Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[tas8831]

Your understand wrong, it is not that they cannot it is that they do not (there are many reasons for this within sub-species of other animals as well).All observations in nature and as tested and performed in labs show that speciation ONLY produces different varieties (sub species) of the same creature! Go with the real observable test demonstrated evidence on this one...

So, your standard is "observable test demonstrated evidence".

Yet you dismissed such evidence for the reliability of molecular phylogenetics methods.

Double standard much?

And how much of your alt-science beliefs can meet that standard?

 

[tyke]

It sounds like you're going down the crocoduck route with this

Forgive my ignorance, JimmyD, but what is a crocoduck, for goodness sakes????

 

[tas8831]

But if you want to "see it in action," you're better off looking at plants.

Same with 'creation.'

Nobody saw it.

 

[xianghua]

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

a self replicating-organic one. why not actually?

 

[tyke]

a self replicating-organic one. why not actually?

Please tell me you're not serious??

 

[pitabread]

Please tell me you're not serious??

I keep expecting xianghua to one day post, "LOL, I trolled you guys so hard!"

I mean, nobody really thinks penguins are robots... Right? Right???

 

[tyke]

I mean, nobody really thinks penguins are robots... Right? Right???

I hope you're right!!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You still don't get it.

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

No, you still don’t get it. Had not man interfered, what took thousands of years would have taken millions instead, and not all the breeds would have lived at the same time. You see what you incorrectly believe is evolution on an accelerated timescale with dogs. There is no difference in the offspring of a Husky and Mastiff if man brings them together or if famine or natural disaster does so, except time frame.

None of them can be descended from another group.

All of them were. I just showed you that the pit bull was created from the bulldog and terrier. Until there were first bulldogs and terriers, the pit bull could not exist.

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

Just as the pit bull was descended from the earlier groups of bulldog and terriers.

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

No it’s not, so why are you having such a hard time grasping that until you first have bulldogs and terriers, you can’t have a pit bull?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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?

Not a single solitary one, without first asking us to conjecture a common ancestor that is in each and every case, missing.

Let’s look at whales for example. Their prime piece of evidence is (convienently?) missing the only two parts of the skull that would A) support their claim or B) falsify their claim. Both the patch behind the braincase were a blowhole would be is missing, and the tip of the snout if it had nostrils instead. Convienent that both peices are missing? I’ll let the reader decide based upon their track record of falsifying and misidentifying evidence.

Oh, and let me add, that the variation we do observe is from mating.

Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Neither Husky nor Mastiff evolve into the Chinook.

Asian mates with African and produces the Afro-Asian. Neither the Asian nor the African evolve into the Afro-Asian.

Polar bear mates with grizzly and produces the pizzly or grolar. Neither the polar bear nor grizzly evolve into the grolar or pizzly.

Ground finch mated with tree finch to produce finches (no official name yet). Neither the ground finch nor the tree finch evolved into the unamed finch.

There is no reason whatsoever to ignore how we observe variation to enter the species for some imaginary process that isn’t how we actually observe variation to occurr in the species in the fossil record.

Those creatures in the fossil record also mated with others and produced variation. Not a single one evolved, just as per observation......

And this is why every type of creature found is found fully formed for that type. Just as are the Chinook, Afro-Asian, pizzly, grolar, unamed finches, and every single new variation ever observed. They were given birth to from interbreeding, not from a mythical process of evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

Forgive my ignorance, JimmyD, but what is a crocoduck, for goodness sakes????

Lol, it’s down to Ray Comfort I believe......

The concept of a crocoduck was used by Young-earth creationists and certain other creationists to claim that the absence of any half-crocodile, half-duck creature disproves evolution, an argument that quickly became a meme used to ridicule a common misrepresentation of the theory of evolution, namely, that the theory predicts forms intermediate between any two currently living organisms.

In 2007 Young-earth creationists Kirk Cameronand Ray Comfort participated in a televised debate, parts of which were aired on ABC Nightline, on the existence of God. Kirk Cameron held up composite pictures of what "we imagined would be genuine species-to-species transitional forms. We called one a 'crocoduck' and another was called a 'birddog'." The "crocoduck" was an animal with the head of a crocodile and the body of a duck, the "bullfrog" was an animal with the head of a bull and the body of a frog, and the "sheepdog" was an animal with the head of a dog and the body of a sheep. These pictures were used as a straw man argument to ridicule the theory of evolution as represented by Cameron and Comfort.

Crocoduck - Wikipedia

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

Are you saying we have convicted people and searched for suspects based upon DNA evidence that is not definitive?

Not one single piece of DNA left at the crime scene required that the detectives first know what “race” the individual came from to begin their hunt for suspects among that “race”

So according to you this should be impossible.

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.

Don’t show me a picture of 50 dogs while making that claim.
Name one, let’s test that hypothesis.

I have limited time, will update my post to address this later.


Are you seriously using Quora as a source?

Since the man I said a professor, what’s your complaint? Isn’t he one of those experts you all harp about?

-_- 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.

So then you admit everything is but conjecture based on no real evidence at all?

Look up the number of jellyfish fossils.

So are you saying there is no evidence at all that life mutated from protein to single called organisms to sponges and jellyfish, then up?

So you admit this is all mere assumption based upon no real evidence at all?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Lol, it’s down to Ray Comfort I believe......

The concept of a crocoduck was used by Young-earth creationists and certain other creationists to claim that the absence of any half-crocodile, half-duck creature disproves evolution, an argument that quickly became a meme used to ridicule a common misrepresentation of the theory of evolution, namely, that the theory predicts forms intermediate between any two currently living organisms.

In 2007 Young-earth creationists Kirk Cameronand Ray Comfort participated in a televised debate, parts of which were aired on ABC Nightline, on the existence of God. Kirk Cameron held up composite pictures of what "we imagined would be genuine species-to-species transitional forms. We called one a 'crocoduck' and another was called a 'birddog'." The "crocoduck" was an animal with the head of a crocodile and the body of a duck, the "bullfrog" was an animal with the head of a bull and the body of a frog, and the "sheepdog" was an animal with the head of a dog and the body of a sheep. These pictures were used as a straw man argument to ridicule the theory of evolution as represented by Cameron and Comfort.

Crocoduck - Wikipedia

Sort of like

Since you all claim the same ancestor led to it as led to horses and man, don’t you think we should find some kind of intermediaries between the forms?

Or is just one of these common ancestors that split too much to ask for?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Same with 'creation.'

Nobody saw it.

Agreed, but we simply assert science supports our religious beliefs, unlike evolutionists that assert their religious beliefs are science.

 

[HitchSlap]

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

This is exactly, evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Are you saying we have convicted people and searched for suspects based upon DNA evidence?

I never said that, though, DNA is used in investigations. I have never heard of DNA used to determine the race of an unknown suspect, though. Gender for sure, but not race. Not sure if it would even be useful to try to determine what a person looks like from their DNA. I mean, sure, traits like eye color are almost always purely genetic, but most traits that distinguish people outwardly aren't purely genetic, and some, such as height, are more heavily influenced by environmental factors than genes. Others can be actively changed, such as hair color with dye, making it even less useful to put in the time to find that out.

-_- the only time I do hear of people using DNA to determine "race" is silly companies like Ancestry.com, but they determine your genetic ancestry, not race. That, and the one time people tried to sequence as many people as possible to determine our genetic origins, which was neat.

Not one single piece of DNA left at the crime scene required that the detectives first know what “race” the individual came from to begin their hunt for suspects among that “race”

I'd like a source for people using DNA to determine the race of a suspect in a crime, for the sake of curiosity as well as it being needed for your example. Not saying it is impossible to determine "race" from DNA, only that you have never clarified what you think human "races" are exactly. So, I have 2 important questions:
1. I ask if you agree that minor variations, such as in skin color and hair color, can arise via mutation, yes or no? You've said yes before, which makes it extra confusing to me that you think that variations within human "races", which are quite minor, can't arise via mutation. Perhaps you can clarify?
2. What is a race? In biology, it's just a generic, outdated term for variation of any kind within a population with no regard to how minor or significant the variation is. In sociology, it's definition is this: the term race refers to groups of people who have differences and similarities in biological traits deemed by society to be socially significant. As you can see, there isn't a standard by which "race" can be measured consistently to begin with, let alone any indication that the various human "races" even have notable genetic distinctions.

So according to you this should be impossible.

No, look, all populations have some genetic variation. It's just that variations associated with "race" are fairly minor and not entirely consistent. That is, people that are genetically "not the same race" can easily look as though they are, and people that genetically "are the same race" might not look all that similar, just due to the variations within racial groups themselves.

Don’t show me a picture of 50 dogs while making that claim.
Name one, let’s test that hypothesis.

-_- not really much of a hypothesis to test when recorded history demonstrates that dog breeds don't arise only from cross breeding existing breeds. But sure, I'll name a breed: Norwegian Lundehund. Have fun with that. However, note that a lot of the oldest dog breeds resemble wolves and other wild canines and lack traits associated with more recent breeds. For example, how would one breed for a teacup poodle if all the old dog breeds were mid sized or large? Also, "breed" isn't a standard term. That is, there isn't any genetic or degree of difference mandated to claim one "breed" is different from another. A new breed could literally just be a smaller version of another one produced by breeding runts together, or the descendants of a dog born with strange ears that was bred with others of its breed, then had its offspring declared a new "breed" because the trait persisted (this is literally what happened with the American Curl cat). Your insistence upon using dog "breeds" as some sort of standard by which differences within populations are measured is not useful for this reason.

Since the man I said a professor, what’s your complaint? Isn’t he one of those experts you all harp about?

-_- name one time that I demanded that a source come from an expert. Sure, I have stated that using a specific person as a source was invalid due to their area of expertise being irrelevant to the subject matter, but I have never demanded that the source be an expert.

I'm just annoyed that you use a site that people post questions for anyone to answer, regardless of expertise, as if it is a reliable source.

-_- also, I am annoyed that you think trillions is a high number of fossils when there are tens of trillions of bacteria in the room you are sitting in right now. Plus, even your own "source" mentions that of those, only a couple million have ever been properly documented. That's less than the number of species alive right now. There are far more people casually digging up fossils than paleontologists. It's actually sad to think of how many transitional fossils could have been destroyed by incompetent diggers or never see the light of day because a person just leaves them as a decoration in their house. Or just neat fossils in general.

So then you admit everything is but conjecture based on no real evidence at all?

What have I actually been saying a lot? Oh, might it be that fossils aren't the best evidence for evolution? Sincerely, no fossil could have ever been discovered, and there would be more than sufficient evidence for evolution to make it a theory.

Of course, by luck of habitat, some organisms do actually have very complete fossil records compared to others. You could make a flip book for the evolution of our species with them, and if I had the talent, I'd make one just to demonstrate. Sadly, I suck at drawing.

So are you saying there is no evidence at all that life mutated from protein to single called organisms to sponges and jellyfish, then up?

RNA world hypothesis, dude. I am a supporter of the RNA world hypothesis. Life mutating from a protein wouldn't even make sense, because proteins aren't inheritable genetic factors like RNA and DNA are. And abiogenesis is irrelevant to a discussion about evolution. Also, "then up"? What's with the direction? You know what, nevermind, don't bother addressing it if you are going to go more off topic.

So you admit this is all mere assumption based upon no real evidence at all?

No, you just like trying to shove words in my mouth, but I'm not going to let you do it. You are the one demanding that the fossil record be complete for some reason, and then you get annoyed when I don't treat fossils as the most important thing ever. They are just a part of the evidence supporting evolution, dude. Unless you find a Precambrian rabbit or something like that, fossils are not going to disrupt the theory much. I don't think the fossil record could possibly be complete, because organisms from every generation of every species that has ever existed don't fossilize.

Think of fossils as like a rail to the side of stairs. Would grabbing onto it make me more stable when using the stairs? Sure, but I can use them just find without ever touching it. I'm the theory of evolution, in this. Try to remove the rail to prevent me from using the stairs if you want, but you accomplish nothing even if you prevail. I'd still be able to use the stairs just fine.

As it were, the only way I can think of the fossil record disproving evolution is via discovery of fossils that contradict the theory enough that it falls apart. Like a mammal fossil older than the oldest fish fossil, something like that. Otherwise, you are kinda wasting your time with fossil arguments against evolution.

 

[Astrophile]

Non-existent.

That is not a definition of evolution; it is a statement about its reality.

 

[Kylie]

No, you still don’t get it. Had not man interfered, what took thousands of years would have taken millions instead, and not all the breeds would have lived at the same time. You see what you incorrectly believe is evolution on an accelerated timescale with dogs. There is no difference in the offspring of a Husky and Mastiff if man brings them together or if famine or natural disaster does so, except time frame.

No, you don't get it...

It wouldn't have happened at all, since the dogs we see today are often the result of breeding for traits that are harmful. Pugs with breathing problems, for example.

All of them were. I just showed you that the pit bull was created from the bulldog and terrier. Until there were first bulldogs and terriers, the pit bull could not exist.

That's still a long way from proving that the same thing happened with ceratopsians.

Just as the pit bull was descended from the earlier groups of bulldog and terriers.

Except with the ceratopsians, the earlier groups lived millions of years earlier than the later groups, while bulldogs and terriers live at the same time as the pittbulls. The ceratopsians evolved to adapt to selective pressures they faced, whereas pittbulls were bred selectively with traits chosen by humans.

No it’s not, so why are you having such a hard time grasping that until you first have bulldogs and terriers, you can’t have a pit bull?

Your argument is still not convincing.

 

[Astrophile]

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

Why did one species (call it species A) vanish, and where did the 'slightly different' species that replaced it (species B) come from? Did all the female members of species A follow Hamlet's advice to Ophelia ('Get thee to a nunnery'), and if so, why?

Where did the first members of species B come from? They didn't originate by spontaneous generation from non-living matter ('All life comes from life', according to the law of biogenesis), so they must have had parents. What species did these parents belong to?

By the way, can you cite an example of an actual sequence 'where one species vanishes to be replaced by another, slightly different, one'?

 

[tas8831]

a self replicating-organic one. why not actually?

Here is why:

ro·bot
ˈrōˌbät,ˈrōbət/Submit
noun
a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
(especially in science fiction) a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
used to refer to a person who behaves in a mechanical or unemotional manner.
"public servants are not expected to be mindless robots"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I never said that, though, DNA is used in investigations. I have never heard of DNA used to determine the race of an unknown suspect, though. Gender for sure, but not race. Not sure if it would even be useful to try to determine what a person looks like from their DNA. I mean, sure, traits like eye color are almost always purely genetic, but most traits that distinguish people outwardly aren't purely genetic, and some, such as height, are more heavily influenced by environmental factors than genes. Others can be actively changed, such as hair color with dye, making it even less useful to put in the time to find that out.

Yah well....
Unusual Use of DNA Aided in Serial Killer Search

-_- the only time I do hear of people using DNA to determine "race" is silly companies like Ancestry.com, but they determine your genetic ancestry, not race. That, and the one time people tried to sequence as many people as possible to determine our genetic origins, which was neat.

See above, apparently it can be done.

I'd like a source for people using DNA to determine the race of a suspect in a crime, for the sake of curiosity as well as it being needed for your example. Not saying it is impossible to determine "race" from DNA, only that you have never clarified what you think human "races" are exactly. So, I have 2 important questions:
1. I ask if you agree that minor variations, such as in skin color and hair color, can arise via mutation, yes or no? You've said yes before, which makes it extra confusing to me that you think that variations within human "races", which are quite minor, can't arise via mutation. Perhaps you can clarify?
2. What is a race? In biology, it's just a generic, outdated term for variation of any kind within a population with no regard to how minor or significant the variation is. In sociology, it's definition is this: the term race refers to groups of people who have differences and similarities in biological traits deemed by society to be socially significant. As you can see, there isn't a standard by which "race" can be measured consistently to begin with, let alone any indication that the various human "races" even have notable genetic distinctions or have any

Just gave you one, which led to the suspect.

No, look, all populations have some genetic variation. It's just that variations associated with "race" are fairly minor and not entirely consistent. That is, people that are genetically "not the same race" can easily look as though they are, and people that genetically "are the same race" might not look all that similar, just due to the variations within racial groups themselves.

Agreed, and fossils that look different, may not be different species at all. Like Triceratops and Torosoraus. But since you can’t test their DNA, it’s only those visual differences that you claim aren’t valid indicators of difference to make claims of being different. Yes?

-_- not really much of a hypothesis to test when recorded history demonstrates that dog breeds don't arise only from cross breeding existing breeds. But sure, I'll name a breed: Norwegian Lundehund. Have fun with that. However, note that a lot of the oldest dog breeds resemble wolves and other wild canines and lack traits associated with more recent breeds. For example, how would one breed for a teacup poodle if all the old dog breeds were mid sized or large? Also, "breed" isn't a standard term. That is, there isn't any genetic or degree of difference mandated to claim one "breed" is different from another. A new breed could literally just be a smaller version of another one produced by breeding runts together, or the descendants of a dog born with strange ears that was bred with others of its breed, then had it's offspring declared a new "breed" because the trait persisted (this is literally what happened with the American Curl cat). Your insistence upon using dog "breeds" as some sort of standard by which differences within populations are measured is not useful for this reason.

Yes let’s look at it.

Norwegian Lundehund - Wikipedia

“ The breed was originally developed for the hunting of puffins and their eggs.”

“The breed has a long history. They are the most ancient of the Nordic dog breeds, scientific research[citation needed] indicates that the breed has been in existence since before the last Ice Age, surviving by eating fish and sea birds.”

The Norwegian Puffin Dog

“To enhance traction on slippery rocks, and gripping in tight places, the Lundehund is a polydactyl (multi-toed) dog. Instead of the normal four toes a foot, the Lundehund has six toes, all fully formed, jointed and muscled. Polydactyl dogs are not terribly uncommon, but in most breeds the extra toes are dew-claws – non-functional vestigial toes, not the fully formed variety of the Lundehund. ”

So we can conclude that the Lundehund was one of the first dogs created by man. That all it’s toes were originally functional and still are. That it is wolves and later dogs that lost the ability to use all toes, that they became vestigial, merely dew claws.

No mutation in the Lundehund, no evolution. It is all other breeds that their toes became vestigial from nonuse, being they no longer had to traverse rocky cliff faces.

-_- name one time that I demanded that a source come from an expert. Sure, I have stated that using a specific person as a source was invalid due to their area of expertise being irrelevant to the subject matter, but I have never demanded that the source be an expert.

Yet seemed to object to a source, despite your claims you never demanded an expert or not.

I'm just annoyed that you use a site that people post questions for anyone to answer, regardless of expertise, as if it is a reliable source.

Must I go to every museums webpage and count up the number of fossils each says they have?

I. Willing to bet it runs in the trillions.

-_- also, I am annoyed that you think trillions is a high number of fossils when there are tens of trillions of bacteria in the room you are sitting in right now. Plus, even your own "source" mentions that of those, only a couple million have ever been properly documented. That's less than the number of species alive right now. There are far more people casually digging up fossils than paleontologists. It's actually sad to think of how many transitional fossils could have been destroyed by incompetent diggers or never see the light of day because a person just leaves them as a decoration in their house. Or just neat fossils in general.

But I am not the one that claims the fossil evidence backs my beliefs, then turns around and claims there’s hardly any evidence at all. Either it supports evolution because there is enough evidence to support that conclusion, or there are not enough fossils to support any conclusion. Which is it?

What have I actually been saying a lot? Oh, might it be that fossils aren't the best evidence for evolution? Sincerely, no fossil could have ever been discovered, and there would be more than sufficient evidence for evolution to make it a theory.

Without fossils ate you Have is Husky mating with Mastiff creating the Chinook. Asian mating with African creating the Afro-Asian. Polar bear mating with grizzly creating the pizzly or grolar. Ground finch mating with tree finch creating unamed finch.

Without them you have nothing at all.

Of course, by luck of habitat, some organisms do actually have very complete fossil records compared to others. You could make a flip book for the evolution of our species with them, and if I had the talent, I'd make one just to demonstrate. Sadly, I suck at drawing.

It would show the same thing as you see with dogs, that you then mistake as one form evolving into another.

RNA world hypothesis, dude. I am a supporter of the RNA world hypothesis. Life mutating from a protein wouldn't even make sense, because proteins aren't inheritable genetic factors like RNA and DNA are. And abiogenesis is irrelevant to a discussion about evolution. Also, "then up"? What's with the direction? You know what, nevermind, don't bother addressing it if you are going to go more off topic.

RNA requires four nucliobases to work in concert. All at the exact same time, with no trial and error.

Abiogenesis is crucial to the theory. Without life their exists no evolution. If you can’t explain life’s origin, all the evolution in the world won’t tell you how life began. It’s the most fundamental question of all, because without that beginning evolution is a useless theory.

No, you just like trying to shove words in my mouth, but I'm not going to let you do it. You are the one demanding that the fossil record be complete for some reason, and then you get annoyed when I don't treat fossils as the most important thing ever. They are just a part of the evidence supporting evolution, dude. Unless you find a Precambrian rabbit or something like that, fossils are not going to disrupt the theory much. I don't think the fossil record could possibly be complete, because organisms from every generation of every species that has ever existed don't fossilize.

Think of fossils as like a rail to the side of stairs. Would grabbing onto it make me more stable when using the stairs? Sure, but I can use them just find without ever touching it. I'm the theory of evolution, in this. Try to remove the rail to prevent me from using the stairs if you want, but you accomplish nothing even if you prevail. I'd still be able to use the stairs just fine.

As it were, the only way I can think of the fossil record disproving evolution is via discovery of fossils that contradict the theory enough that it falls apart. Like a mammal fossil older than the oldest fish fossil, something like that. Otherwise, you are kinda wasting your time with fossil arguments against evolution.

Why would I expect to see a mammal fossil before fish? God created sea creatures first. Finding that would falsify creation. Evolution has already been shown to be false as no animal evolves into another. Two mate to create a third.