evolution, why don't we get back to the real world?

because dogma hunter bring up this argument as evidence for evolution. so i bring up a counter evidence.

No, you don't -- you bring up something that is not counter-evidence at all. When informed that this paper is in no way evidence against common descent, you ignore the information and keep quoting it. Do you not understand the paper, or do you not care that what you're saying is false? Those are the only two choices that I can think of.

 

[xianghua]

That's not remotely what I said. "A single piece of evidence won't overturn a well-supported theory" is very different from "This theory can't be falsified." And since we're dealing entirely with a fantasy world in which you actually have present evidence against evolution, why don't we get back to the real world?

if one evidence against evolution cant falsify it then also 2-3 evidence will not falsify it.

No, you don't -- you bring up something that is not counter-evidence at all. When informed that this paper is in no way evidence against common descent, you ignore the information and keep quoting it.

you already said it on other post here:

Is it a hoax?

"If they were, we would find insertions in random species in the tree in identical locations. We don't."

and i showed to you that this is indeed what we found:

Mosaic retroposon insertion patterns in placental mammals

in this case they found several retroposons in orthologous loci that give an inconsistent phylogeny (basically 3 different trees). so basically we do find cases with insertions that contradict the phylogenetic tree (although they arent ervs in this case). so this is indeed a counter evidence to "dogma hunter" evidence.

 

[Kylie]

if so evolution cant be falsify. in any case you can say the same.

Evolution CAN be falsified.

 

[sfs]

if one evidence against evolution cant falsify it then also 2-3 evidence will not falsify it.

If one dollar can't buy a cup of coffee, then two or three dollars won't buy a cup of coffee. Have you tried applying your approach to logic more broadly?

and i showed to you that this is indeed what we found:

No, that's not at all the same thing. I said that we would find identical insertions in "random species" in the tree. What you're offering is a paper that notes that throughout virtually the entire tree of placental mammals, we do not find insertions (in this case of transposons) at random places in the tree. The paper is studying one of the "very few known examples of discordance" -- a set of closely related lineages at the base of this tree. Such closely related lineages are we can expect to find some discordance between trees under common descent, since it's in those situations that hybridization or incomplete lineage sorting can mix input from different branches.

In other words, precisely this sort of discordance is expected if evolution is true. What I said we wouldn't find was identical insertions scattered at random throughout the tree. And we don't. Why don't we? Do you have any idea why the evidence points so strongly toward common descent?

And you haven't answered my question: why do you keep quoting a paper that supports common descent as if it undermined it? Do you care that what you post is conveying a falsehood?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if we will find a self replicating robot with DNA . will you agree that such a robot will be evidence for design?

Robots don't have DNA.

Your question is akin too "if hammers wouldn't fall down but instead go flying of into space when you drop them, you will agree that such would be evidence against gravity?"

There is no point in discussing how imaginary evidence would affect presently held ideas, when it comes to discussing the actual validity of these ideas.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if those cases were indeed violate the accepted phylogeny you will admit that evolution is false?

If phylogenies were violated, it would be a problem, yes. But they weren't violated.......

Just like it would be a problem for gravity, if hammers flew off into space when dropped, instead of falling to the earth. But such things don't seem to be happening either...

You seem to be making a habbit of using imaginary data to argue against established sciencE.

 

[Jimmy D]

No, the Grants own words are in direct conflict with the scientific definitions. We agree they can not interpret the data without ignoring scientific definitions. Once again, the data is not in question, the interpretation is.

That the DNA data shows they have always been interbreeding and are of mixed ancestory is not in question. That they are interbreeding right in front of their noses is not in question.

That they can’t accept those factual observations... and must ignore the very scientific definitions they claim they follow, as must you...... well, that says everything that needs said. That the science and data is irrelevant, just your theory is important. They can’t bring themselves to admit Darwin was wrong in his belief they were reproductively isolated.

I should know by now that you'll just keep spamming exactly the same thing in response to anything that anyone posts, I still find it surprising though for some reason. You're not fooling anyone apart from yourself.

No, the Grants own words are in direct conflict with the scientific definitions. We agree they can not interpret the data without ignoring scientific definitions. Once again, the data is not in question, the interpretation is.

No, we disagree because you can't accept their findings. You can quibble about definitions all you like but you can't show any evidence that demonstrates that these finches haven't evolved exactly as the TOE suggests.

That the DNA data shows they have always been interbreeding and are of mixed ancestory is not in question. That they are interbreeding right in front of their noses is not in question.

Spare me your catchphrases.

Anyone familiar with any scientific studies of these finches is well aware of the extent of interbreeding.

That they can’t accept those factual observations... and must ignore the very scientific definitions they claim they follow, as must you...... well, that says everything that needs said. That the science and data is irrelevant, just your theory is important. They can’t bring themselves to admit Darwin was wrong in his belief they were reproductively isolated.

Are you still whining about the taxonomic system? When are you going to realize that it is merely an convenient naming system that has no impact on the findings that demonstrate that these finches came from a common ancestor and have adapted to fulfill various niches in the islands through accepted modes of speciation.

How was Darwin "wrong in his belief" by the way? He didn't classify the finches as well you know, he simply collected the specimens which were classified by Gould on his return. Did Darwin ever claim that they were reproductively isolated? I would like to see evidence of this (as he only spent a few weeks on the island I don't see how, if he was mistaken, this would have any bearing on our current knowledge anyway).

You are fooling no one but yourself with this nonsense which boils down to "speciation hasn't occurred because they don't fit my narrow definition of species."

I'll say it again because you continue to pretend you don't understand.....

They have evolved from a current ancestor to exploit various niches on the island, some to the point of achieving reproductive isolation, some not..... a classic case of speciation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Just like a wolf could breed offspring with Doberman, poodle, chiwahwah, etc phenotypes.

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

Just like we did with wolves you mean?

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.

Because you are still in denial.

You seem to understand the genome is less functional now, but for some unknown reason refuse to accept that to become less functional, something must first have more function.

I’m at a loss as to why simple math is beyond you. If you have 2 apples and you subtracted 5 or 10 or however many from the original amount, you started with more apples than 2. Does reality even register in your brain? I expect not since this is the 12th time you’ve been unable to understand simple math.

To end up with less function, one must have had more function. Your silly argument asks we believe we started with 2 apples, took away 5 apples, and ended up with 2 apples. Unbelievable the lengths evo’s go to on their own minds to ignore reality.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I should know by now that you'll just keep spamming exactly the same thing in response to anything that anyone posts, I still find it surprising though for some reason. You're not fooling anyone apart from yourself.

You mean those that ignore scientific definitions, understood.

No, we disagree because you can't accept their findings. You can quibble about definitions all you like but you can't show any evidence that demonstrates that these finches haven't evolved exactly as the TOE suggests.

Because you ignore the definitions. If they were never reproductively isolated they never underwent Speciation.

Spare me your catchphrases.

Anyone familiar with any scientific studies of these finches is well aware of the extent of interbreeding.

And then you ignore it thereafter.

Are you still whining about the taxonomic system? When are you going to realize that it is merely an convenient naming system that has no impact on the findings that demonstrate that these finches came from a common ancestor and have adapted to fulfill various niches in the islands through accepted modes of speciation.

When are you going to quit making excuses and provide which mode of Speciation that occurred. All dogs are descended from a common ancestor, same species. All humans are descended from a common ancestor, same species.

How was Darwin "wrong in his belief" by the way? He didn't classify the finches as well you know, he simply collected the specimens which were classified by Gould on his return. Did Darwin ever claim that they were reproductively isolated? I would like to see evidence of this (as he only spent a few weeks on the island I don't see how, if he was mistaken, this would have any bearing on our current knowledge anyway).

You are fooling no one but yourself with this nonsense which boils down to "speciation hasn't occurred because they don't fit my narrow definition of species."

I'll say it again because you continue to pretend you don't understand.....

They have evolved from a current ancestor to exploit various niches on the island, some to the point of achieving reproductive isolation, some not..... a classic case of speciation.

Go read his books, you’ll find Darwin specifically states reproductive isolation. Your lack of knowledge of your own theory is incredible.

But we also know reproductive isolation never happened. That they have always been interbreeding and still are. You just refuse to accept he was wrong, even if you claim to be aware of the extent of their interbreeding. Remarkable case of self-delusion.

You know, that’s why you tried to use allopatric Speciation which sadly requires reproductive isolation, which we all know from the DNA data never happened. Not that facts matter to evo’s.

The African has darker skin to survive UV rays, the Caucasian man lighter for less, to absorb them for warmth. Don’t see you claiming we should be separate species because of adaptation to niche. Your claims are shown to be false as you won’t apply them where you say they should apply.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And they were created finches from scratch?

The finch line ends on finches, until you insert those imaginary common ancestors that can never be found because of their non-existence.

Unlike you, I recognize what we recognize as finches we might not have once. Just as if we found chiwahwah bones and wolf bones and never knew their actual pedigree, you would think the wolf evolved into the chiwahwah and were separate species.

That you can’t see what mated with what from a pile of bones is no reason to ignore how variation actually happens in real life.

Just as the ground finch flew over from the mainland, mated with a tree finch, and a new variant appeared. Suddenly and fully formed, just like in the fossil record, hmmm, imagine that.

 

[Jimmy D]

Go read his books, you’ll find Darwin specifically states reproductive isolation. Your lack of knowledge of your own theory is incredible.

Mmmm, should I go and read all his books to see if what you say is true, or shall I just assume your claim is spurious and that you're now trying to shift the burden of proof?

BTW, I'm starting to think you don't know what reproductive isolation means.

You know, that’s why you tried to use allopatric Speciation which sadly requires reproductive isolation, which we all know from the DNA data never happened. Not that facts matter to evo’s.

Ah, so you don't know what reproductive isolation means, not surprising but it does explain a few things.


Members of the group of closely related ground finch species do not differ in plumage or courtship behavior, but they do differ in beak morphology, and they differ conspicuously in song (Grant 1999). These two sets of cues, visual and vocal, have been shown in separate field experiments to be used by finches in discriminating between their own and other species (Ratcliffe and Grant 1983a, 1983b, 1985). Thus, part of the answer to the question of reproductive isolation is that it evolves as a consequence of adaptive evolution of beak sizes and shapes in allopatry. The other part, centered on song, is more complex.

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

the coexistence of finch species is facilitated by divergence in beak morphology and song. Beaks diverge under natural selection, but why songs diverge is less clear. Cultural drift, a process of random change in culturally transmitted (learned) traits, is probably involved, and sexual selection may be involved as well. The end point of speciation is the complete absence of gene exchange. Many, if not all, coexisting populations of Darwin's finches have not quite reached that point, although they function as species by remaining distinct even in the face of occasional gene exchange. This offers two important lessons. First, species diverge in mate preferences before genetic incompatibilities evolve. Second, different populations can function as biological species before they would be recognized as species solely on the basis of genetic distinctness.