Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[xianghua]

"Ape" is not a species.

and a car isnt a truck. like human isnt an ape.

 

[pshun2404]

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??

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.

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.

Two very interesting statement:

You say:

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.

But ToE does predict that fish became amphibians and amphibians became reptiles and so on (absolutely accepted as true by EBs almost a century before viable evidence that could be interpreted to say this was discovered) so can you show this has actually happened and/or it happening in the past (or now which it should still be continuing to do)? PLease do!

Also

non living matter does not reproduce biologically.

Which though I agree, in fact it does not reproduce at all, the ToE argues that it did start to happen at least once (or in one epoch) very long ago. So can you demonstrate this as actually occurring or at least admit it as merely an imagined possibility (otherwise it is an unfounded assumption)?

 

[Radagast]

But ToE does predict that fish became amphibians and amphibians became reptiles and so on

I don't think anyone actually claims that.

non living matter does not reproduce biologically Which though I agree, in fact it does not reproduce at all, the ToE argues that it did start to happen at least once (or in one epoch) very long ago.

Abiogenesis is something different from the ToE. One could in principle accept one but not the other (and some people do).

 

[pshun2404]

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.

It has been demonstrated that individual traits in creatures can develop new expressions not found in the parents,

Extremely rare but true (not discounting mutations occurring embryonically most of which are not passed on). Only none of these rare examples poses changes to the topical anatomy of the individual with the exception of genetic deformities so nothing there could suggest even early apes becoming human beings. The vast degree of anatomical difference negates this (and I am aware of the non-scientific homology argument...yes both have arms but so don't bears...almost every animal has a face and so on)


so over a long period of time these changes can build up and leave distinct lineages and eventually separate species.

Notice how in humans groups with same traits when geophysicaly isolated for great lengths of time how this could cause "differences" (say between say neanderthal and denisovans) thus producing two lineages each with shared traits. But they never became "new species" they remain merely varieties of Homo-Sapien!

In fact, over "a long period of time" these differences via predominately isolated inter-breeding were overcome by shared interbreeding and the less dominant forms dying out (for example an Ice Age in Europe killing off most Neanderthals is a powerful natural selection force)

 

[pshun2404]

I don't think anyone actually claims that.

Abiogenesis is something different from the ToE. One could in principle accept one but not the other (and some people do).

Sorry Rad but yes many did make this first prediction and many still adhere to it as true.

All atheist EBs I have ever spoken to assume abiogenesis and believe it is true

 

[Radagast]

Sorry Rad but yes many did make this first prediction and many still adhere to it as true.

Really? Most textbooks would argue something like this:

All atheist EBs I have ever spoken to assume abiogenesis and believe it is true

Doesn't change the fact that abiogenesis is different from the ToE.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry Rad but yes many did make this first prediction and many still adhere to it as true.

All atheist EBs I have ever spoken to assume abiogenesis and believe it is true

They also generally assume that the universe is ancient. Does that may cosmology part of the biologial sciences?

 

[xianghua]

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

so if machines were able to reproduce, will you agree that a self replicating car could evolve into an airplane?

 

[pshun2404]

Really? Most textbooks would argue something like this:

Doesn't change the fact that abiogenesis is different from the ToE.

Doesn't change the fact that abiogenesis is different from the ToE.

Is that what you meant? Sorry...you are right on this, they are not the same. My apologies for the confusion.

Really? Most textbooks would argue something like this

Exactly...one becoming the other over great lengths of time.

Now take reality (no imagined lines) and just look...tell me what you see?

 

[xianghua]

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??

im not sure i remember.

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 so we cant prove it and it will always stay as a belief.

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.

i actually talked about self replicating watch\robot. so in this case its very relevant to biological creatures.

 

[mark kennedy]

According to the journal Science, following a 31 year study of Darwin's Finches on the Galapagos Islands, rapid hybridization and speciation has been bserved in the wild after a migrant finch managed to breed successfully and establish a colony.

This, hopefully will provide evidence for those people who declare that speciation has never been observed - well it has now.

The BBC website has a readable outline for the study but it is free to read (after registration) at the Science Journal website.

Let the excuses and the tap dancing begin!!

BBC : Bird seen becoming new species

Speciation is not that uncommon for birds.

Molecular studies of speciation in birds over the last three decades have been dominated by a focus on the geography, ecology, and timing of speciation, a tradition traceable to Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species. (Speciation in birds: Genes, geography, and sexual selection. PNAS)
​

Creationists don't generally deny speciation just the limits beyond which living systems can evolve into another species on the level of genus and beyond.

 

[tyke]

i actually talked about self replicating watch\robot. so in this case its very relevant to biological creatures.

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.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't think anyone actually claims that.

Then how to you propose we got from proteins, to single called organisms, to sponges, to fish, to amphibians and reptiles, to mammals to man?

Abiogenesis is something different from the ToE. One could in principle accept one but not the other (and some people do).

It’s absolutely required, not separate. Without life beginning, there would be no evolution at all. It’s actually the most important step in the theory.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

so over a long period of time these changes can build up and leave distinct lineages and eventually separate species.

Notice how in humans groups with same traits when geophysicaly isolated for great lengths of time how this could cause "differences" (say between say neanderthal and denisovans) thus producing two lineages each with shared traits. But they never became "new species" they remain merely varieties of Homo-Sapien!

In fact, over "a long period of time" these differences via predominately isolated inter-breeding were overcome by shared interbreeding and the less dominant forms dying out (for example an Ice Age in Europe killing off most Neanderthals is a powerful natural selection force)

Notice how in every single animal the exact opposite has occurred. Asians became Asians because they interbreed with those with Asian traits. Instead of change over long periods, the traits became dominant and set into the genome. Same with every other race and animal species in existence. It is only when two subspecies mate that we actually see a change in variation in the species. Because it is this which adds new genetic combinations, not mutations. Every Asian born is born with around 100 mutations, as is every African. But the Asian remains Asian, the African remains African. Only when Asian mates with African is a new variation in the species observed.

The same with Husky and Mastiff creating the Chinook. If random mutations had any real affect at all, besides hair color, etc, then a Chinook would not be the result every single time.

But so lost in theory are they, they are unable to “see”.

 

[Radagast]

Then how to you propose we got from proteins, to single called organisms, to sponges, to fish, to amphibians and reptiles, to mammals to man?

Like I said, most textbooks claim something like this:

It’s absolutely required, not separate. Without life beginning, there would be no evolution at all. It’s actually the most important step in the theory.

But it's a different theory. And the panspermia people, for example, deny it happened on this planet.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Really? Most textbooks would argue something like this:

Yes, we are aware of those missing common ancestors for every claimed split.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/fishtree_09

“That's because we, and in fact all tetrapods (four-limbed vertebrates, many of which live on land), share a more recent common ancestor with the coelacanth and lungfish than we do with ray-finned fishes. We tetrapods are sarcopterygians too!

Tetrapods evolved from a group of organisms that, if they were alive today, we would call fish.”

And just to keep it clear.

Sarcopterygii - Wikipedia

“The living sarcopterygians are two species of coelacanths and six species of lungfish; additionally, all tetrapods are sarcopterygians or descendants of them (including humans).”

Doesn't change the fact that abiogenesis is different from the ToE.

You can’t have evolution unless you first have life to evolve. It’s more fundamental than the ToE.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Speciation is not that uncommon for birds.

Molecular studies of speciation in birds over the last three decades have been dominated by a focus on the geography, ecology, and timing of speciation, a tradition traceable to Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species. (Speciation in birds: Genes, geography, and sexual selection. PNAS)
​

Creationists don't generally deny speciation just the limits beyond which living systems can evolve into another species on the level of genus and beyond.

Oh we very much deny it.

They just can’t follow their own scientific definitions is all, so see speciation where it doesn’t exist.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”

We totally agree that DNA will tell the story.

Evolution of Darwin’s finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing

“Here we report the results of whole-genome re-sequencing of 120 individuals representing all of the Darwin’s finch species and two close relatives. Phylogenetic analysis reveals important discrepancies with the phenotype-based taxonomy. We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry.”

Mating has given rise to mixed subspecies of the species... they were classified as separate species based on those phenotype-based taxonomy.

 

[Shemjaza]

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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....

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?

 

[tyke]

But so lost in theory are they, they are unable to “see”.

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))

 

[Justatruthseeker]

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.

No, you have nothing, that’s why you haven’t yet provided a single common ancestor where this split occurred.

Morphological changes? You mean like a Husky mating with a Mastiff and ending up with a Chinook? I realize you all confuse changes in subspecies as new species, but not everyone has been brainwashed.

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.

And that is exactly what a polar bear is. An animal with a group of arbitrary ancestral traits that link them to the animals who settled a specific region of the world. So since you claim a polar bear is a separate species from the grizzly bear, despite mating, uphold your beliefs and argue Asians should be a separate species....

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.

Only in your fantasies. The Chinook never existed either. It came from simple interbreeding of Husky and Mastiff. If your claims were true then we wouldn’t get a Chinoook every time we bred a Husky and Mastiff. So we can conclude mutations are irrelevant.

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.

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.

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.

Apparently they can, since all 100 breeds of dogs were created by interbreeding wolves.

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.

Agreed, and all dogs are the same species. And wolves never split or evolved into anything. So accept what you know to be true and stop trying to regurgitate common ancestors that split to become new species. We agree these common ancestors, the only one that can be found, falsify your theory.

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.

Your stories start from one, and then with every mutation that is shared in a population requires all others go extinct, and only the descendants of that one person become the population. Over and over and over again. You are worse off than I am...

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

You have excuses. We have over a billion fossils in museums around the world. Whatever excuse floats your boat and allows you to live with your beliefs.

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?

You refuse to accept inbreeding causes genetic reduction in diversity. Even if both the Asian and African have less genetic diversity than their offspring the Afro-Asian.

But then you continue to refuse to study dogs, and how the continued breeding for specific traits has reduced their variability.

I’ve asked before and you all refuse to answer. Can we get a wolf from a poodle? Because we know we can get a poodle from a wolf.....