Let's have the facts then Justafinchseeker.
Exactly which species' of finches interbreed? Is it all of them, some, a few?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
No be honest with yourself. You brought up single-nucleotide polymorphism. Which I showed was nothing more than a single letter replaced by another existing letter.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).
I am taking a few days off from your zany rants. It gets tiresome having to explain simple freshman level science to someone pretending to have overturned a major biological theory.
Every single one of them. Accept the DNA data.Let's have the facts then Justafinchseeker.
Exactly which species' of finches interbreed? Is it all of them, some, a few?
Every single one of them. Accept the DNA data.
First we find important discrepancies with the classification based on looks, niche, etc
“We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry.”
I mean come on JD, it only took them 200 years to notice them interbreeding before their eyes.
They claimed the ground finch couldn’t mate with the tree finch until one flew all the way over to the islands from the mainland and did it in front of their noses.
Darwin finches' messy family tree
“Other geneticists have expressed mixed reactions to the results. Dr Julia Day, from University College London, was impressed by the level of mixing reported between the finch species - which she said are "a textbook example of radiation".
She told the BBC: "The fact that they're finding this hybridisation going on - this genetic mixing - it's quite a seminal finding.
"When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings."
Prof Peter Keightley from the University of Edinburgh, though largely convinced by the results, was less surprised that the finches had interbred so extensively.
"These islands are pretty close together. So it's not surprising that they are flying from one island to the other," he said.
Some of the traditional species might not, in fact, be genuinely distinct, he added.”
Hmm, seems not everyone agrees they are distinct species.
We agree, it is indeed a seminal finding. That every one of them are the same species, merely subspecies within the species.
No it can’t, they simply ignore or trivialize the falsifying data. As they have always done.Evolution CAN be falsified.
Mixed ancestory tells you nothing?Are you saying that they can all inbreed with each other? Citation please.
That the traditional trees hold no merit by the DNA analysis. Your own biologists admit this.What discrepancies?
Yes we are in the sense they mean. They are the same species, not separate species.No one is disputing hybridization has
And yet only the Grants reported interbreeding.As you reported me last time I'll tone down my language and call this an "embellishment" of the truth. You are aware that these finches have been the subject of study before the Grants right?
The Grants. Read their papers. They state had the not seen it.....Who did?
So then mules not interbreeding is no argument for separate species. I’ll meet you half way on your own claims.LOL, the old creationist selective blindness troubling you again Justa?
First off....
NO ONE HAS DENIED HYBRIDIZATION HAS OCCURED..... Not me, not the Grant's not Darwin, not Lack... NO ONE.
Why do you think that this is an argument against speciation, it isn't.
On what grounds, decidedly blurry dna?Secondly.....
You didn't quote this bit..
Meanwhile Prof Andersson and his colleagues, despite having shown convincingly that the finches' family history is decidedly blurry, actually argue for the addition of three new species to the existing tally of 15.
Maybe they just don’t want to accept that decidedly blurry dna results.... so I can now ignore your claims of relationship based on dna with chimps, since ignoring dna is now accepted.It doesn't sound like they agree that every one of them are the same species, merely subspecies within the species does it?
Most likely, since they used mules and their inability to mate as an example of Speciation. We agree some flip and flop to the tune of their own internal music.Maybe he's another biologist who doesn't understand the definition of "species"?
Mixed ancestory tells you nothing?
That the traditional trees hold no merit by the DNA analysis. Your own biologists admit this.
Yes we are in the sense they mean. They are the same species, not separate species.
And yet only the Grants reported interbreeding.
The Grants. Read their papers. They state had the not seen it.....
So then mules not interbreeding is no argument for separate species. I’ll meet you half way on your own claims.
On what grounds, decidedly blurry dna?
Maybe they just don’t want to accept that decidedly blurry dna results.... so I can now ignore your claims of relationship based on dna with chimps, since ignoring dna is now accepted.
Most likely, since they used mules and their inability to mate as an example of Speciation. We agree some flip and flop to the tune of their own internal music.
Most likely, since they used mules and their inability to mate as an example of Speciation. We agree some flip and flop to the tune of their own internal music.
If one dollar can't buy a cup of coffee, then two or three dollars won't buy a cup of coffee.
What I said we wouldn't find was identical insertions scattered at random throughout the tree. And we don't.
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.
No it can’t, they simply ignore or trivialize the falsifying data. As they have always done.
Then add so many epicycles it’s impossible.
Darwin said it would be falsified if we didn’t find innumerable varied forms leading one to the other. 200 years later we still haven’t and you just trivialize it in your minds to non-importance.
Darwin I expect would have abandoned his theory were he alive today.
So you're saying all dogs are the descendants of just 2 wolves, one male one female? Their offspring were mated with their brothers/sisters, their offspring mated with brothers/sisters/cousins and so on through each generation with no new wolf line introduced? Do you really want to pin your flag to that mast?Just like a wolf could breed offspring with Doberman, poodle, chiwahwah, etc phenotypes.
Just like we did with wolves you mean?
Lol, put a wild wolf and a chihuahua in a room and see how much breeding happens.Just like a wolf could breed offspring with Doberman, poodle, chiwahwah, etc phenotypes.
yes. they are. see above.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?