Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Justatruthseeker]

Your last three or four posts have been spot on...good job! Yes they blur and even change definitions as convenient and never can simply say "Sorry! I guess we were wr-wr-wr-wrong...!" They have a real problem once convinced of a claim, separating the the real observable testable data from the story they have been persuaded is true.

Hah, (I like the way you put that) yes, admitting they were wr, wr, wr, wrong is anathema.

Just like we have some claiming because the offspring of lions and tigers are sterile, they are separate species because they can’t reproduce, then claiming worker ants that have different dipolds then the parents and also can’t they reproduce are the same species. Not recognizing their own contradictions.

And as I’ll soon show in the proper post, claims of mules being separate species because they can’t reproduce are invalid and just plain wrong.

Yes, people have a tendency to believe what they are told to believe regardless of the facts. They simply follow the political agenda set forth by those they consider more knowledgeable than they, without fact checking.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Indeed the same is true for Neanderthals, Denisovans, and the so-called Sapien sapiens, but reclassifying them officially (though more and more scientists are agreeing these are only sub-species) does not fit the programmed paradigm and so many articles would have to be seen as incorrect or re-written. Plaus it would force us to re-think the out-of-Africa theory (Neanderthals existing from about 400,000 to 600,000 years ago means homo sapiens did not make that first migration only 195,000 years ago). When the OMO humans migrated 195,000 years ago they were met by homo sapiens already there (though a different variety of human) socially interacted and even mated producing fertile offspring (hence, same species).

I’ll look it up and post it tonight, but now the have found fossils of a human with faces just like ours in Spain dating closer to 1 million years. So now humans existed in Spain before they had even migrated out of Africa.

As I’ve said in other posts it’s the combination of 1) that Noah’s descendants went north, south, east and west. So that a human found in Spain older than Africa comes as no surprise really. 2) when it comes to dating they refuse to adjust the decay rates for time dilation due to the galaxies velocity through space. Even when they understand the twins clock ticked slower due to his velocity. So basically they use the slower clocks of today to calculate radio metric decay rates that were faster in the past. This leads them to incorrect calculation of age because they refuse to adjust for time dilation, even if we know we must do so for every moving object.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

.

No, because, although they can mate, their offspring is sterile. Same as with horses and donkeys.

I’m at work right now, but tonight I’ll show you how your incorrect on both counts.

Worker ants, bulldog or otherwise, don't mate at all.

And yet it’s not reproducing which you claim separates a species. Ahh, so as long as it can hump something but can’t reproduce it’s a separate species? But things which can’t hump anything or reproduce are the same species?

So seedless oranges which can’t reproduce, being seedless, but can pollinate just sterile, are just considered different varieties, not species. So I’d accept the argument other plants or animals which can’t reproduce with their parents are also simply different varieties, or subspecies....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This new finch population is sufficiently different in form and habits to the native birds, as to be marked out as a new species, and individuals from the different populations don't interbreed.
According to the experts who have been involved for 40 years with these studies, seem to think that they are a new species.

And they claimed none of them could interbreed for 200 years. So despite being one of the most extensively studied animals on the planet, the fact they were interbreeding went unnoticed for close to 200 years.

And the DNA sequencing of the different finches showed that there was extensive interchange of genes between all of them, leading to mixed ancestory.

So the DNA data contradicts the Grants, showing that they have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands, leading to mixed ancestory.

In dogs we call them mutts, not separate species. In humans we call them for example Afro-Asians, not separate species. As a matter of fact we shy away from even calling them separate subspecies.

But regardless, the genetic data showed they have been extensively interbreeding so much that it has led to mixed ancestory, to the point where the only differences they could find was mutation of the ALX1 gene which led to different beak sizes.

I’m still waiting for someone to claim it is this mutation which led to their speciation. It’s what the biologists believe.

 

[xianghua]

Why? That's all you need for evolution.

Humans are chimps are two variations of the group called ape.

to say that human is an ape is like saying that a car is a truck. and if evolution is just a variation, do you thinl that we can change a car into an airplane just by variations?

 

[xianghua]

I consider this an unsupported assertion unless you provide evidence for your stance.

do you agree that all dog variations are still dogs?

 

[Speedwell]

to say that human is an ape is like saying that a car is a truck. and if evolution is just a variation, do you thinl that we can change a car into an airplane just by variations?

"Ape" is not a species. To say that a human is an ape is like saying that a car is a motor powered vehicle for travelling on land.

 

[xianghua]

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means - how is it evidence for intelligent design?

More unevidenced assertions.

if you are searching for evidence for god existence try this one:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

 

[Shemjaza]

to say that human is an ape is like saying that a car is a truck. and if evolution is just a variation, do you thinl that we can change a car into an airplane just by variations?

New machines don’t typically develop by just adding tiny random changes and machines don’t reproduce.

What is the barrier to the already very similar genetic structure of chimps and humans coming from one source by “variation” in each generation’

 

[pitabread]

eh, nevermind...

 

[Radagast]

Just like we have some claiming because the offspring of lions and tigers are sterile, they are separate species because they can’t reproduce

As usual, I'm afraid you misunderstood what I said. The offspring of lions and tigers are just the offspring of lions and tigers. They don't form a new species. Being sterile, they can't form a breeding population.

then claiming worker ants that have different dipolds then the parents and also can’t they reproduce are the same species

Worker ants (or bees) are a nonreproductive caste. They belong to the species which produced them. And for reference, this is how haplodiploidy works:

However, if you can't be civil, I'm not interested in further discussion.

 

[tyke]

to say that human is an ape is like saying that a car is a truck. and if evolution is just a variation, do you thinl that we can change a car into an airplane just by variations?

Yet again you bring up your automobile "evolution" analogy. I find this idea of yours intriguing. May I ask where you got your original idea from - or was it your own original thinking that led to your analogy??

do you agree that all dog variations are still dogs?

Others have told you that is what the ToE predicts. You never see a dog give birth to a frog - if that happened the ToE would be finished.

if you are searching for evidence for god existence try this one:

My favorite argument for the existence of God

I have in fact read your various "arguments" regarding a "proof" of your god. None of them I'm afraid stand up to any scrutiny at all for the simple reason that non living matter does not reproduce biologically. It's really as simple as that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, because, although they can mate, their offspring is sterile. Same as with horses and donkeys.

Ok, now that I am off work, back to this incorrect belief that evolutionists have about Ligers.

Ligers are not sterile, despite the repeated attempts of evolutionists to portray them as such.

Ligers are Sterile? Definitely Not!

“This is one of the most fundamental questions about the ligers. Are the sterile? Can they reproduce? The answer is yes. Traditionally it was believed that ligers are sterile and they cannot give birth. But however, all went wrong when one of the female liger in the Munich zoo gave birth to a Li-Liger. It means father was a lion and the female was a liger.....”

“....Female Ligers are not Sterile, but rather they are highly fertile. A Female Liger can reproduce with both lion and tigers. There have been a lot of examples from female ligers, in which a Li-Liger is produced and also a Ti-Liger is produced. Therefore, female Ligers are not sterile at all. It is a very wrong notion to association sterility with Ligers.

So all went wrong, belief was falsified, and Lions and Tigers are the same species.

Now on to the other misconception about mules.

Mule’s foal fools genetics with “impossible” birth – The Denver Post

“They began doing research and found that in the past two centuries about 50 cases of mules giving birth have been recorded. Only two of those were proved with genetic testing......”

“......Genetic testing at the University of Kentucky and the University of California at Davis confirmed that Kate is indeed a mule and that the still unnamed foal really is her offspring. ”

So horses and donkeys are the same species.

Now you can all rant and rave, make excuses all you like, but the facts are the facts and the facts are they have incorrectly classified half the animal kingdom based upon erroneous beliefs, not well, facts....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As usual, I'm afraid you misunderstood what I said. The offspring of lions and tigers are just the offspring of lions and tigers. They don't form a new species. Being sterile, they can't form a breeding population.

See above post, which shows how incorrect you are.

However, if you can't be civil, I'm not interested in further discussion.

Then quit stating assumptions and falsehoods by evolutionists as if they are facts. You all should know by now I don’t make claims I can’t support scientifically. Unlike 99% of the evolutionary supporters I actually check my facts before making statements. And this is why those 99% of evolutionary supporters don’t like me because they don’t check their facts and they end up being wrong and get upset.

I’ll be glad to be civil when you start checking your facts and stop presenting falsehoods and assumptions as if they were truths.

 

[Radagast]

Ligers are not sterile

I stand corrected. Male ligers are sterile, however. That means that ligers cannot be a new species. They cannot form a breeding population. If you dump all the ligers on a desert island, they will produce no offspring, and thus die out.

Are lions and tigers the same species? Well, the taxonomy of big cats has been revised repeatedly during my lifetime, but the fact that male ligers are sterile indicates a "no" to that as well. If they were the same species, both male and female offspring would be fertile.

I’ll be glad to be civil when you start checking your facts and stop presenting falsehoods and assumptions as if they were truths.

So you're not going to be civil. In that case, goodbye.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I stand corrected. Male ligers are sterile, however. That means that ligers cannot be a new species. They cannot form a breeding population. If you dump all the ligers on a desert island, they will produce no offspring, and thus die out.

Are lions and tigers the same species? Well, the taxonomy of big cats has been revised repeatedly during my lifetime, but the fact that male ligers are sterile indicates a "no" to that as well. If they were the same species, both male and female offspring would be fertile.

No, there is nothing that says that both male and female offspring must be fertile. The deffinition is fertile offspring.

The females are fertile, it has not been shown the males are infertile. Remember, they believed the females were infertile too, that didn’t turn out so well.

Now you make the same assumption about the males, that you did about the females....

And no comment on the mules?

So you're not going to be civil. In that case, goodbye.

I am being quite civil. If you think calling someone out because they didn’t check their facts before claiming things as facts, well so be it....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As usual, I'm afraid you misunderstood what I said. The offspring of lions and tigers are just the offspring of lions and tigers. They don't form a new species. Being sterile, they can't form a breeding population.

That’s not what you said at all.

Me: Lions and tigers are classified wrong.

You: No, because, although they can mate, their offspring is sterile. Same as with horses and donkeys.

There offspring give birth to other offspring, and so are not sterile.

And before you claim breeding pairs, remember, they said the females were sterile too. They said finches were reproductively isolated. They said mules can’t have foals. They said missing common ancestors split. They say a lot of things.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

New machines don’t typically develop by just adding tiny random changes and machines don’t reproduce.

Because if you added tiny random changes to a machine, it would soon be non-functional, not improved. Most cars are built almost entirely by other machines.

What is the barrier to the already very similar genetic structure of chimps and humans coming from one source by “variation” in each generation’

Missing common ancestors for every single split on every single tree. Not just humans and chimps, but at every claimed split for everything.

Seems they have no problems producing fossils of disticnt types before the split and after the split, but not a single type for what split.

That’s like showing me claimed whale transitory fossils, where the two parts of the skull that would give credence to the claim or falsify it, are both convienently missing.

Everything that you all rely on is convienently missing. How convienent...

 

[Shemjaza]

Because if you added tiny random changes to a machine, it would soon be non-functional, not improved. Most cars are built almost entirely by other machines.


Missing common ancestors for every single split on every single tree. Not just humans and chimps, but at every claimed split for everything.

Seems they have no problems producing fossils of disticnt types before the split and after the split, but not a single type for what split.

That’s like showing me claimed whale transitory fossils, where the two parts of the skull that would give credence to the claim or falsify it, are both convienently missing.

Everything that you all rely on is convienently missing. How convienent...

I notice that you didn't produce a single conceptual barrier. Do you have one?

It has been demonstrated that individual traits in creatures can develop new expressions not found in the parents, so over a long period of time these changes can build up and leave distinct lineages and eventually separate species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I notice that you didn't produce a single conceptual barrier. Do you have one?

You haven’t yet shown a single common ancestor that split. Your own lack of evidence is your own confirmation of this barrier.

Asian remain Asian despite mutations at every birth. Husky remain Husky despite mutations at every birth. Red tailed deer remain red tailed deer. Grizzlies remain Grizzlies. And on and on for every animal in existence.

Just as in the fossil record across hundreds of millions of years every distinct type of fossil remains the same for that type.

That barrier exists right in front of your eyes, you just won’t open them and actually look at what the emperical data is telling you.

But then that’s why every single common ancestor where this magic split occurred is missing for every single one of them. They don’t exist, never existed, and will never exist.

If you can look beyond the evolutionary PR, you’ll find your answer.

Baffling Genetic Barrier Prevents Similar Animals from Interbreeding

“Genome analysis suggests that the two species are swapping genes at a surprising rate. But each species has genome segments unique to its own kind, which seem to persist despite the mixing of the rest of the genome. It’s as if these parts of the genome were made of oil and the rest of water; the water easily mixes but the oil remains in distinct droplets.

Scientists have dubbed such regions of the genome “islands of speciation.””

Although the simple fact is that they are both the same species to begin with, just different subspecies within the same species. But that’s because evolutionists can’t follow their own definitions so that species has become useless as a definer because it is now in the “eye of the beholder” and solely depends on what any person wants to say, because none of them can follow scientific definitions....

The barrier is right there in front of your eyes, confirmed by every living creature and across hundreds of millions of years by every fossil ever found for any creature.

And I love the headline, they are interbreeding at a “surprising rate”, yet they make it sound as if they can’t. Lol, evolutionary PR at its finest.....

It has been demonstrated that individual traits in creatures can develop new expressions not found in the parents, so over a long period of time these changes can build up and leave distinct lineages and eventually separate species.

It takes 26 weeks for a Husky and Mastiff to produce a Chinook.

Prove it. Every single fossil found for any creature remains the same over hundreds of millions of years. Is this the point where you point to non-existent common ancestors and claim divergence?

So your evidence is no evidence at all?

No, it’s been demonstrated that those changes do nothing. How many millions more fossils remaining exactly the same across hundreds of millions of years do you need to show your beliefs are wrong? Your claims rely solely on common ancestors that are each and every one, missing....