Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[Astrid]

You're not alone. Many folk from the Northern hemisphere are surprised to discover that Australian swans are black.

Down here we have 'white swan' events.

OB

But you do stand on your heads. I heard about that.

When I lived in 'Spore I was already at a weird angle.
Had to go back to HK

 

[Astrid]

I didn't see you complain about Estrid asking her question, but when I do the same it's sophistry?

Except since it's a nonsense question,
it's neither the same thIng nor sophistty.

 

[AV1611VET]

Except since it's a nonsense question,

No it isn't.

He's asking for the proof in the pudding.

Or, more appropriately, the proof in the taste of the pudding.

Does evolution have taste, or doesn't it?

And if it does, what gives it its taste?

 

[Gene2memE]

What sort of facts could prove it?

Does anyone have any?

Evolution isn't proven (at least, not in the scientific sense). It's just that none of the available evidence has falsified it.

In the colloquial sense, this sort of thing would 'prove' evolution:

Observed change in gene frequencies in a population over time, leading to novel trait formation. Such as the Lenski E. coli experiment or in various populations introduced to new environments.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2745.13636

Genomic and phenotypic evolution of Escherichia coli in a novel citrate-only resource environment - PMC

Evolutionary innovations allow populations to colonize new ecological niches. We previously reported that aerobic growth on citrate (Cit+) evolved in an Escherichia coli population during adaptation to a minimal glucose medium containing citrate ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0711998105

Observed instances of speciation. Such as in the European flounder or African cichlids:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1615109114

A continuous fish fossil record reveals key insights into adaptive radiation - Nature

This study presents a continuous fossil record, extracted from a series of sediment cores, that shows how haplochromine cichlids came to dominate the fish fauna of Lake Victoria in Africa.

www.nature.com

Presence of mosaic features in transitional ancestor populations, and ancestral featured in descendant populations.

 

[NxNW]

Does evolution have taste, or doesn't it?

Does blue sleep faster than January?

 

[sfs]

And many innocent people have served lengthy prison sentences.

Right -- that's why I said that science usually has higher standards than courts.

The OP asked for facts. If you've got a mountain full, just give me one.

These are honeycreepers:

They are a diverse set of birds: different colors, different sizes, different diets with beaks suited to each. They're all found in Hawaii, and it is a fact that, despite their diversity, each one is more similar genetically to other honeycreepers than it is to any other bird in the world. Evolution explains that fact. What's your explanation?

 

[AV1611VET]

These are honeycreepers:

Why do they have different genus names?

 

[BCP1928]

Why do they have different genus names?

Because there are so many different species that ornithologists found it convenient to group them into genera.

 

[sfs]

Because there are so many different species that ornithologists found it convenient to group them into genera.

Yeah. When species are different enough, they get lumped into different genera. It's pretty arbitrary where genus lines are drawn.

 

[AV1611VET]

Because there are so many different species that ornithologists found it convenient to group them into genera.

Yeah. When species are different enough, they get lumped into different genera. It's pretty arbitrary where genus lines are drawn.

That chart shows ten different species of honeycreepers, but with seven different genera.

And that's because there are too many species?

Only ten birds?

And you have to give them seven different names?

 

[BCP1928]

That chart shows ten different species of honeycreepers, but with seven different genera.

And that's because there are too many species?

Only ten birds?

And you have to give them seven different names?

What difference does it make to you how ornithologists want to classify the species that they work with?

 

[AV1611VET]

What difference does it make to you how ornithologists want to classify the species that they work with?

Perhaps I need to rethink the definition of "kind" that I use ("genus").

This information I'm getting here is news to me, and I'm not familiar with it.

I didn't know birds like honeycreepers could have different genus names.

So I either need to change my definition, or assume they play loose with assigning genus names.

Question:

Can a honeycreeper in one genus mate with a honeycreeper in another genus and have viable offspring?

 

[Astrid]

Yeah. When species are different enough, they get lumped into different genera. It's pretty arbitrary where genus lines are drawn.

Well...not really.
Biologists do take it seriously,
debate, and try to make it as meaningful
as they can.
Often enough there's "lumping" or "splitting"
as new information comes in.

 

[BCP1928]

So I either need to change my definition, or assume they play loose with assigning genus names.

"Play loose?" They just invent the categories that they find most convenient.

Question:

Can a honeycreeper in one genus mate with a honeycreeper in another genus and have viable offspring?

Ask an ornothologist. It's their system.

 

[SelfSim]

Perhaps I need to rethink the definition of "kind" that I use ("genus").

This information I'm getting here is news to me, and I'm not familiar with it.

I didn't know birds like honeycreepers could have different genus names.

So I either need to change my definition, or assume they play loose with assigning genus names.

Question:

Can a honeycreeper in one genus mate with a honeycreeper in another genus and have viable offspring?

Good luck with updating your 'definition' as the sole basis for justifying your beliefs.

Some distinct 'fossil species', like Alligator and Longnose Gars, can mate and produce fertile offspring and according to recent reports, this is equivalent to chimpanzees producing fertile offspring with a kangaroo, a whale with a wombat, or an ostrich with a blackbird.

Reference: A New Discovery Reveals Why Darwin’s ‘Living Fossil’ Keeps Defying Evolution {but doesn't}

 

[AV1611VET]

"Play loose?" They just invent the categories that they find most convenient.

I'm beginning to suspect some fowl play here.

Ask an ornothologist. It's their system.

It wouldn't surprise me if they don't know.

 

[BCP1928]

I'm beginning to suspect some fowl play here.

LOL! But why? those categories aren't important to anybody but ornithologists.

It wouldn't surprise me if they don't know.

You could always ask. They might surprise you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some distinct 'fossil species', like Alligator and Longnose Gars, can mate and produce fertile offspring and according to recent reports, this is equivalent to chimpanzees producing fertile offspring with a kangaroo, a whale with a wombat, or an ostrich with a blackbird.

Thanks for that interesting bit of information.

(And thanks to sfs for showing that chart, which is a real eyeopener.)

For now though, I'm sticking with GENUS being the equivalent of KIND in the Bible.

If one genus of honeycreeper can mate with another genus of honeycreeper, and if an alligator can mate with a gar, then I contend their classification system needs some work done on it.

Especially if seven different genera are assigned to only ten different species of birds.

 

[SelfSim]

Thanks for that interesting bit of information.

(And thanks to sfs for showing that chart, which is a real eyeopener.)

For now though, I'm sticking with GENUS being the equivalent of KIND in the Bible.

If one genus of honeycreeper can mate with another genus of honeycreeper, and if an alligator can mate with a gar, then I contend their classification system needs some work done on it.

Especially if seven different genera are assigned to only ten different species of birds.

'Twas done intentionally to thwart you, y'know(?)

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL! But why? those categories aren't important to anybody but ornithologists.

It goes much deeper than that.

When the Bible mentions KINDS in Genesis 1, academian nuts say it can't possibly mean SPECIES, because that would mean the Ark would be overcrowded.

So when you move it up one category from SPECIES to GENUS, and say KINDS in Genesis 1 means GENUS in the lab, these nuts claim that two different GENERA can mate and have viable offspring, in violation of Genesis 1.

So now you have people like this John Woodmorappe moving up the ladder again and saying KIND means FAMILY.

And who do you think is in the background laughing his head off at all this?

You could always ask. They might surprise you.

I'm afraid they wouldn't spend too much time with the likes of me.

They'd probably write me off as some kind [pardon the pun] of anti-science nut and be done with me.

Lucaspa, Glen Morton, Aron Ra, and Rmwilliams III spent little time putting up with me here, before they wrote me off.