Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[DogmaHunter]

Nor do most even realize Jesus was born in October. Since he was 33 1/2 years old at the time of his death, which occurred in April, the sheep were in the fields, which in November they start bringing them down from the pasturing areas.

Indeed. And nevertheless, his birth is celebrated on 25th of december.

Which incidently, also happens to be the birthdays of Mithras, Osiris, Adonis, etc.
Funny, isn't it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

so a robot that can evolve naturally isnt a robot by definition?

Yes a robot is an unnatural mechanical device that is manufactured. Likely in some factory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Their beliefs actually require more faith. All they see is fish creating more fish, cats creating more cats, and in the fossil record every distinct type always remaining the same for that type. Then propose some non-exsistant common ancestor to bridge the gap between these distinct types, even if no evidence of this common ancestor that supposedly bridges this gap can be found for any of them.

It's when you type paragraphes like that one, that one can know that you don't understand the evolutionary process at all.

The common ancestor of humans and chimps was some kind of ape primate.
That primate produced more primates. One lineage became chimps and the other became humans. Both still primates.

Just like lions, housecats and tigers are still felines.
Just like all of the above are still mammals.

At no point in evolutionary history, did one "type" of animal give birth to another "type" of animal.
Just like at not point in history, did a latin-speaking mother raise a spanish-speaking child.

Darwin I respected, he allowed for a falsification of his theory, to which all conditions have been met. But it is no longer a scientific theory capable of falsification.

Sure it is. For example, find a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then a primate.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And it’s a theory, not science. At least learn the distinction between the two

LOL!!!!

Ow my....... and you claim to be a teacher?
That people still dare use such an "argument" and expect to be taken seriously...

 

[Jimmy D]

And yet through actual studies of real populations versus fantasies of the mind, this is the exact conclusion the Grants came to.

“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).”

Yep, no problem with that, makes perfect sense.

And you accept mutations as having an effect on varying traits now? Good stuff!

So in the wild, under actual natural conditions, the Grants found interbreeding to be 2 to 3 magnitudes greater than mutation could ever be, because it affects simultaneously numerous genetic loci, while a mutation, if it manages to do anything, affects one, and has an even greater chance of affecting it negatively than positively.

Yeah, I read it thanks.

So for introgressive hybridization to occur two species must be at an early stage of the speciation process?

Divergence and a decline in introgression with time implies that introgression has the largest evolutionary effect after some morphological, ecological and genetic differences between species have arisen, but before the point is reached when genetic incompatibilities incur a severe fitness cost (Grant et al. 2004; Grant & Grant 2008).

In nature it occurs mainly between young species (figure 8), and is evident in several young adaptive radiations including those of butterflies (Mallett 2005), cichlid fish (Kocher 2004; Seehausen 2006) and primates (Arnold 2006; Patterson et al. 2006). With the lapse of time introgression declines, for two reasons: species diverge in morphological and behavioural traits and no longer recognize each other as potential mates (pre-mating isolation), and they diverge genetically with the result that if they interbreed their offspring are relatively inviable or infertile (post-mating isolation).

To any reasonable person that should suggest that there is another mechanism responsible for genetic divergence.

It also suggests that the two species that are hybridizing must have diverged relatively recently from their ancestral population, so the speciation process must surely be underway before they can hybridize?

 

[pshun2404]

You won’t accept the evidence right in front of your eyes.

Or the lack thereof in some cases...

 

[pshun2404]

Actually, the pagan winter solstice festivities in the north started on dec 21. The shortest day happens on dec 22. 3 days later, the festivities climaxed when the days turn longer again.

Actually, it was a point made in reply to another post. But I don't see you complaining about THAT post. Funny that. While the guy I responded to, is kind of the king of derailments.

lol

Right! So you were incorrect about the unrelated Christmas Zinger...you could have simply admitted as such...

 

[pshun2404]

Yep, no problem with that, makes perfect sense.

And you accept mutations as having an effect on varying traits now? Good stuff!

Yeah, I read it thanks.

So for introgressive hybridization to occur two species must be at an early stage of the speciation process?

Divergence and a decline in introgression with time implies that introgression has the largest evolutionary effect after some morphological, ecological and genetic differences between species have arisen, but before the point is reached when genetic incompatibilities incur a severe fitness cost (Grant et al. 2004; Grant & Grant 2008).

In nature it occurs mainly between young species (figure 8), and is evident in several young adaptive radiations including those of butterflies (Mallett 2005), cichlid fish (Kocher 2004; Seehausen 2006) and primates (Arnold 2006; Patterson et al. 2006). With the lapse of time introgression declines, for two reasons: species diverge in morphological and behavioural traits and no longer recognize each other as potential mates (pre-mating isolation), and they diverge genetically with the result that if they interbreed their offspring are relatively inviable or infertile (post-mating isolation).

To any reasonable person that should suggest that there is another mechanism responsible for genetic divergence.

It also suggests that the two species that are hybridizing must have diverged relatively recently from their ancestral population, so the speciation process must surely be underway before they can hybridize?

Yes two SUB-species would have already undergone a degree of speciation (by definition two separate species cannot mate and produce fertile offspring...unless you are among those who conveniently change meanings of words to support their presupposition).

JTS holds that inheritance plays a more important role in producing sub-species. So I ask for a direct answer...what is the ultimate source of all the various canines in evolutionary history? Is not "grey wolf" considered a major contributor? Understand Jimmy...if you say YES then you have in one sense made HIS point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right! So you were incorrect about the unrelated Christmas Zinger...

No. Did you not read the post, or are you unable to work out how many 3+22 is?
I'll help out: it's 25.

you could have simply admitted as such...

There's nothing to admit.
Christmass IS a continuation of pagan festivities. Almost every culture, especially in the northern hemisphere, throughout history has festivities (both religious and not religious) pinned to one or more days from the 20th to the 25th of december.

Even the christmass tree, is literally an old pagan tradition.

Is this really news to you? As the other poster said, it's widely known that Jesus' birthday would not have been in december. Yet, that's when it is "officially" celebrated. In a period that was considered holy/divine/reason-to-celebrate to almost all pre-christian ancient cultures - for very different reasons then the christian holiday.

During Saturnalia, Romans used to decorate their houses with evergreen plants etc, things now associated with christmass.

Ancient Vikings worshipped trees and also did special things with them during the winter festivities.

Then there's also "Yule tide", the ancient winter fest of the winter solstice from ancient germanic people who worshipped Odin. It was later literally rebranded as "christmastide".

So yes.... "christmass", most definatly is a pre-christian pagan festival, that got hijacked by christianity and rebranded as "christmass".

The only thing all these holidays have in common, is that they all land in the period of the winter solstice. Most cultures then placed it in a context of their religious beliefs.

It doesn't take a scholar to work out why early christians choose that date to celebrate the birth of Jesus.... Which wasn't in december.



And to end with: it wasn't "unrelated". It was in reply to a specific post that made a specific point. I was countering that specific point. It was very much related to that point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes two SUB-species would have already undergone a degree of speciation

Every species is a sub-species of its direct ancestral species.

(by definition two separate species cannot mate and produce fertile offspring...unless you are among those who conveniently change meanings of words to support their presupposition).

It's not out of convenience. It's rather about context.
This has been explained before.

Depending on the subject, one might want to view populations as seperate species:
- if they CAN produce fertile off spring, but never do so
- if they can not produc fertile off spring
- if they can not produce off spring - fertile or otherwise

The fact that it's hard to nail down wheter or not 2 populations are the same species or not, actually speaks in support of evolution. That's exactly what we expect for a gradual process like evolution: that the species-lines get blurry somewhere between splitting a population in 2 groups on the one hand, and having them diverge to the point where they are physically incapable of reproducing on the other.

JTS holds that inheritance plays a more important role in producing sub-species

As I have explained already.... every time a population speciates, the "new species", is a sub-species of the ancestral population.

Speciation is a gradual and vertical process.
There is no "magical generation" where we can say "NOW, it's a new species!".

Every creature ever born was of the same species as its direct parents.

So I ask for a direct answer...what is the ultimate source of all the various canines in evolutionary history?

Not sure what you are asking here, btw...
Are you asking about a mechanism or something?

Is not "grey wolf" considered a major contributor?

I don't know the details, but it is my understanding that the consensus is that dogs evolved from wolves, yes.

Understand Jimmy...if you say YES then you have in one sense made HIS point.

lol, no.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes two SUB-species would have already undergone a degree of speciation (by definition two separate species cannot mate and produce fertile offspring...unless you are among those who conveniently change meanings of words to support their presupposition).

Have you been kidnapped by Justatruthseeker?

JTS holds that inheritance plays a more important role in producing sub-species. So I ask for a direct answer...what is the ultimate source of all the various canines in evolutionary history? Is not "grey wolf" considered a major contributor? Understand Jimmy...if you say YES then you have in one sense made HIS point.

I don't disagree with everything he says, hybridization certainly occurs in some instances. My argument is that he's grossly overstating it's importance and downplaying / ignoring other mechanisms for change and variation.

As far as I know the wolf is certainly the ancestoral species from which domesticated dogs came.

Now you tell me, did the grey wolf contain a "super" genome that contained all the genetic information for every dog breed before they were created? Because that's what your buddy is proposing.

 

[tas8831]

thanks. now, do you agree that an object that is identical to a robot is a robot?

Yes - 2 robots.

Only a robot will be identical to another robot.



I know that you are going to respond with something ludicrous like 'a designed robot penguin blah blah.'.


Not buying it.

Instead of this torture illogic, why not come up with something of merit?

Hypotheticals and playing with definitions will not rescue that which has no evidence at all in its favor.

 

[tas8831]

Post 257. Try reading posts in threads now and then and I won’t have to keep repeating myself 20 times.

You seem to have missed what they were talking about. Not a surprise.

"The total effect on continuously varying traits can be up to two or three orders of magnitude greater than mutation"

Try not putting spin on everything when the source proves that your spin is exaggerated.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...DD39A88?doi=10.1.1.722.7853&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Interbreeding, what do you think we are discussing?

So what interbred to get the original Asian?

Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

 

[tas8831]

Well I’m actually looking forward to the next post... very well articulated.

Oh but one small mistake. Not yours, I realize it’s their presumption, but genetic data can’t infer relationship as we have no genetic data for much beyond today’s species with but maybe 6 samples.

LOL!

I love it when the blind is impressed with the picture painted by another blind man.

Hilarious!

 

[xianghua]

I'm sorry but your fantasies about robots, cars, bikes etc evolving are asinine and are going nowhere. I don't even know what point you are trying to make anymore.

If you do not accept evolution theory - fine. But please find some arguments against it that actually make sense and don't lead everyone down a rabbit hole.

ok. check my signature link for instance.

 

[xianghua]

Yes a robot is an unnatural mechanical device that is manufactured. Likely in some factory.

so you are saying that an object that is identical to a robot isnt a robot if its evolve by a natural process.

 

[xianghua]

Yes - 2 robots.

Only a robot will be identical to another robot.



I know that you are going to respond with something ludicrous like 'a designed robot penguin blah blah.'.


Not buying it.

Instead of this torture illogic, why not come up with something of merit?

Hypotheticals and playing with definitions will not rescue that which has no evidence at all in its favor.

since you agree that an artificial penguin is a robot and since an object that is identical to a robot is a robot then a "natural" penguin is a robot too be definition.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What publishing biologists mean by it.

I’m not talking to them, I asked what you think it means.

"interbreeding"?
You mean just wolves breeding with other wolves, right?
And that eventually producing a lineage of dog?

Not sure what you mean by "interbreeding" here.
I mean, it's just wolves.... with other wolves. Wouldn't that be just "breeding"?

What's with the "inter" part?

The “inter” part is quite apt.

Definition of INTERBREED

“: to breed together: such as
a : crossbreed
b : to breed within a closed population”

Definition of CROSSBREED

“: hybridize, cross; especially : to cross (two varieties or breeds) within the same species”

I use the word, like publishing biologists use the word.

My beliefs don't dictate to me how reality is like.
Instead, I allow reality to shape my beliefs.

I’m still waiting for you to tell me what you think biologists mean when they use the word. Again, I am talking to you, not them, so it is your concept of it that is all that matters.

 

[tas8831]

And you accept mutations as having an effect on varying traits now? Good stuff!

Yet he still claims that it is interbreeding/hybridization that produced the 'original' variation that produced Asians from middle easterners.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Huh?

I'm from belgium. We don't celebrate halloween or thanksgiving.

http://www.familyholiday.net/halloween-holiday-traditions-in-belgium/

“Belgium is another country from those around the world best known for its own unique ways of celebrating of the Halloween traditions and a frightfully fantastic location to spend Halloween.-But holidays in Belgium are not celebrated in the same mainstream fanfare as it is in America. Halloween Traditions in Belgium with its different cultures is somewhat different. Most of the Belgium cities these days hold huge festivals and plenty of parties in honor of this holiday throughout.”

Oh you may celebrate it differently, but celebrate it you do. You yourself may not, but most in your nation do.