Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[xianghua]

When speciation occurs by definition it's macroevolution.

no, since its still the same creature basically. look at my signature link.

 

[Turkana]

no, since its still the same creature basically. look at my signature link.

I don't have to look at your arguments because it's simply a matter of correct conceptualization and definition: when speciation occurs, we have macroevolution, it's as simple as that.

You may contend it ever happens but still by definition we have macroevolution when speciation happens. When speciation happens, we have another species ("speciation") and it's not "still the same creature" any more.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't have to look at your arguments because it's simply a matter of correct conceptualization and definition: when speciation occurs, we have macroevolution, it's as simple as that.

You may contend it ever happens but still by definition we have macroevolution when speciation happens. When speciation happens, we have another species ("speciation") and it's not "still the same creature" any more.

What is a species? What are we gonna use to define what one is, because without a settled definition of species, claims of speciation are irrelevant..... they can be whatever one wants them to be at any given time - a definition useless at actually defining things.....

 

[Kylie]

Adam was made the federal head of the human race.

And in so being, his sin nature, which resides in the flesh, was passed on to everyone, including us.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Jesus voluntarily was made the federal head of the human race as our Saviour.

Psalm 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,
Psalm 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

I'd like to hear @Aman777 answer this question.

Given the amount that different Christian sects disagree with each other, I'm not going to just assume that your opinions are the same as his.

 

[Kylie]

no, since its still the same creature basically. look at my signature link.

You mean the thread where you were shown repeatedly to be wrong?

 

[Kylie]

Then YOU answer the question, if you don't like my answer.

Here it is again:

Let's see YOUR answer.

Both fictional.

 

[Kylie]

What is a species? What are we gonna use to define what one is, because without a settled definition of species, claims of speciation are irrelevant..... they can be whatever one wants them to be at any given time - a definition useless at actually defining things.....

An often used definition of species is that two individuals are the same species if they can mate and produce a fertile offspring. This definition isn't perfect, but it usually works pretty well.

 

[xianghua]

You mean the thread where you were shown repeatedly to be wrong?

if you say so kylie

 

[tas8831]

What is a species? What are we gonna use to define what one is, because without a settled definition of species, claims of speciation are irrelevant..... they can be whatever one wants them to be at any given time - a definition useless at actually defining things.....

Were living things 'created' as discreet 'kinds' as the superstitious mystics and numerologists that wrote Genesis declared, then the definition of species should be cut and dried. That it is not is tantamount to a declaration of evolution as the source for changes.

 

[tas8831]

Weird that this was ignored:

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.

Wow, thanks for that, I had no idea... But...

What do you mean by "letter"?

And how does this jive your claims, earlier in this very thread, that 'genetic polymorphism' is the same thing as SNP?

You then got upset because you thought you were going to prove single letters had nothing to do with it.

What do you mean by "letter"?

I'm sorry, but is it not YOUR contention that SNPs and all other mutations have nothing to do with new "allies"? That new "allies" arise by hybridization? Is it not you that repeatedly posts a quote mentioning the "introduction" of new alleles which you (and only you) clearly interpret as meaning "production of"?

Why are you projecting YOUR naivete onto me?

So I quoted your own scientific definition, which confirmed I was correct, and you just can’t admit you were wrong in your false claims.

I must have missed it - please show me where you quoted my "own scientific definition" of "mutation" and "allele" that indicates that hybridization is the source of all new alleles and that mutation does not exist* - because that is actually in effect what you have been claiming all along, and it looks like you cannot even understand your own claims (or are trying to run away from them).

SNPs are but one type of mutation. You know this, yes? No? Alleles are variants of a gene - you keep insisting that 'new' alleles arise via hybridization and that mutation plays no role in variation or speciation. Right?
Then, you post a quote about the importance of hybridization in speciation, which actually mentions that the 'new' alleles introduced via hybridization are themselves the result of mutation and selection and then declare that I cannot understand that this somehow vindicates your claims.

As I have written - you have got to be a Poe or a troll at this point.

Now your going to go pout because you lack any knowledge of what you claim to understand and it was shown to all.

OK, bro... You remind me of those obese sports nuts that yell from the stands "You suck!" at a major league pitcher when an opponent gets a base hit...

But let’s reiterate that definition to make your lack of inderstanding clear, so people will stop being fooled by your pretend knowledge.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism - Wikipedia

“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. This means that there is an SNP at this specific position, and the two possible nucleotide variations – C or A – are said to be alleles for this position.“

So you bring up SNP, then go on a rant when I show they are nothing more than single letters being replaced by single letters that already existed.

Please forgive me, I failed to recognize that I was in the presence of scientific greatness.

Please indulge me, oh Genetics master, and expand upon a conundrum I find myself in. I, gosh, just cannot comprehend this - from your Wiki link:

"For example, a single-base mutation in the APOE (apolipoprotein E) gene is associated with a lower risk for Alzheimer's disease."

Why did your SNP wiki page mention this - that an SNP in a gene does something when you have declared that alleles are really just one letter difference that was already there?

When I clicked on the 'gene' link on your SNP wiki page, I strangely saw the following:

"Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population"

and - oh my stars - the wiki page on "gene" has a WHOLE SECTION dedicated to mutation! And - gulp! - it discusses them in reference to the creation of NEW ALLELES! I mean, ALLIES!

Genes can acquire mutations in their sequence, leading to different variants, known as alleles, in the population.​

And - oh my, the vapors are a-comin' - the Google takes me to a site that makes this outrageous claim:

How are new alleles created?
Occasionally, DNA mutations occur in germ cells – cells destined to become eggs or sperm. In this case, the DNA mutation is copied into every new cell of the growing embryo following fertilisation. In this way, new DNA variants are passed on to the next generation. If the mutation affects a gene, it will result in a new version of that gene – a new allele.​

Please correct these lies! Tell the TRUTH that alleles are just a different letter that was already there!

Then please tell the Grants what an allele REALLY is! Won't you? Because the Grants and their wicked co-conspirators say this about alleles:

"...the [allele] introduced by hybridization has been shaped by natural selection, albeit in a differentiated genome (deleterious mutations have been purged and any beneficial mutations gone to fixation by selection)."​

And to think about this great offense - it is found in the very link you use to claim the opposite! They must be part of the conspiracy to hide the truth!

Take a break, and read up on what you clearly fail to understand in the meantime.

Yes sir, thank you sir. I will definitely take the time to understand the writings of scientists and genetics people to mean the opposite of what they actually do such that my new lernin' will conform to your great creationist intellect's desires...


*except when mutations mutate all the old genes of the 'perfect' genome into junkDNA - which other creationists claim does not even exist. I love it when YECs argue against each other without even realizing it!

 

[Aman777]

I'd like to hear @Aman777 answer this question.

Given the amount that different Christian sects disagree with each other, I'm not going to just assume that your opinions are the same as his.

AV is correct and I might add that Adam was given a perfect body and the superior intelligence of God when He was made. NO other creature was made with God's intelligence level BUT with great intelligence comes Judgment. Humans will be Judged on what they believed about Jesus while in the flesh. This separates the sheep from the goats, the good from the evil, and the stupid from the truly intelligent. Amen?

 

[Kylie]

AV is correct and I might add that Adam was given a perfect body and the superior intelligence of God when He was made. NO other creature was made with God's intelligence level BUT with great intelligence comes Judgment. Humans will be Judged on what they believed about Jesus while in the flesh. This separates the sheep from the goats, the good from the evil, and the stupid from the truly intelligent. Amen?

So if Adam had the superior intelligence of God, why was he stupid enough to disobey? Is that something God would have done had he been in Adam's place? If you answer no, then how can you claim that Adam had "the superior intelligence of God when He was made". And how can Adam have the superior intelligence of God when he didn't even understand the knowledge of Good and Evil until he ate from the tree? And if you claim Adam and Eve had that knowledge right from the start, why were they not embarrassed about being naked until AFTER they ate?

And are people who are never able to hear about Jesus doomed to hell? Those last untouched tribes, for example. Is God going to say to them, "I'm sending you to hell for not believing in Jesus, even though it would have been literally impossible for you to have ever heard about him."

 

[Aman777]

So if Adam had the superior intelligence of God, why was he stupid enough to disobey?

Like many others, Adam let his desire for Eve override his brain. Remember that she ate first, which means that she was naked before Adam sinned. Adam probably thought he wouldn't get caught.

Is that something God would have done had he been in Adam's place? If you answer no, then how can you claim that Adam had "the superior intelligence of God when He was made".

Adam had the ability to know good and evil and he knew that when he sinned, he would be subject to death BUT there would have been no mankind if he had not sinned. What it shows is that Humankind is evil since he was made from the contaminated air, dust and water God created in the beginning. Gen 1:1 It's all a part of God's perfect plan.

And how can Adam have the superior intelligence of God when he didn't even understand the knowledge of Good and Evil until he ate from the tree? And if you claim Adam and Eve had that knowledge right from the start, why were they not embarrassed about being naked until AFTER they ate?

They had a Shekinah Glory or brightness around them until they sinned. This prevented anyone from seeing their nakedness. We will regain our Glory at the Rapture.

And are people who are never able to hear about Jesus doomed to hell?

That's not my decision, but God's. I do know that prehistoric people will be in heaven since they were "created" by God the Trinity. Humankind was "formed" by Jesus and some were "created" by God the Trinity. Others were lost.

Those last untouched tribes, for example. Is God going to say to them, "I'm sending you to hell for not believing in Jesus, even though it would have been literally impossible for you to have ever heard about him."

I doubt it but my opinion is just as good as your's in the matter. Amen?

 

[Kylie]

Like many others, Adam let his desire for Eve override his brain. Remember that she ate first, which means that she was naked before Adam sinned. Adam probably thought he wouldn't get caught.

Are you suggesting that the superior intelligent God would also have been distracted by a naked woman? Or maybe Adam wasn't as similar to God as you think.

Adam had the ability to know good and evil and he knew that when he sinned, he would be subject to death BUT there would have been no mankind if he had not sinned. What it shows is that Humankind is evil since he was made from the contaminated air, dust and water God created in the beginning. Gen 1:1 It's all a part of God's perfect plan.

So if Adam had the knowledge of Good and Evil BEFORE he ate from the tree, then what did eating the fruit actually do? Eating the fruit did not give ANY new knowledge to Adam. It literally changed nothing. All that it seems to be is God setting up some arbitrary rule that had no rational basis. It would be like me telling my daughter not to sit on the left hand side of the sofa (for no reason at all) and punishing her severely if she did.

So tell me, what possible motivation did God have for giving them this rule? Was it to protect them?

They had a Shekinah Glory or brightness around them until they sinned. This prevented anyone from seeing their nakedness. We will regain our Glory at the Rapture.

Just curious - is there any Biblical support at all for this claim? Coz I've never heard this.

That's not my decision, but God's. I do know that prehistoric people will be in heaven since they were "created" by God the Trinity. Humankind was "formed" by Jesus and some were "created" by God the Trinity. Others were lost.

So heaven for cavemen? What about Neanderthals? What about the untouched tribes in the Amazon rainforest or wherever? Do they get to go to Heaven? Or do they die, get up there and God says, "Sorry you guys never had contact with the Europeans who could have told you about me, I gonna send you to eternal suffering now."

I doubt it but my opinion is just as good as your's in the matter. Amen?

Okay, so you seem to agree with me that punishing people for not knowing something they couldn't possibly know is unfair.

So, if those people who never learn about God and Jesus get into heaven, and it's only those who deny God who don't get into Heaven, why tell anyone?

 

[Aman777]

Are you suggesting that the superior intelligent God would also have been distracted by a naked woman? Or maybe Adam wasn't as similar to God as you think.

Adam had a reasoning mind like God's. That doesn't mean that man is smarter than God but that both of us reason AND no other living being does. Neither does it mean that mankind has the intelligence to NOT disobey one of God's perfect Laws. God's secret to immortality is to never go against just one of God's Laws.

So if Adam had the knowledge of Good and Evil BEFORE he ate from the tree, then what did eating the fruit actually do?

It placed him in the flesh like Eve was, after she ate of the tree. Remember the first words of Adam:

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Adam was a typical man of flesh and spoke of the one thing on most men's minds. Remember that Adam had been celebit for Billions of years when Eve was made.

Just curious - is there any Biblical support at all for this claim? Coz I've never heard this.

Of course:
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
Shekinah:

she-ki'-na (shekhinah, "that which dwells," from the verb shakhen, or shakhan, "to dwell," "reside"): This word is not found in the Bible, but there are allusions to it in Isa 60:2; Mt 17:5;Lu 2:9; Ro 9:4. It is first found in the Targums.

So heaven for cavemen? What about Neanderthals? What about the untouched tribes in the Amazon rainforest or wherever? Do they get to go to Heaven? Or do they die, get up there and God says, "Sorry you guys never had contact with the Europeans who could have told you about me, I gonna send you to eternal suffering now."

Genesis 1:21 says that God created and brought forth from water "every living creature that moveth". That includes the sons of God (prehistoric people) who mated with Adam's descendants and produced children. Genesis 6:4 Notice that it was God (Elohim-the Trinity) who "created" them. That means that they are "Their" kinds or eternal kinds since God the Trinity creates eternally. Creatures made by Lord God/Jesus (including Humans) are temporary Genesis 2:7 since they are subject to death UNLESS they have been born again Spiritually by God the Trinity. Gen 1:27

So, if those people who never learn about God and Jesus get into heaven, and it's only those who deny God who don't get into Heaven, why tell anyone?

Because some misguided individuals reject God's Truth and embrace Satan's lies. It's a tragedy that they will spend eternity regretting their own free choice. The sons of God (prehistoric people) are Innocent, just like Christians who become the sons of God when they are born again Spiritually. God sees them as Innocent. 1Jo 3:2

 

[Kylie]

Adam had a reasoning mind like God's. That doesn't mean that man is smarter than God but that both of us reason AND no other living being does. Neither does it mean that mankind has the intelligence to NOT disobey one of God's perfect Laws. God's secret to immortality is to never go against just one of God's Laws.

Just out of curiosity, what would you say counts as having the ability to reason?

It placed him in the flesh like Eve was, after she ate of the tree. Remember the first words of Adam:

Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Adam was a typical man of flesh and spoke of the one thing on most men's minds. Remember that Adam had been celebit for Billions of years when Eve was made.

It placed him in the flesh? Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that Adam and Eve didn't have physical bodies until that point?

Of course:
International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia
Shekinah:

she-ki'-na (shekhinah, "that which dwells," from the verb shakhen, or shakhan, "to dwell," "reside"): This word is not found in the Bible, but there are allusions to it in Isa 60:2; Mt 17:5;Lu 2:9; Ro 9:4. It is first found in the Targums.

Sorry, I don't see how any of those passages indicate anyone being surrounded by light in such a way that their nakedness was covered.

Isaiah seems to describe a light shining from God onto the people.

Matthew seems to describe a light coming from a cloud.

Luke again is talking about a light that comes from God.

Romans just mentions glory - and people talk of having gained glory today without meaning that they were surrounded by a light that hid their bodies.

Genesis 1:21 says that God created and brought forth from water "every living creature that moveth". That includes the sons of God (prehistoric people) who mated with Adam's descendants and produced children. Genesis 6:4 Notice that it was God (Elohim-the Trinity) who "created" them. That means that they are "Their" kinds or eternal kinds since God the Trinity creates eternally. Creatures made by Lord God/Jesus (including Humans) are temporary Genesis 2:7 since they are subject to death UNLESS they have been born again Spiritually by God the Trinity. Gen 1:27

I don't see how your interpretation that they were created by two essentially different beings can be justified.

Because some misguided individuals reject God's Truth and embrace Satan's lies. It's a tragedy that they will spend eternity regretting their own free choice. The sons of God (prehistoric people) are Innocent, just like Christians who become the sons of God when they are born again Spiritually. God sees them as Innocent. 1Jo 3:2

So then why not keep God's truth from everyone to make sure that everyone is an innocent?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

An often used definition of species is that two individuals are the same species if they can mate and produce a fertile offspring. This definition isn't perfect, but it usually works pretty well.

Well if it works pretty well, you should inform the evolutionists calling finches mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes separate species to quit lying.......

 

[Shemjaza]

Well if it works pretty well, you should inform the evolutionists calling finches mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes separate species to quit lying.......

They said that the "definition isn't perfect", because species isn't some kind of supernatural barrier. This is completely consistent with the evidence for species diverging into multiple species.

 

[Jimmy D]

They said that the "definition isn't perfect", because species isn't some kind of supernatural barrier. This is completely consistent with the evidence for species diverging into multiple species.

You'd think that he's never had that explained to him.

Some people just refuse to learn.

 

[Kylie]

Well if it works pretty well, you should inform the evolutionists calling finches mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes separate species to quit lying.......

Like I said, it's not a perfect definition.

Sometimes there are two very closely related species that can interbreed and produce a fertile offspring, but this is EXTREMELY rare, and only happens when the species are EXTREMELY closely related. Such as your example of two finches. Try it with a finch and a sparrow, and you'll have no luck.

If the two animals are from even slightly more distantly related species, the offspring won't be fertile (tigons and ligers, and also mules, for example).

If the two animals are even further apart (such as snakes and lizards) then no offspring will be produced at all.

In any case, the process of speciation is not a binary thing. There's no point along the line when it stops being Species A and immediately becomes Species B. It's a gradual change in which, over many generations, the population becomes less and less like Species A and more and more like Species B.