Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Jimmy D]

You know, that’s why you tried to use allopatric Speciation which sadly requires reproductive isolation, which we all know from the DNA data never happened. Not that facts matter to evo’s.

Let's have the facts then Justafinchseeker.

Exactly which species' of finches interbreed? Is it all of them, some, a few?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes i do.

And that is how I can tell that YOU don't - YOU conflated SNP with genetic polymorphism because YOU do not understand that they are not the same thing.

YOU wrote " senile genetic loci."


YOU pasted from wiki about genetic polymorphisms, not knowing that that is NOT an SNP.

YOU claimed that I had written that interbreeding creates new alleles when I had written the opposite.

You are out of your league, and you cannot stand it (or recognize it).


I am taking a few days off from your zany rants. It gets tiresome having to explain simple freshman level science to someone pretending to have overturned a major biological theory.

No be honest with yourself. You brought up single-nucleotide polymorphism. Which I showed was nothing more than a single letter replaced by another existing letter.

You then got upset because you thought you were going to prove single letters had nothing to do with it.

So I quoted your own scientific definition, which confirmed I was correct, and you just can’t admit you were wrong in your false claims.

Now your going to go pout because you lack any knowledge of what you claim to understand and it was shown to all.

But let’s reiterate that definition to make your lack of inderstanding clear, so people will stop being fooled by your pretend knowledge.

Single-nucleotide polymorphism - Wikipedia

“For example, at a specific base position in the human genome, the C nucleotide may appear in most individuals, but in a minority of individuals, the position is occupied by an A. This means that there is an SNP at this specific position, and the two possible nucleotide variations – C or A – are said to be alleles for this position.“

So you bring up SNP, then go on a rant when I show they are nothing more than single letters being replaced by single letters that already existed.

Take a break, and read up on what you clearly fail to understand in the meantime.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Let's have the facts then Justafinchseeker.

Exactly which species' of finches interbreed? Is it all of them, some, a few?

Every single one of them. Accept the DNA data.

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.”

First we find important discrepancies with the classification based on looks, niche, etc.


“We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry.”

Then we find their has always been interbreeding and all 120 individuals have mixed ancestory.

I mean come on JD, it only took them 200 years to notice them interbreeding before their eyes.

They claimed the ground finch couldn’t mate with the tree finch until one flew all the way over to the islands from the mainland and did it in front of their noses.

Lucky break or they’d still be claiming that reproductive isolation gag.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Darwin finches' messy family tree

“Other geneticists have expressed mixed reactions to the results. Dr Julia Day, from University College London, was impressed by the level of mixing reported between the finch species - which she said are "a textbook example of radiation".

She told the BBC: "The fact that they're finding this hybridisation going on - this genetic mixing - it's quite a seminal finding.

"When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings."

Prof Peter Keightley from the University of Edinburgh, though largely convinced by the results, was less surprised that the finches had interbred so extensively.

"These islands are pretty close together. So it's not surprising that they are flying from one island to the other," he said.

Some of the traditional species might not, in fact, be genuinely distinct, he added.”

Hmm, seems not everyone agrees they are distinct species.

We agree, it is indeed a seminal finding. That every one of them are the same species, merely subspecies within the species.

 

[Jimmy D]

Every single one of them. Accept the DNA data.

Are you saying that they can all inbreed with each other? Citation please.

First we find important discrepancies with the classification based on looks, niche, etc

What discrepancies?

“We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation. Hybridization has given rise to species of mixed ancestry.”

No one is disputing hybridization has occured.

I mean come on JD, it only took them 200 years to notice them interbreeding before their eyes.

As you reported me last time I'll tone down my language and call this an "embellishment" of the truth. You are aware that these finches have been the subject of study before the Grants right?

They claimed the ground finch couldn’t mate with the tree finch until one flew all the way over to the islands from the mainland and did it in front of their noses.

Who did?

 

[Jimmy D]

Darwin finches' messy family tree

“Other geneticists have expressed mixed reactions to the results. Dr Julia Day, from University College London, was impressed by the level of mixing reported between the finch species - which she said are "a textbook example of radiation".

She told the BBC: "The fact that they're finding this hybridisation going on - this genetic mixing - it's quite a seminal finding.

"When you look at their results, you can see the trees are quite messy, in terms of the traditional species groupings."

Prof Peter Keightley from the University of Edinburgh, though largely convinced by the results, was less surprised that the finches had interbred so extensively.

"These islands are pretty close together. So it's not surprising that they are flying from one island to the other," he said.

Some of the traditional species might not, in fact, be genuinely distinct, he added.”

Hmm, seems not everyone agrees they are distinct species.

We agree, it is indeed a seminal finding. That every one of them are the same species, merely subspecies within the species.

LOL, the old creationist selective blindness troubling you again Justa?

First off....

NO ONE HAS DENIED HYBRIDIZATION HAS OCCURED..... Not me, not the Grant's not Darwin, not Lack... NO ONE.

Why do you think that this is an argument against speciation, it isn't.

Secondly.....

You didn't quote this bit..

Meanwhile Prof Andersson and his colleagues, despite having shown convincingly that the finches' family history is decidedly blurry, actually argue for the addition of three new species to the existing tally of 15.

It doesn't sound like they agree that every one of them are the same species, merely subspecies within the species does it?

Maybe he's another biologist who doesn't understand the definition of "species"?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Evolution CAN be falsified.

No it can’t, they simply ignore or trivialize the falsifying data. As they have always done.

Then add so many epicycles it’s impossible.

Darwin said it would be falsified if we didn’t find innumerable varied forms leading one to the other. 200 years later we still haven’t and you just trivialize it in your minds to non-importance.

Darwin I expect would have abandoned his theory were he alive today.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you saying that they can all inbreed with each other? Citation please.

Mixed ancestory tells you nothing?

What discrepancies?

That the traditional trees hold no merit by the DNA analysis. Your own biologists admit this.

No one is disputing hybridization has

Yes we are in the sense they mean. They are the same species, not separate species.

As you reported me last time I'll tone down my language and call this an "embellishment" of the truth. You are aware that these finches have been the subject of study before the Grants right?

And yet only the Grants reported interbreeding.

Talk to pita bread, he wanted to start the report game because he couldn’t handle the backfire....

Who did?

The Grants. Read their papers. They state had the not seen it.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL, the old creationist selective blindness troubling you again Justa?

First off....

NO ONE HAS DENIED HYBRIDIZATION HAS OCCURED..... Not me, not the Grant's not Darwin, not Lack... NO ONE.

Why do you think that this is an argument against speciation, it isn't.

So then mules not interbreeding is no argument for separate species. I’ll meet you half way on your own claims.

Secondly.....

You didn't quote this bit..

Meanwhile Prof Andersson and his colleagues, despite having shown convincingly that the finches' family history is decidedly blurry, actually argue for the addition of three new species to the existing tally of 15.

On what grounds, decidedly blurry dna?

It doesn't sound like they agree that every one of them are the same species, merely subspecies within the species does it?

Maybe they just don’t want to accept that decidedly blurry dna results.... so I can now ignore your claims of relationship based on dna with chimps, since ignoring dna is now accepted.

Maybe he's another biologist who doesn't understand the definition of "species"?

Most likely, since they used mules and their inability to mate as an example of Speciation. We agree some flip and flop to the tune of their own internal music.

 

[Jimmy D]

Mixed ancestory tells you nothing?

Mixed ancestry tells me they have mixed ancestry, to be expected as the all evolved from a single ancestral species and periodically interbreed.

You have failed to answer the question. Can all extant 16 species interbreed with each other or is it just the closely related ones?

That the traditional trees hold no merit by the DNA analysis. Your own biologists admit this.

Who said that they have no merit? Stop exaggerating That article certainly doesn't say that.

"Our maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree based on autosomal genome sequences is generally consistent with current taxonomy, but shows several interesting deviations....

......... this is consistent with an earlier version of the taxonomy, in which these three groups were classified as distinct species on the basis of morphological differences"

https://www.nature.com

Yes we are in the sense they mean. They are the same species, not separate species.

The paper you quote clearly disagrees, who to believe?

And yet only the Grants reported interbreeding.

Really?

I don't doubt that you say this out of ignorance and not for more sinister reasons, but it's another case of our local finch expert being wrong, I suggest reading David Lack's book on the Finches from 1947.

The Grants. Read their papers. They state had the not seen it.....

Oh Ok. Must have been quite a surprise.

 

[Jimmy D]

So then mules not interbreeding is no argument for separate species. I’ll meet you half way on your own claims.

What?

On what grounds, decidedly blurry dna?

Yeah, they thought "blurry DNA must be a new species".

As I'm not Prof Andersson I couldn't answer that.

Maybe they just don’t want to accept that decidedly blurry dna results.... so I can now ignore your claims of relationship based on dna with chimps, since ignoring dna is now accepted.

Or maybe they actually understand what they're studying?

You know, like when you thought they did when you cited them because you thought that they agreed with you.

Most likely, since they used mules and their inability to mate as an example of Speciation. We agree some flip and flop to the tune of their own internal music.

Does it ever occur to you that it's actually you that's mistaken and not the endless list of biologists we've referenced?

 

[Jimmy D]

Any word on that Darwin citation where he said that the Galapagos finches never interbreed? I couldn't find anything along those lines, I hope you weren't making it up.

 

[Jimmy D]

Most likely, since they used mules and their inability to mate as an example of Speciation. We agree some flip and flop to the tune of their own internal music.

Sorry, I had to check the article to see what you were talking about....

Normally when two species start to develop independently, they reach a point where there are so many genetic differences that animals from the different lineages no longer mate, or their hybrid offspring are sterile - as is the case when a horse and a donkey produce a mule.

Firstly, doesn't that paragraph make sense to you? Isn't that what we'd expect to see if speciation was a thing?

Secondly, that was written by a journalist, not a member of the group who carried out this study.

If these red herrings are all you've got I suggest it's time to give up.

 

[xianghua]

If one dollar can't buy a cup of coffee, then two or three dollars won't buy a cup of coffee.

its not the same. if a cup of coffee cost 3 dollars then 2.9 dollars will not be enough. but if 9 evidence against evolution isnt enough to falsify the theory then also 10 evidence will not be a problem for evolution.

What I said we wouldn't find was identical insertions scattered at random throughout the tree. And we don't.

we actually indeed find such examples:

Are Transposable Element Insertions Homoplasy Free?: An Examination Using the Avian Tree of Life | Systematic Biology | Oxford Academic

"Despite the reasons to expect RGCs to be perfect homoplasy-free characters, many different RGCs can exhibit homoplasy (Ray et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2007)."

or:

An ancient retrovirus-like element contains hot spots for SINE insertion. - PubMed - NCBI

"We have identified two hot spots for SINE insertion within mys-9 and at each hot spot have found that two independent SINE insertions have occurred at identical sites. These results have major repercussions for phylogenetic analyses based on SINE insertions, indicating the need for caution when one concludes that the existence of a SINE at a specific locus in multiple individuals is indicative of common ancestry. Although independent insertions at the same locus may be rare, SINE insertions are not homoplasy-free phylogenetic markers."

or:

Two independent retrotransposon insertions at the same site within the coding region of BTK. - PubMed - NCBI


"we identified two families with retrotransposon insertions at exactly the same nucleotide within the coding region of BTK."

or:

Genomic deletions and precise removal of transposable elements mediated by short identical DNA segments in primates

"Two explanations can account for this observation: multiple independent insertions at the identical site, or recent gene conversion in human which converted an existing older AluY insertion into an apparent human-specific family"

so there are many cases that contradict the accepted phylogeny after all. will you accept them to be evidence against common descent?

 

[Kylie]

The finch line ends on finches, until you insert those imaginary common ancestors that can never be found because of their non-existence.

Unlike you, I recognize what we recognize as finches we might not have once. Just as if we found chiwahwah bones and wolf bones and never knew their actual pedigree, you would think the wolf evolved into the chiwahwah and were separate species.

That you can’t see what mated with what from a pile of bones is no reason to ignore how variation actually happens in real life.

Just as the ground finch flew over from the mainland, mated with a tree finch, and a new variant appeared. Suddenly and fully formed, just like in the fossil record, hmmm, imagine that.

A simple yes or no would have sufficed.

Now, what about sparrows? Were they also created from scratch? And they are not related at all to finches? They are a completely separate line?

 

[Kylie]

No it can’t, they simply ignore or trivialize the falsifying data. As they have always done.

Then add so many epicycles it’s impossible.

Darwin said it would be falsified if we didn’t find innumerable varied forms leading one to the other. 200 years later we still haven’t and you just trivialize it in your minds to non-importance.

Darwin I expect would have abandoned his theory were he alive today.

You know nothing of evolution.

A fossil of a rabbit in precambrian rocks would disprove evolution quite well.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Just like a wolf could breed offspring with Doberman, poodle, chiwahwah, etc phenotypes.


Just like we did with wolves you mean?

So you're saying all dogs are the descendants of just 2 wolves, one male one female? Their offspring were mated with their brothers/sisters, their offspring mated with brothers/sisters/cousins and so on through each generation with no new wolf line introduced? Do you really want to pin your flag to that mast?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Just like a wolf could breed offspring with Doberman, poodle, chiwahwah, etc phenotypes.

Lol, put a wild wolf and a chihuahua in a room and see how much breeding happens.

 

[xianghua]

If phylogenies were violated, it would be a problem, yes. But they weren't violated.......

yes. they are. see above.

 

[DogmaHunter]

yes. they are. see above.

It has just been explained to you that they aren't.

Not sure what else to tell you.