Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Justatruthseeker]

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

It defined evolution perfectly. Non-existent.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

But had not man interfered, then what man did in a few thousand years, would have taken millions of years if left to natural circumstances such as famine bringing different wolves together. Then just as we see, each particular breed would have only lived for a shorter or longer period depending on its survivability. And each breed would not have lived at the same time. The progression, which would then appear to you as transitional from one to the next, simply a mistake from your pre-conceived starting point.

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.

All fully formed. Just as we observe with dogs. One type followed by another type, in progression, one after the other. Just what you see naturally except on an accelerated time scale. There just would not be as many breeds if man was not there to care for them. Those would have went extinct.

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

It’s exactly what happens with dogs. One type followed by another type leading to another. The Chinook only existed after both the Husky and the Mastiff. One after another.

Now spread that out over millions of years without man’s interference, and you have exactly what you see in ceratopsian.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I mean let’s face it, they couldn’t even get babies and adults of the same species classified correctly that lived together, let alone have a chance of getting subspecies correctly classified.

 

[Kylie]

It defined evolution perfectly. Non-existent.

Your ignorance of evolution is not an argument against it.

 

[Kylie]

But had not man interfered, then what man did in a few thousand years, would have taken millions of years if left to natural circumstances such as famine bringing different wolves together. Then just as we see, each particular breed would have only lived for a shorter or longer period depending on its survivability. And each breed would not have lived at the same time. The progression, which would then appear to you as transitional from one to the next, simply a mistake from your pre-conceived starting point.


All fully formed. Just as we observe with dogs. One type followed by another type, in progression, one after the other. Just what you see naturally except on an accelerated time scale. There just would not be as many breeds if man was not there to care for them. Those would have went extinct.


It’s exactly what happens with dogs. One type followed by another type leading to another. The Chinook only existed after both the Husky and the Mastiff. One after another.

View attachment 214773
Now spread that out over millions of years without man’s interference, and you have exactly what you see in ceratopsian.

How do you not understand the point I am making?

With ceratopsians, we have A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to E leads to F.

With dogs, we have A leads to B, A leads to C, A leads to D, A leads to E, A leads to F.

How are you incapable of seeing the difference here?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How do you not understand the point I am making?

With ceratopsians, we have A leads to B leads to C leads to D leads to E leads to F.

With dogs, we have A leads to B, A leads to C, A leads to D, A leads to E, A leads to F.

How are you incapable of seeing the difference here?

No, no, no.

Several of those ceratopsian lived at exactly the same time. As a matter of fact there’s was never a single time when only one of the was alive. You got no clue what led to what. You got no clue if A mated with B and produced C, then A mated with C and produced D.

And in dogs A led to B. Mating A and B led to C. Mating A and C led to D. Mating B and D led to E. A did not become a poodle. Mating after mating after mating with different breeds is what led to the poodle.

Not once after wolves we’re domesticated did we go out and catch more wolves and start over. One from the other. The trees are exactly the same. The only difference is they got no clue whatsoever which ceratopsian bred with what, so are unable to produce a realistic family tree for any dinosaur. It is all colored by their false belief that one magically becomes two.

Not a single animal alive today does this. You never see a new bear variant until grizzly mates with polar bear.

You never see a new deer variant until white tailed deer mate with mule deer.

You never see a new finch variant until the ground finch mates with the tree finch, just like the Grants observed.

Never in the history of the world has one creature mutated into another. Not once.....

Just as in the real world, where every tree branches, two mate.

You have no clue about the history of dogs because you have never bothered to look. You talk without even knowing what you are talking about.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

DPCA | The Doberman | History


“Karl Friedrich Louis Dobermann (1834-1894) of Apolda, Germany combines several breeds of dogs to create "Dobermann's Pinschers".

And the exact same thing is what led to different varieties of ceratopsian.

Pit bull - Wikipedia

“Pit bulls were created by breeding bulldogs and terriers together to produce a dog that combined the gameness and agility of the terrier with the strength of the bulldog.”

Neither Dobermans nor pit bulls were bred from wolves.

A did not produce E and F.

 

[Kylie]

No, no, no.

Several of those ceratopsian lived at exactly the same time. As a matter of fact there’s was never a single time when only one of the was alive. You got no clue what led to what. You got no clue if A mated with B and produced C, then A mated with C and produced D.

And in dogs A led to B. Mating A and B led to C. Mating A and C led to D. Mating B and D led to E. A did not become a poodle. Mating after mating after mating with different breeds is what led to the poodle.

Not once after wolves we’re domesticated did we go out and catch more wolves and start over. One from the other. The trees are exactly the same. The only difference is they got no clue whatsoever which ceratopsian bred with what, so are unable to produce a realistic family tree for any dinosaur. It is all colored by their false belief that one magically becomes two.

Not a single animal alive today does this. You never see a new bear variant until grizzly mates with polar bear.

You never see a new deer variant until white tailed deer mate with mule deer.

You never see a new finch variant until the ground finch mates with the tree finch, just like the Grants observed.

Never in the history of the world has one creature mutated into another. Not once.....

Just as in the real world, where every tree branches, two mate.

You have no clue about the history of dogs because you have never bothered to look. You talk without even knowing what you are talking about.

You still don't get it.

With the dogs, they are ALL alive at the same time.

None of them can be descended from another group.

Yet, with the ceratopsians, there were groups descended from earlier groups.

Seriously, it's not hard to grasp. I'm starting to think you might be deliberately stubborn.

 

[pshun2404]

In essence here is what JTS has said (over and over) that some appear not to be able to comprehend...

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...No change has ever been documented for any creature ever.

Now I would add, except for the production of variety of that same creature, the “fossils” agree with JTS. Now one may agree or disagree but as of yet, I have not seen anyone here showing any evidence this observation is incorrect. We all know the story told but where is the actual evidence? Conjecture? Provisional interpretation? Consensus? That’s all paradigm bias not evidence.

Is JTS correct or incorrect as to his point? And if incorrect can it be shown to be incorrect without sidelining into other issues?

Deal with this first since it is where the problem originated and was first focused. The idea originated based on the alleged fossil record and was taught to be true based on that alleged evidence. When it was discovered to not support the presupposition (that earlier types of creatures evolved into different creatures over time) did anyone admit they were incorrect?

So does the fossil record show that “any type of creature evolved into another type” yes or no? And if yes, which, and where?

 

[Radagast]

Since your comprehension is problematic I’ll spell it out for you...No change has ever been documented for any creature ever.

Well, the ToE says that populations change, not individual creatures. But we have documentation of new species being formed through polyploidy:

And the fossil record certainly shows sequences where one species vanishes to be replaced by another, slightly different, one.

 

[Jimmy D]

In essence here is what JTS has said (over and over) that some appear not to be able to comprehend...

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...No change has ever been documented for any creature ever.

I think most people understand the idea.....













And disregard it because it's stupid.

 

[pshun2404]

Well, the ToE says that populations change, not individual creatures. But we have documentation of new species being formed through polyploidy:

And the fossil record certainly shows sequences where one species vanishes to be replaced by another, slightly different, one.

Yes Polypoidy does show possibilities of inheritance and cross breeding.

And YES in the fossil record some creatures suddenly vanish and others appear (just as suddenly and fully formed with all inter-dependent subsystems functional and in place).

Not being critical but how are these related?

 

[Radagast]

Yes Polypoidy does show possibilities of inheritance and cross breeding.

That's just gibberish. That sentence doesn't mean anything.

There's no point having a conversation if you don't make sense.

 

[pshun2404]

I think most people understand the idea.....

And disregard it because it's stupid.

Not really Jim, since until about the last 50 years or so it was the claim. Glad you are born in a time when many evolutionists are also declaring it stupid! People had been telling them that for years.

 

[pshun2404]

That's just gibberish. That sentence doesn't mean anything.

There's no point having a conversation if you don't make sense.

No argument here, I stand corrected...basically meaning "much more or manifold" I saw this as you meaning more possibilities (which are also born out through inheritance of varied traits), but you were using the term more technically (correctly) so I was wrong. My apologies...

Though very rare we do indeed see some polyploid animals. We recently found a variety of rat in South America that is polyploidal (Nature, 23 September 1999). It is still a rat however.

So anyway, going back, how do you see these two points as related to each other (or maybe I got that wrong as well and you were not saying they are)?

 

[tas8831]

According to the article:



They can't reproduce not because it's an entirely new species, but they adapted in a way that the mating songs weren't distinguished by the females, so they were entirely isolated. That's completely different than saying it became a whole new species.

Sounds like the production of a reproductive barrier to me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

Ha, what? What are "Asian traits" dude? I am eternally confused with exactly how you view different human "races". Especially considering that, say, two people from Asia that you'd probably say have stereotypical Asian traits usually have more genetic differences between the two of them than, say, two people from Europe with stereotypical European traits. And then you bring up "you can tell races apart genetically" as if the minor differences between them being mostly genetic is some sort of trump card. From a guy that admits that minor variations, such as color, can arise via mutation.

I guess I have to conclude that you think that the different human "races" are more distinct from each other than they actually are.

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.

http://www.evolutionevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Genealogy-of-the-dog-low-res.jpg
And known lineages of dog breeds clearly show that not all new breeds arise via crossing with other breeds... and honestly, it wouldn't even make sense if that was the case, because plenty of dog breeds have traits unique unto themselves that they couldn't have gotten simply via cross breeding.

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.

Alright, now I have the time to address this part, and wow, there is a lot to address.
1. Hundreds of millions of years?! Species that even make it to 100 million years are outliers, and they don't remain unchanged for that entire time. For example, while Triops cancriformis has existed with the same basic outward anatomy for 200 million years, but in the past they were far larger, and had differences in their tail length and carapace shape. And that's in a species that generally avoids change thanks to the fact that the eggs can withstand ridiculous conditions, such as prolonged desiccation, heat, and cold, for decades, effectively avoiding having to change because of major extinction events. Only changes in the environment that persist, such as changes in atmospheric oxygen, can impact them.

In short, the only species that remain "unchanged" for tens of millions of years are species which either live in environments which have changed very little over time, and species that can experience stasis and wait out any environmental changes that aren't in their favor rather than adapt to them.

2. In the remains of our own species we find changes, and we've only existed for about 200,000 years. Take our skulls, for example.
This is a modern Homo sapiens skull:

This is a comparison image between a Cro Magnon skull and a Neanderthal skull, just to have a twofold point about how they are not the same species as each other, and because it was a decent picture for comparing the early Homo sapiens (Cro Magnons) with the modern human skull:

Modern human skulls have a larger cranium, a less prominent brow, as well as some differences in general jaw shape and nose shape. A distinctive feature in our species compared to others in the genus Homo is our pronounced, protruding chins (which Neanderthals do not have) and the fact that our foreheads do not recede much (you'll note that the Cro Magnon skull here seems to have a little more receding than a modern skull does, but I am unsure if that is a general trait common among early humans or not).

Your still using that lame excuse?

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

Are you seriously using Quora as a source?

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

Covered in Shells: How many fossils are there?

-_- and how many organisms have lived on this planet ever? And how many of those fossils are repeats of organisms that happened to be particularly numerous and fossilized easily? There may be trillions of fossils, but I have more fingers than there are fossils for most give dinosaur species named.

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?

Look up the number of jellyfish fossils.

 

[tas8831]

And YES in the fossil record some creatures suddenly vanish and others appear (just as suddenly and fully formed with all inter-dependent subsystems functional and in place).

You seem to be implying that we should be able to find a fossil - and judging from your previous commentary regarding fossils, fully intact and unblemished fossils at that - and not just find a fossil, but have in hand today, a representative fossil from every generation from the beginning of life on earth.

Do you understand fossilization and geology?

 

[Jimmy D]

Not really Jim, since until about the last 50 years or so it was the claim. Glad you are born in a time when many evolutionists are also declaring it stupid! People had been telling them that for years.

The fossil record shows exactly what we would expect to see "if" evolution were true.

It sounds like you're going down the crocoduck route with this, and you're better than that mate.

 

[tas8831]

It sounds like you're going down the crocoduck route with this, and you're better than that mate.

Yeah, about that....

" because the coccyx is known to be there to support a ganglia of nervous tissue covered in grey matter (like a little brain - coccygeal plexus) and not only is the connective source of the two coccygeal and also sciatic nerves, but assists (and is necessary to) the autonomic urogenital functions. In its parasympathetic stimulated phase it is essential to our sexuality, thus mating, thus perpetuation and survival of the species. It carries the sensation/information through the axons to the central nervous system and back through transmission across the dentrites."