Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[tas8831]

LOL, Yeah, I'm going to go over a lengthy scientific paper checking all their calculations to prove a point to a stranger on the internet. How do I know what your referring to, your sentence doesn't even make sense....

"Interesting on that he says fossils agree them we find out their actual dating does not. By 30 million years."

So who to believe? Someone who doesn't seem to have a clue about biology and paleontology (remember the time you hadn't even heard of subfossils, that was a good one!) or the authors of the paper?

i don't know dude - they guy that wrote "All dogs came from one wolf gene." totally seems to know biology and genetics inside and out...

 

[Jimmy D]

You just claimed Homo erectus is an ape - but your buddy justa wrote that "I simply claim humans have always been humans. If you want to call them Neanderthals, or H. Erectus, that’s fine."

You just pooped in Justa's flowerbed.

LOL, it's a head scratcher alright. It's almost as if they don't really have any sort of consistent framework or structure for their ideas apart from responding with increduilty to scientific facts...

(One for the brits there)

 

[tas8831]

LOL, it's a head scratcher alright. It's almost as if they don't really have any sort of consistent framework or structure for their ideas apart from responding with increduilty to scientific facts...

(One for the brits there)

That and implying that those involved in any field of inquiry that does not prop up their fantasies is engaging in nefarious antics...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Please.... the only side here that happily admits being wrong when actually being wrong, is the science side. In fact, that's when scientists are most excited: when it turns our they were wrong. Because it means learning and making progress.

At which point they just change the story, while keeping the underlying theory which was falsified to begin with.

"Being wrong" is not in your average creationist's handbook or dictionary. They can't be wrong, because they have the bible. And if reality disagrees, it's reality that is wrong - not their faith based beliefs.

It’s not my fault you can’t produce a single common ancestor. That everything always remains distinct. That you ignore how variation of form occurs.

You know, like Husky mating with Mastiff to produce the Chinook. Like polar bear mating with grizzly to produce the prizzly or grolar depending on male or female. Like lion mating with tiger to produce the Liger. Like Liger mating with lion to produce the Li-Liger. Like ground finch mating with tree finch to produce the as yet unnamed finch.

They have a real problem once convinced of a claim, separating the the real observable testable data from the story they have been persuaded is true.

Textbook projection.

We agree, you have problems separating the real observable and testable data from the story you have been told is true, despite the fact that the only time you have observed change in form is when two subspecies mate.

Classic textbook projection!

 

[xianghua]

No, because a robot, by definition, does not evolve and is not the product of natural processes.

It is, by definition, something that is manufactured by humans.

so an object that its identical to a robot (a "robot" that evolved by a natural process) isnt a robot?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That and implying that those involved in any field of inquiry that does not prop up their fantasies is engaging in nefarious antics...

Sort of like evolutionists implying that anyone that does not prop up their fantasies is engaging in nefarious antics?

Another case of classic textbook projection.

 

[tas8831]

It’s not my fault you can’t produce a single common ancestor. That everything always remains distinct. That you ignore how variation of form occurs.

You know, like Husky mating with Mastiff to produce the Chinook. Like polar bear mating with grizzly to produce the prizzly or grolar depending on male or female. Like lion mating with tiger to produce the Liger. Like Liger mating with lion to produce the Li-Liger. Like ground finch mating with tree finch to produce the as yet unnamed finch.

It IS your fault that you keep writing things like ' Husky mating with Mastiff to produce the Chinook' but refuse to explain what two types mated to produce the Husky or Mastiff in the first place.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL, it's a head scratcher alright. It's almost as if they don't really have any sort of consistent framework or structure for their ideas apart from responding with increduilty to scientific facts...

(One for the brits there)

Says the guy that ignores the scientific definitions of both species and subspecies. Can’t present a single common ancestor. Ignores the only time he’s observed a change in form is when two subspecies mate. Can’t decide if it’s gradual mutation over millions of years - missing forms, or sudden change.

It’s the second by the way, when creature A mates with creature B. Who’s only response in every post is to attempt to attack the poster because he has no evidence to back his asssertions.

Yah you are reliable to be a judge of anything. That’s sarcasm by the way.

 

[tas8831]

Sort of like evolutionists implying that anyone that does not prop up their fantasies is engaging in nefarious antics?

Another case of classic textbook projection.

I think you mistake your side's implications with my side's documentation?

I DOCUMENTED my claims, pshun just implies it.

See the difference?

Of course you do not.

Now please explain how a breeding pair of people with perfect human middle eastern genomes eventually produced Asians and Africans and Nordic, etc.

What is the genetic mechanism for this?

Laughably, you linked to an article on skin color being linked to different "allies", not realizing that these "allies" had to come from somewhere.

You are in WAY over your head, and you do not even seem to know it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It IS your fault that you keep writing things like ' Husky mating with Mastiff to produce the Chinook' but refuse to explain what two types mated to produce the Husky or Mastiff in the first place.

Wolves, haven’t you been keeping up with science? It’s what all dogs came from. It’s been explained in the scientific literature for decades.

 

[tas8831]

so an object that its identical to a robot (a "robot" that evolved by a natural process) isnt a robot?

Penguins are not identical to robots, since robots are made by humans.

Your line of argumentation is sad and ineffectual.

Try as you might, nobody is buying your 'argument via idiosyncratic definition and analogy.'

 

[tas8831]

Wolves, haven’t you been keeping up with science? It’s what all dogs came from. It’s been explained in the scientific literature for decades.

Trying to miss the point are you?

HOW do 'wolves mating' produce Mastiffs and Poodles?

You claim it is all hybridization all the way down, yet cannot provide a mechanism for the original variation.

In fact, you steadfastly ignore such requests to discuss it.

How did perfect genome Adam and perfect genome Eve - middle easterners both - give rise to Asians and Africans IF, according to you , all new variants are derived via hybridization?

 

[xianghua]

Penguins are not identical to robots, since robots are made by humans.

so if someone will create a penguin it will be a robot by definition.

 

[pitabread]

It IS your fault that you keep writing things like ' Husky mating with Mastiff to produce the Chinook'

Not to mention that that claim is actually wrong to begin with. The Chinook breed is a result of cross between a husky and a specific dog named 'Chinook' of indeterminate origin.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Let’s see, what I got from all this is when asked to provide your best evidence you hee hawed around the subject and failed to present it. I’ll tale that as meaning you have none.

-_- no, only that I won't go through the effort if you aren't willing to ask. You asked for fossils, which people have already provided you in excess so I KNOW that won't go anywhere with you. I've provided ample opportunities for you to willingly talk about what I consider to be the strongest evidence for evolution, but whenever I have you just seem to get irritated that I don't want to talk about fossils.

So, straight up, do you want to talk about what I consider to be the strongest evidence for evolution or not? It's a yes or no question, so one of those two words should be your answer. No more and no less.

Why shouldn’t dogs be an excellent example?

Example of what? Your idea that only crossbreeding "breeds" produces new breeds? No, because breeds are entirely arbitrary. I could just have a Jack Russell born with a curly tail, breed it with other Jack Russells to preserve the trait, and have a new breed named, and it'd be considered just as much a different breed from Jack Russells as a chihuahua is.

Since there isn't any standard of difference by which to label separate dog breeds, they make for a poor standard of measuring how different populations must be in order to be considered different subspecies, for example.

Husky mates with Mastiff and produces the Chinook. Every animal alive does this.

I've never claimed hybridization isn't a mechanism by which new species or "breeds" can arise. However, it doesn't explain new traits independent of the parent species/breeds, such as various dog breeds with webbed feet.

Polar bear mates with grizzly and produces the pizzly. Grizzly mates with polar bear and produces the grolar. Just depending on which is male and female.

Yeah, we make silly names for hybrids in nature. I wouldn't call any of those a new species or "breed" though unless they establish independent populations that become more consistent with their traits. First generation hybrids aren't true breeding.

Ground finch mates with tree finch and produces as an yet unnamed finch.

Something that has been discussed with you before: the hybrids of Galapagos finches are not as common as you assert, and generally have very low mating success to the point that they don't cause any of the separate species to merge into a single population.

Tigers mate with lions and produce Ligers. Ligers mate with lions and produce the Li-Liger.

Only in captivity, and those hybrids have horrific health problems and fertility issues. I suggest sticking to hybrids that occur without human intervention for your examples, since unwillingness to mate in their natural environment is considered a significant enough barrier to reproduction to distinguish different populations as different species.

All of these animals have undergone countless mutations, yet despite this, it is only when they interbreed that a new form arises.

Define "new form". It's so vague that it could be anything from just slightly longer fur to an extra limb. That phrase gets used so much, and it too has no official standard.

Contemplate on this and you’ll realize it’s the only time you have observed new subspecies arise in the species.

Me personally? Seen it happen with bacteria that all originate from a single bacterium, though they are called strains rather than subspecies.

For a historical one, every cultivar and subspecies of potato arose from a single species, as determined from genetic testing. Same goes with all Venus flytrap cultivars; entirely red variants, entirely yellow variants, and ones with warped traps that don't even work all arose in captivity due to selective breeding of plants that grew randomly different from the rest due to mutations. Most of them even being produced within your lifetime. In fact, it's actually impossible for new varieties of Venus flytrap to arise via crossbreeding, because it's a monotypic genus; there's nothing to cross it with.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not all events must be observed in order to be known.

For example, by only observing the circumstantial evidence exhibited in this picture:

View attachment 214976

We can conclude that it burned there. We don't need to actually observe the fire raging, to know that.

Quite true, but the observation itself doesn’t tell us if it happened by random events, or if set deliberately. So superficial observations can only take us so far.

Good luck supporting that claim.

Easily proven. Have you seen wolves change into a dog breed in the last several thousand years without mans interference? So we can conclude if left on their own without interfering the creation of different forms would take an unknown amount of time. But inherently there is no difference between man mating a Husky and a Mastiff to get a Chinook or famine bringing the two together creating a Chinook. The only difference would be geological time.

Without going in on this particular subject, since I don't have enough knowledge about it, I'ld just like to point out how bizarre I think it is to be using quotes of Darwin when trying to argue agains 21ste century biology.

Why, because you don’t want to accept that he allowed for a falsification of his theory when the required innumerable intermediaries were not found in the future?

Darwin didn't even know about DNA. While the dude is credited for the discovery of the concept of Natural Selection and, in broad terms, the idea that all species share a common ancestor, there was a LOT he did not know about. There were also quite a few things that he got wrong, obviously.

Since Darwin didn’t know about DNA and classified finches as separate species based solely on the incorrect belief they were reproductively isolated, them why are you not objecting to the continued incorrect classification of them as separate species? Especially when the DNA showed the had been extensively interchanging genes and were a mixed class? If you cared about science and not just trying to uphold your theory you’d be insisting they fix the error Darwin made and they continue to perpetuate.

But why dwell on it? His ideas are 200 years old or whatever. Biology learned a thing or two since then.

Yes we did. We learned those finches were never reproductively isolated and so speciation never happened.

The definition of "species" does not explain how speciation works. It merely defines what a species is.

Then show me under what explanation of speciation those finches fit under.

Speciation - Wikipedia

Was it allopatric, peripatric, parapatric or sympatric speciation

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- no, only that I won't go through the effort if you aren't willing to ask. You asked for fossils, which people have already provided you in excess so I KNOW that won't go anywhere with you. I've provided ample opportunities for you to willingly talk about what I consider to be the strongest evidence for evolution, but whenever I have you just seem to get irritated that I don't want to talk about fossils.

The get with it and stop delaying.

So, straight up, do you want to talk about what I consider to be the strongest evidence for evolution or not? It's a yes or no question, so one of those two words should be your answer. No more and no less.

I said get with it and show it two posts ago. That’s a yes in case you didn’t understand.

Example of what? Your idea that only crossbreeding "breeds" produces new breeds? No, because breeds are entirely arbitrary. I could just have a Jack Russell born with a curly tail, breed it with other Jack Russells to preserve the trait, and have a new breed named, and it'd be considered just as much a different breed from Jack Russells as a chihuahua is.

Sort of like naming animals that mate separate species because of beaks? Or habitats? Or niche, or geographic isolation, or the other arbitrary designations?

Since there isn't any standard of difference by which to label separate dog breeds, they make for a poor standard of measuring how different populations must be in order to be considered different subspecies, for example.

Oh but there is, and it is quite exacting. Why they even follow their own definitions. Imagine that.

How a Dog Breed Becomes Officially Recognized

I've never claimed hybridization isn't a mechanism by which new species or "breeds" can arise. However, it doesn't explain new traits independent of the parent species/breeds, such as various dog breeds with webbed feet.

Neither does mutation, unless you are purposing an intelligence behind the process which knows this dog needs webbed feet because it’s in the water a lot? Are you proposing Intelligent Design?

Yeah, we make silly names for hybrids in nature. I wouldn't call any of those a new species or "breed" though unless they establish independent populations that become more consistent with their traits. First generation hybrids aren't true breeding.

And the AKA does not recognize the offspring of two registered breeds as a separate breed. They must first show inherent distinctness down the generations.

Any other objections the AKA has already accounted for?

Something that has been discussed with you before: the hybrids of Galapagos finches are not as common as you assert, and generally have very low mating success to the point that they don't cause any of the separate species to merge into a single population.

That’s plain false. You best read the grants paper. They state specifically the offspring were more fit than the parents, and three were merging into one.

High Survival of Darwin's Finch Hybrids: Effects of Beak Morphology and Diets

And not common? They have been doing it since arriving on the islands. It just took us 200+ years to notice.

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.”

Keep denying the DNA evidence.

Only in captivity, and those hybrids have horrific health problems and fertility issues. I suggest sticking to hybrids that occur without human intervention for your examples, since unwillingness to mate in their natural environment is considered a significant enough barrier to reproduction to distinguish different populations as different species.

Such as finches?

Fission and fusion of Darwin's finches populations

“In each cohort, hybrids and backcrosses survived as good as, or even better than, pure G. fortis and G. scandens.”

“Introgressive hybridization has been widespread throughout the archipelago in the recent past, and may have been a persistent feature throughout the early history of the radiation,”

“Introgressive hybridization is effective in increasing genetic variation because it simultaneously affects numerous genetic loci. The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation (Grant & Grant 1994).”

(That’s 100 to 1,000 Times greater for those unfamiliar with magnitude calculations)

“In short, hybridization raises the evolutionary potential of a population and ecological factors determine whether the outcome is fission, fusion or new directional change.”

Don’t give me that spiel about how unimportant hybridization is, it’s paramount, evolutionists are just getting around to recognizing its importance and trying to turn it into an evolutionary event because it’s more important than all your claimed mutations combined.

But we’ll say it again, if they are mating, they are the same species.

“They raise three questions. First, why did the species converge? Second, where did the genetic variation come from to fuel the repeated process of evolutionary change, when oscillating selection continuously erodes it? The answer to both questions is introgressive hybridization.”

How much evidence do you need it’s so important evolutionists are finally beginning to see, they just can’t get past their incorrect classifications because they ignore definitions.

Define "new form". It's so vague that it could be anything from just slightly longer fur to an extra limb. That phrase gets used so much, and it too has no official standard.

Well if a human grew a third functioning leg, I would consider that a new form.

Apparently the small differences between Neanderthal and us is enough.

Me personally? Seen it happen with bacteria that all originate from a single bacterium, though they are called strains rather than subspecies.

Strains, subspecies, same thing in reality.

I know you have, because they share genomes just like mating animals do, just a different process. They are hybridizing.

Khan Academy

“
Key points:

• In transformation, a bacterium takes up a piece of DNA floating in its environment.
• In transduction, DNA is accidentally moved from one bacterium to another by a virus.
• In conjugation, DNA is transferred between bacteria through a tube between cells.
• Transposable elements are chunks of DNA that "jump" from one place to another. They can move bacterial genes that give bacteria antibiotic resistance or make them disease-causing.”

http://emerald.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml

For a historical one, every cultivar and subspecies of potato arose from a single species, as determined from genetic testing. Same goes with all Venus flytrap cultivars; entirely red variants, entirely yellow variants, and ones with warped traps that don't even work all arose in captivity due to selective breeding of plants that grew randomly different from the rest due to mutations. Most of them even being produced within your lifetime. In fact, it's actually impossible for new varieties of Venus flytrap to arise via crossbreeding, because it's a monotypic genus; there's nothing to cross it with.

But now recognize your own claims.

“The Venus flytrap is a plant in a monotypic genus. That means there is only one species of Venus flytrap: Dionaea muscipula. So the short answer is that there is only one kind of Venus flytrap.”

So despite your claims of Speciation, mutation has never changed it at all, there is only “one” species of Venus flytrap, despite any variations.

Just as all dogs are the same species, all humans, all finches, all bears, all cats, all owls, all heron, etc.

Now bird species are inherently more difficult because it’s currently unknown what can mate with what until we observe it. But I certainly would not consider a sparrow the same species as an eagle.

Now apply all this new knowledge to claims of Speciation occurring from mutations.... it never happens....

 

[pshun2404]

Ah, so you were diverting in the coccyx thread when you rambled on about ERVs and the like -

Got it.
Cool.

And an attempt at well poisoning to top it off!

They spell APE to you - but why should anyone care?

Your background is in brainwashing (by your own admission, the only thing you've done actual 'research' on), not physical anthropology - and it is DEFINITELY not in anatomy. Your laughable fairy tale claims about the coccyx prove that! LOL!
nd thanks for doing the creationist jig and ignoring most of the post!

Please explain this cladogram to us all, since you portray yourself as knowing all about them:

And finally, superstar -


You just claimed Homo erectus is an ape - but your buddy justa wrote that "I simply claim humans have always been humans. If you want to call them Neanderthals, or H. Erectus, that’s fine."

You just pooped in Justa's flowerbed.

Please explain this cladogram to us all, since you portray yourself as knowing all about them:

And finally, superstar -

Though I never made such a claim, sure! To begin with, a cladogram (this being one of many, some of which look very different) is an intelligently designed diagram that works off the assumed “ancestor of the gaps” notion.

It is a man-made chart meant to represent all the creatures (in a group) that allegedly share a common ancestor, and attempts to display (in very creative fashion) how these groups or where these groups are related (only most of it is made up to support the presupposition of the undemonstrated ancestor). The outside intelligent force (the designer) draws lines alleging the hows and wheres (as is represented in this one).

It differs from any of the many Evolutionary trees because each cladogram represents one branch on such man-made intelligently designed trees. It is based mainly on conjecture and the provisional interpretation of genetic data arranging such creatures as assumed to line up with halotypes, and so on, shared in common and implies these MEAN lineal relations.

In cladograms the common ancestor therefore does not have to be an individual subspecies but any changing members (plural) of an earlier population. In reverse many shapes of the many alleged Evolutionary trees can be INFERRED from a single cladogram.

As we get from Shuh, Posada, and others, the places where the imagined lines meet represent a hypothetical ancestral point (not a real one) though some atheists like to accept them as proven or established facts. Each branching in the clade assumes the lines based on inference of shared traits demonstrated in the taxa above it.

So this one is saying all of these are probably related at these possible places in the presupposed genetic lineage. See the next post...

 

[pshun2404]

You just claimed Homo erectus is an ape - but your buddy justa wrote that "I simply claim humans have always been humans. If you want to call them Neanderthals, or H. Erectus, that’s fine...you pooped in justa's flower bed....

Nope not at all. Many classified as H.E. are humans only many placed in that man made classification are apes, some are mix matched hodge podges of more than one creature (like Leaky's Heidelberg and Dubois' Java)...there were human skulls among the Java finds as well as ape parts...and Leaky's Heidelberg (not to be confused with some others) is from about three nations with an artistically made up face for the media.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You just claimed Homo erectus is an ape - but your buddy justa wrote that "I simply claim humans have always been humans. If you want to call them Neanderthals, or H. Erectus, that’s fine...you pooped in justa's flower bed....

Nope not at all. Many classified as H.E. are humans only many placed in that man made classification are apes, some are mix matched hodge podges of more than one creature (like Leaky's Heidelberg and Dubois' Java)...there were human skulls among the Java finds as well as ape parts...and Leaky's Heidelberg (not to be confused with some others) is from about three nations with an artistically made up face for the media.

And they didn’t mention those some called ape and man that were pigs teeth. Orangutans skulls called human. That two laypersons might make two choices different when experts can’t even tell the difference between pigs teeth and humans, or orangutan skulls and human is certainly nothing to write home about.

So their own experts to put it in his words pooped on their own theory when they thought pigs teeth were human or orangutan skulls human.

Notice how they never apply their own reasoning to themselves?