Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you mean theory as in scientific theory with all its tons of evidence that supports it, that you continually hand-wave away? How does following all that evidence (generated by dedicated scientists) mean that people are "lost" - whatever that means. What is it we cannot see? (Please don't say Truth(TM))

Let’s look at this claimed evidence. Do you mean every single fossil found remaining the same across hundreds of millions of years? Why hand wave away what falsifies your theory? I accept the fossil evidence and what it says. You are just brainwashed and think fossils always remaining the same somehow shows evolution.

So let’s all look at the evidence, starting with fossils that never change at all.

 

[Radagast]

So let’s all look at the evidence, starting with fossils that never change at all.

Fossils are lumps of rock. Obviously they don't change.

 

[Kylie]

Let’s look at this claimed evidence. Do you mean every single fossil found remaining the same across hundreds of millions of years? Why hand wave away what falsifies your theory? I accept the fossil evidence and what it says. You are just brainwashed and think fossils always remaining the same somehow shows evolution.

So let’s all look at the evidence, starting with fossils that never change at all.

Why in the world do you think fossils should change?

 

[Jimmy D]

Nonsense. We have morphological changes in sequences of species found in fossils and we have the pattern of genetic changes in modern and more recently extinct species.


You can't even define what "Asian" means. You accept that face structure, skin colour and hair colour can be altered by mutations so what is the possible. That's all an Asian is, a human with a group of arbitrary ancestral traits that link them to the people who settled a specific region of the world.

Also, huskies were't always huskies, because they didn't used to exist. ALL dogs are descended from wolves and all the uniquely "dog" traits don't exist in wolf genetics, they came from mutations.

Also humans. There didn't used to be Africans, or Asians as distinct groups, there used to be a smaller less diverse population of humans and only after we spread across the world did the mutations that define them appear.

And before you repeat you silliness about "inbreeding" reducing genetic diversity, that is about the population, not the individual. A human or wolf can't hold all the genetics for the diversity of modern populations.




WHERE DID HUSKIES AND MASTIFFS COME FROM IF THEY AREN'T WOLVES!

Wolves are a blatant example of a common ancestor to every variation of dog.

Your stories also claim all modern human variations come from the genes of exactly 5 people, so only a maximum of ten variations for any given trait.

We have a valid explanations for limited fossils, we have plenty of possible common ancestors for many of hominid variations.

If you don't think mutations cause genetic diversity either explain where it comes from, or explain how ancient humans passed on their genes if it didn't work they way all modern mammals do it today?

Whilst your post makes perfect sense, you are completely wasting your time. All these things have been explained to Justatruthseeker again and again. He is not interested in debate, just repeating his strange and ill-informed ideas.

For example....

Mutations did nothing. Interbreeding with others with the same traits is what defined them. It’s how we got over 100 breeds of dogs. It’s how we create new breeds today. Never by mutation, always by breeding for specific traits.

He has been shown multiple times that the mutation for small dogs occured after the dog / wolf split...

The IGF1 small dog haplotype is derived from Middle Eastern grey wolves
Previous research identified IGF1 as a major gene affecting skeletal size in domestic dogs [16]. In this study, we examined genetic variation surrounding the IGF1 gene in the progenitor of domestic dogs in order to uncover the evolutionary history of the gene. This study confirms the absence of the derived small SNP allele in the intron 2 region of IGF1 (CanFam1 44228468) in a large sample of grey wolves and further establishes the absence of a small dog associated SINE element in all wild canids and most large dog breeds. Thus, the absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in wild canids suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. Presumably, the absence of these two loci in wolves may reflect a unique recombination event in domestic dogs. However, we find no evidence of recombination between the SINE element and derived SNP allele in domestic dogs and the derived SNP allele distinguishes the associated common small (A, B and C) and large (D-L) haplotypes. Additionally, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the small size phenotype likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs..


He's shown how dishonest he is on every thread he's participated on by disappearing when he's been corrected only to surface again after a few weeks or months to re-spam his 'ideas'.

I suggest ignoring him.

 

[xianghua]

Nobody, ever, has seen a self replicating robot or watch - therefore until you can show one to exist they are not at all relevant to ToE.

what about a penguin? or what about this self replicating spinning motor?:

(image from Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U)

 

[tyke]

what about a penguin?

Are you suggesting that a penguin is a robot???

or what about this self replicating spinning motor?:

The flagellum as evidence for ID has been refuted a thousand times - If these two arguments are all you have for evidence then may I suggest you consider something else as these do not further your cause one iota!

 

[tyke]

Why hand wave away what falsifies your theory?

Every single fossil ever unearthed and studied in depth by scientists (who I would argue are competent to do so), has been a possibility to disprove evolution. But guess what - none ever have.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let’s look at this claimed evidence. Do you mean every single fossil found remaining the same across hundreds of millions of years?

They aren't. For example, Homo erectus has a ton of variation just within that species, and there are many species which people honestly aren't sure if they are also Homo erectus or a closely related species due to the similarities combined with notable differences.

Why hand wave away what falsifies your theory? I accept the fossil evidence and what it says. You are just brainwashed and think fossils always remaining the same somehow shows evolution.

Fossils are not the strongest evidence for evolution, so why treat them as such?

So let’s all look at the evidence, starting with fossils that never change at all.

Oh, you mean like the "no fossils have been found mating" ? You aren't going to see a clear evolutionary line for every fossil organism found because fossils are rare, and plenty of organisms just don't fossilize well even in ideal conditions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Fossils are lumps of rock. Obviously they don't change.

And avoidance of the evidence just shows avoidance......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why in the world do you think fossils should change?

It’s your theory that requires creature A to become creature B and so forth. But every fossil found for creature A remain creature A. Creature B appears in the record fully formed and distinct.

Your attempts at avoidance as if you can’t understand what was meant is just pathetic, and as bad as rad’s pathetic attempt.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Whilst your post makes perfect sense, you are completely wasting your time. All these things have been explained to Justatruthseeker again and again. He is not interested in debate, just repeating his strange and ill-informed ideas.

For example....



He has been shown multiple times that the mutation for small dogs occured after the dog / wolf split...

The IGF1 small dog haplotype is derived from Middle Eastern grey wolves
Previous research identified IGF1 as a major gene affecting skeletal size in domestic dogs [16]. In this study, we examined genetic variation surrounding the IGF1 gene in the progenitor of domestic dogs in order to uncover the evolutionary history of the gene. This study confirms the absence of the derived small SNP allele in the intron 2 region of IGF1 (CanFam1 44228468) in a large sample of grey wolves and further establishes the absence of a small dog associated SINE element in all wild canids and most large dog breeds. Thus, the absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in wild canids suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. Presumably, the absence of these two loci in wolves may reflect a unique recombination event in domestic dogs. However, we find no evidence of recombination between the SINE element and derived SNP allele in domestic dogs and the derived SNP allele distinguishes the associated common small (A, B and C) and large (D-L) haplotypes. Additionally, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the small size phenotype likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs..


He's shown how dishonest he is on every thread he's participated on by disappearing when he's been corrected only to surface again after a few weeks or months to re-spam his 'ideas'.

I suggest ignoring him.

Because you always keep forgeting to bold the most relevant portion, because you continually ignore it.

“However, we find no evidence of recombination between the SINE element and derived SNP allele in domestic dogs and the derived SNP allele distinguishes the associated common small (A, B and C) and large (D-L) halotypes.”

And forgot to include the important part.

“Phylogenetic analysis and haplotype diversity of mtDNA sequence data from a global sampling of grey wolves and domestic dogs specifically suggested an East Asian origin for domestic dogs [4, 11]. By contrast, our results show that the small dog haplotype is closely related to haplotypes in wolves from the Middle East and is consistent with an ancient origin in this region of small domestic dogs.“

We agree that small dogs did not originate from an East Asian breed, but instead originated from the Middle East breed, which halotype was found to be closely related to the same halotype found in them, that was absent in the East Asian breed.

But I understand you only see what you want to see. The simple fact is, if the Middle East wolves did not possess that halotype, then the halotype found in small dogs could not be closely related to them. We also agree that mutations can remove halotypes from the genomic lineage, and such is why that halotype no longer exists in East Asian breeds.

You just fail to comprehend what was really being said to you, that no evidence was found that small dogs originated from East Asian wolves that did not contain that halotype, but instead originated from Middle Eastern wolves which did contain that halotype. Mutations simply removed that halotype from the East Asian wolf.

Not all of us are brainwashed into not being able to comprehend....

But you already had this pointed out to you in another post, and yet you didn’t learn anything then either it appears. Instead still blaming your lack of comprehension on others that the halotype found in Middle East wolves was closely related to small dogs and points to an origin from the Middle East, not from the East Asian region as was originally assumed and for which no halotype was found and no mutation was found in small dogs leading to this halotype. Instead it was found to already exist in the Middle East wolf which it was closely related to.

 

[Kylie]

It’s your theory that requires creature A to become creature B and so forth. But every fossil found for creature A remain creature A. Creature B appears in the record fully formed and distinct.

Your attempts at avoidance as if you can’t understand what was meant is just pathetic, and as bad as rad’s pathetic attempt.

Dude, let me spell it out...

If you have an animal that dies and becomes a fossil, then you can watch the fossil for a million years and it's never going to change.

If you mean that we should see fossils in general change, as in fossils become more and more like modern animals as the fossils get younger, then that is indeed what we see. You can't claim it doesn't happen simply because you haven't been bothered to go out and look for it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They aren't. For example, Homo erectus has a ton of variation just within that species, and there are many species which people honestly aren't sure if they are also Homo erectus or a closely related species due to the similarities combined with notable differences.

Actually less variation than are seen in canines, and that was caused for selective breeding of traits, just like Asians selectively bred with others of Asian traits. Just like Africans selectively bred with others of African traits. You haven’t shown evolution, just proven that selectively breeding for traits, then cross breeding two of them (Husky and Mastiff makes a Chinook, and Asian and African make a Afro-Asian) leads to variation. Which I already am quite aware of.

Fossils are not the strongest evidence for evolution, so why treat them as such?

They aren’t any evidence for evolution. They actually falsify it. That’s why every creature found in the fossil record always remains the same across hundreds of millions of years.

Oh, you mean like the "no fossils have been found mating" ? You aren't going to see a clear evolutionary line for every fossil organism found because fossils are rare, and plenty of organisms just don't fossilize well even in ideal conditions.

Your still using that lame excuse?

https://www.quora.com/How-many-fossils-have-been-found-and-documented

“The number of fossils found, in the trillions.”

Covered in Shells: How many fossils are there?

“I conclude that at a minimum there are enough fossils in just this one set of rock strata in the Midwest US to cover the entire earth with 20 small shells (little smaller than a dime) per square foot”

Are you claiming now that most of the claims made by paleontologist about how dinosaurs looked and lived and the entire phylogenic tree is based on pure assumption with hardly any evidence to back them up?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dude, let me spell it out...

If you have an animal that dies and becomes a fossil, then you can watch the fossil for a million years and it's never going to change.

If you mean that we should see fossils in general change, as in fossils become more and more like modern animals as the fossils get younger, then that is indeed what we see. You can't claim it doesn't happen simply because you haven't been bothered to go out and look for it.

No, the mistake lies in your lack of comprehension. Every fossil ever found for any specific type of creature, that specific creature always remains the same. There is zero, count them, zero evidence that any type of creature evolved into another type. Every type of creature has remained the same across hundreds of millions of years.

Since your comprehension is problematic I’ll spell it out for you. Every single Fossil found for Triceratops has remained Triceratops across millions of years. No change has ever been documented for any creature ever.

 

[Astrophile]

well, since speciation is only a variation, its not really evolution.

So how would you define evolution?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So how would you define evolution?

Non-existent.

 

[Kylie]

No, the mistake lies in your lack of comprehension. Every fossil ever found for any specific type of creature, that specific creature always remains the same. There is zero, count them, zero evidence that any type of creature evolved into another type. Every type of creature has remained the same across hundreds of millions of years.

Since your comprehension is problematic I’ll spell it out for you. Every single Fossil found for Triceratops has remained Triceratops across millions of years. No change has ever been documented for any creature ever.

Are you kidding? Do you know how many different kinds of ceratopsian dinosaurs there were?

Why shouldn't we consider Pentaceratops to be a transitional form between Chasmosaurus and Torosaurus?

And early ceratopsians lacked horns (SOURCE), while later ceratopsians had small horns, such as Protoceratops, and ceratopsians at the end of the age of dinosaurs had larger horns. Seems a rather clear progression to me!

But you claim that all Triceratops are the same, therefore no evolution - yet any fossil that IS different, you would say is not a triceratops and therefore it doesn't count! Circular logic won't help you.

 

[Kylie]

Non-existent.

Care to try something better? Maybe something that defines what evolution is actually about?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you kidding? Do you know how many different kinds of ceratopsian dinosaurs there were?

Why shouldn't we consider Pentaceratops to be a transitional form between Chasmosaurus and Torosaurus?

And early ceratopsians lacked horns (SOURCE), while later ceratopsians had small horns, such as Protoceratops, and ceratopsians at the end of the age of dinosaurs had larger horns. Seems a rather clear progression to me!

But you claim that all Triceratops are the same, therefore no evolution - yet any fossil that IS different, you would say is not a triceratops and therefore it doesn't count! Circular logic won't help you.

Why should you consider it a transitional?

There is no more variation there than there is with dogs.

There is no more evidence that these

Are any more of a transitional species than these are

It is simply you pre-conceived beliefs which blind you to the truth that it is more likely they came about from interbreeding, just like dogs did, then any claimed mutation or evolution.

You all continually ignore that the only time we see variation in the species is when two subspecies mate. Observation after observation of the life around has shown this to you. Instead you imagine a process not once to have done anything but change hair or skin color, while interbreeding has changed the entire outward form.

I mean please. And Triceratops always does remain Triceratops. It is when Triceratops bred with another subspecies that another of those variations occurred. Just like Husky remains Husky. Mastiff remains Mastiff. Poodle remains Poodle and Doberman remains Doberman. As each and every one of those ceratopsian remain exactly the same. A new form appeared when two different subspecies mated. Just as the Chinook is produced when the Husky and Mastiff mate.

No, you are totally confused as to what I even said to begin with because like every single evolutionist you only hear what you want to hear.

Just like Jimmy D couldn’t even get the conclusions to his own citation correct. Instead not even understanding they were showing the assumption that small dogs came from East Asian grey wolfs to be wrong, that no mutation event in that lineage could be found to account for it, that instea they shared a halotype with Middle East wolves. But all he could see was the incorrect belief the authors of the paper set out to correct, because that’s all he wanted to see.

And you are no better. Triceratops never changed, just like the Husky never changes, but mates with the Mastiff to create the variation Chinook. You simply are unable to tell which one mated with which one to create which one from a pile of fossilized bones. Stop ignoring how new forms come into existence. And the Chinook is fully formed, just as every ceratopsian ever found is.

 

[Kylie]

Why should you consider it a transitional?

There is no more variation there than there is with dogs.

There is no more evidence that these

View attachment 214763

Are any more of a transitional species than these are
View attachment 214764
It is simply you pre-conceived beliefs which blind you to the truth that it is more likely they came about from interbreeding, just like dogs did, then any claimed mutation or evolution.

You all continually ignore that the only time we see variation in the species is when two subspecies mate. Observation after observation of the life around has shown this to you. Instead you imagine a process not once to have done anything but change hair or skin color, while interbreeding has changed the entire outward form.

I mean please. And Triceratops always does remain Triceratops. It is when Triceratops bred with another subspecies that another of those variations occurred. Just like Husky remains Husky. Mastiff remains Mastiff. Poodle remains Poodle and Doberman remains Doberman. As each and every one of those ceratopsian remain exactly the same. A new form appeared when two different subspecies mated. Just as the Chinook is produced when the Husky and Mastiff mate.

No, you are totally confused as to what I even said to begin with because like every single evolutionist you only hear what you want to hear.

Just like Jimmy D couldn’t even get the conclusions to his own citation correct. Instead not even understanding they were showing the assumption that small dogs came from East Asian grey wolfs to be wrong, that no mutation event in that lineage could be found to account for it, that instea they shared a halotype with Middle East wolves. But all he could see was the incorrect belief the authors of the paper set out to correct, because that’s all he wanted to see.

And you are no better. Triceratops never changed, just like the Husky never changes, but mates with the Mastiff to create the variation Chinook. You simply are unable to tell which one mated with which one to create which one from a pile of fossilized bones. Stop ignoring how new forms come into existence. And the Chinook is fully formed, just as every ceratopsian ever found is.

Except for the fact that dogs have been bred selectively, not as the result of natural pressures, and the different types of ceratopsians lived over a period of many millions of years, with each particular species only living for a short part of that time. The different types of dog all live together.

In short, when we talk about the ceratopsians, it's one type, followeed by a second type followed by a third type etc, in a progression, one after the other.

That is NOT what happens with dogs. So don't try to compare the two, okay?