Hybrids Prove New Species are Possible

[The Barbarian]

Evolution
Definition
noun, plural: evolutions

(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.
Evolution - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary

Ok that technical definition just defines natural selection as that is all those processes listed will produce.

No. You're still struggling with the difference between natural selection (which causes much of evolutionary change) and evolution (which is a change in allele frequency in a population over time). There are forms of evolution that are not causes by natural selection. Natural selection is the process by which a population gets more fit over time.

Please now supply the definition of evolution where a creatures descendents are radicaly different,

Change in allele frequency in a population over time. That's all it takes.

as in a parent bteather air and offspring breath in water.

Don't know any examples in nature where one goes from breathing air to getting oxygen from water. But of course, lungfish are a good example of going from water to breathing air.

Mudskippers, which are fish that spend much of their time on land or climbing small trees, have the ability to breath through tissue in the mouth and pharynx, much as many other completely aquatic fish can do, enlargement of the pharynx is the way lungs evolved in lobed-fin fishes that gave rise to land animals.

So there is that.

 

[Dale]

Ok that technical definition just defines natural selection as that is all those processes listed will produce.
Please now supply the definition of evolution where a creatures descendents are radicaly different, as in a parent bteather air and offspring breath in water.

Tolworth John,

I get the impression that to you all birds are a kind, all reptiles are a kind, all amphibians are a kind, all fish are a kind, and maybe all mammals are a kind. We have known for years that the creationist definition of a Biblical kind is vritually meaningless.

Is that why the evolution of flightless birds like an ostrich from birds that spend much of their time in the air doesn't prove evolution? Are hummingbirds and ostriches really the same kind?

 

[The Barbarian]

Tolworth John,

I get the impression that to you all birds are a kind, all reptiles are a kind, all amphibians are a kind, all fish are a kind, and maybe all mammals are a kind. We have known for years that the creationist definition of a Biblical kind is vritually meaningless.

Not "virtually meaningless"; truly meaningless. Creationists have been unable to come up with a testable definition of "kind."

 

[Tolworth John]

s that why the evolution of flightless birds like an ostrich from birds that spend much of their time in the air doesn't prove evolution?

First you have to demonstrate that ostriches came from a bird that flew, or that penguins came from birds that flew, every thing you have posted is based on the faith that natural selection will lead to new species. Something that has not been demonstrated.

 

[The Barbarian]

First you have to demonstrate that ostriches came from a bird that flew, or that penguins came from birds that flew,

When DNA sequences from moas were use to place them in the ratite tree, it turned out that their closest relatives are not — as one might have expected — their local neighbors, the kiwis, but instead the partridge-like South American tinamous [4]. However, tinamous, of which there are over 40 species, are not ratites. They have long been known to be close relatives of ratites: based on the common anatomy of their palates ratites and tinamous, together with some fossil birds, make up the paleognath (‘old-jaw') birds, which are distinct from all other living birds, the neognaths.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982216315032

All species of tinamous can fly. So the evidence shows that ratites are descended from flying birds. And of course, that would have to be so, because moas and elephant birds would have to have traveled to islands on which they lived.

every thing you have posted is based on the faith that natural selection will lead to new species.

Even "Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research now admit that speciation is a fact. They just don't want you to know that.

 

[Dale]

Ok that technical definition just defines natural selection as that is all those processes listed will produce.
Please now supply the definition of evolution where a creatures descendents are radicaly different, as in a parent bteather air and offspring breath in water.

First you have to demonstrate that ostriches came from a bird that flew, or that penguins came from birds that flew, every thing you have posted is based on the faith that natural selection will lead to new species. Something that has not been demonstrated.

Tolworth, it seems that you lump huge numbers of biological species in a "kind." Yet there are limits to this. In the Bible, doves are clean animals and are suitable to be sacrificed at the Temple. A long list of other birds, including gulls, ravens, hawks, vultures and eagles are not clean and cannot be eaten. In the Bible, doves, gulls, and hawks are not one Biblical kind, but three different kinds. You can't lump them all together.



Dove vs. Unclean Birds


14 “‘If the offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, you are to offer a dove or a young pigeon."
--Leviticus 1:14 NIV

13 “‘These are the birds you are to regard as unclean and not eat because they are unclean: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,14 the red kite, any kind of black kite, 15 any kind of raven, 16 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, 17 the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, 18 the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey,19 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13-18 NIV

 

[Tolworth John]

So the evidence shows that ratites are descended from flying birds.

No it shows that they are rel;ated.

AIG have never hidden that natural selection is a scientific fact.

 

[Tolworth John]

Tolworth, it seems that you lump huge numbers of biological species in a "kind.

I've lumped nothing together.
I have asked a simple question.
Provide proof that evolution, the change of one creature into another, this for a proven scientific fact you are struggling.

Your evidence, if I may go off at a tangent, is to say that spanials have evolved from another 'dog type' when all that has happened is natural selection and breeders selection have narrow down the possible range of genetic charactistics in the spanial.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian obeserves:
So the evidence shows that ratites are descended from flying birds.

No.

The titamous shows that they are descended from flying birds. And how do you think moas, and elephant birds got to remote islands? Their ancestors flew there.

AIG have never hidden that natural selection is a scientific fact.

Eventually they even admitted that new species do evolve. But they don't tell the faithfull about that.

 

[Dale]

I've lumped nothing together.
I have asked a simple question.
Provide proof that evolution, the change of one creature into another, this for a proven scientific fact you are struggling.

Your evidence, if I may go off at a tangent, is to say that spanials have evolved from another 'dog type' when all that has happened is natural selection and breeders selection have narrow down the possible range of genetic charactistics in the spanial.

Tolworth, you are lumping many thousands of species together. You are ignoring the point I made in post #47, that the Bible doesn't accept this tendency of creationists to lump species together.

You ask for "proof." What proof would you accept? You reject the testimony of the recognized experts who spend their lives studying fossils and the layers of the geologic column. You reject the conclusions of those who have hands-on experience with these things.

 

[The Barbarian]

It should be realized that the ancient Hebrew notion of "kinds" was functional, not biological. Hence bats are of one "kind" with birds, and whales are of a "kind" with fish.

It has little to do with how organisms are actually related to each other.

 

[Dale]

It should be realized that the ancient Hebrew notion of "kinds" was functional, not biological. Hence bats are of one "kind" with birds, and whales are of a "kind" with fish.

It has little to do with how organisms are actually related to each other.

You are correct, the Bible is not a science text. I'm just trying to point out that the Old Testament law does make distinctions that modern creationists are trying to avoid.

 

[Dale]

I've lumped nothing together.
I have asked a simple question.
Provide proof that evolution, the change of one creature into another, this for a proven scientific fact you are struggling.

Your evidence, if I may go off at a tangent, is to say that spanials have evolved from another 'dog type' when all that has happened is natural selection and breeders selection have narrow down the possible range of genetic charactistics in the spanial.

Tolworth,

On what evidence you would accept, consider this.

As far as I know, everyone agrees that all the animals that are now domesticated were once wild, they were domesticated by humans at some time in history. This includes dogs, cats, horses, donkeys, camels, elephants, cattle, sheep, goats, illamas, ducks, chickens, geese, turkeys and probably a few others. Nobody has this process of domestication on videotape, we can only infer when and where and how all this happened.

It is much the same with the evolution of flightless birds and evolution in general. Nobody has it on tape, but we can infer what must have happened. In many cases, flightless birds that live on an island, and can't get off of it, are obviously descended from flying birds that flew in from elsewhere. Species change is a fact of life for living things.

 

[Tolworth John]

Tolworth, you are lumping many thousands of species together. You are ignoring the point I made in post #47, that the Bible doesn't accept this tendency of creationists to lump species together.

You ask for "proof." What proof would you accept? You reject the testimony of the recognized experts who spend their lives studying fossils and the layers of the geologic column. You reject the conclusions of those who have hands-on experience with these things.

You are claiming evolution is fact so it is your responcibility to produce the evidence.
Just because I am not fooled by your claiming that change within a species is not evolution ( goo to you ) means you have to work harder at finding the 'non exsistant evidence.'

While you are doing so please read this extract from a statistical analysis of evolution:-

" Establishment of just a two-letter word (two specific mutations within a hominin population of ten thousand) requires at least 84 million years. A three-letter word requires at least 376 million years. A six-letter word requires over 4 billion years. An eight-letter word requires over 18 billion years."
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/the_origin_of_m/
Dr. Sanford, who is Courtesy Associate Professor, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University. A paper in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, “The Waiting Time Problem in a Model Hominin Population.”

In simple words the universe has no been herelong enough for evolution to have happened.

 

[Tolworth John]

Species change is a fact of life for living things.

Yes but what you are discribing is not evolution, the change into a new species but devolution the decent into a geneticaly limited species.

 

[trophy33]

Yes but what you are discribing is not evolution, the change into a new species but devolution the decent into a geneticaly limited species.

Thats not what fossiles show. In the most early stages there was only simple life, then more and more complex and specialized organisms appeared.

 

[Tolworth John]

Yes

Thats not what fossiles show. In the most early stages there was only simple life, then more and more complex and specialized organisms appeared.

the cambrian explosion shows that complex life suddenly appears in thje fossil record.
But strangely there are no intermediate fossils that the expets are happy to agree are intermediate fossils.

 

[trophy33]

Yes

the cambrian explosion shows that complex life suddenly appears in thje fossil record.
But strangely there are no intermediate fossils that the expets are happy to agree are intermediate fossils.

"Suddenly" there means 20-25 million years span. Also, no creature from the cambrian era lives today, life developed to be more complex afterwards.

 

[The Barbarian]

" Establishment of just a two-letter word (two specific mutations within a hominin population of ten thousand) requires at least 84 million years. A three-letter word requires at least 376 million years. A six-letter word requires over 4 billion years. An eight-letter word requires over 18 billion years."
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/the_origin_of_m/
Dr. Sanford, who is Courtesy Associate Professor, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University. A paper in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, “The Waiting Time Problem in a Model Hominin Population.”

In simple words the universe has no been herelong enough for evolution to have happened.

Sanford's problem is that there are very few, if any geneticists who agree with the assumptions on which his conclusion is based. And the evidence shows something quite different.

Sanford's assumptions:
1. "beneficial mutations are so rare as to be outside of consideration."
John C. Sanford (2005). Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.

But we can show the existence of many favorable mutations over all sorts of species. So that assumption, as other geneticists have pointed out, is mistaken.

2. Favorable and unfavorable mutations are innately so, and not dependent on the environment.

But we can show that this assumption is wrong. For example, the mutation for sickle cell trait is harmful unless one is in an area endemic for malaria, where is it a favorable trait. Dark skin is favorable in humans were there is lots of sunlight, and unfavorable where it is not.

3. There is such a thing as perfect fitness with a fitness value of 1.

This was a central assumption of the simple simulation Sanford produced to show his ideas were correct. This is not the case in the real world where neutral mutations are usually slightly beneficial or slightly harmful depending on the environment or the particular organisms.

Sanford is merely a case study in how people can delude themselves when they really want to believe something they know to be unlikely.

 

[Dale]

You are claiming evolution is fact so it is your responcibility to produce the evidence.
Just because I am not fooled by your claiming that change within a species is not evolution ( goo to you ) means you have to work harder at finding the 'non exsistant evidence.'

While you are doing so please read this extract from a statistical analysis of evolution:-

" Establishment of just a two-letter word (two specific mutations within a hominin population of ten thousand) requires at least 84 million years. A three-letter word requires at least 376 million years. A six-letter word requires over 4 billion years. An eight-letter word requires over 18 billion years."
https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/the_origin_of_m/
Dr. Sanford, who is Courtesy Associate Professor, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University. A paper in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modeling, “The Waiting Time Problem in a Model Hominin Population.”

In simple words the universe has no been herelong enough for evolution to have happened.

Tolworth: "In simple words the universe has no been herelong enough for evolution to have happened."


That sort of reasoning is quite treacherous. In a college biochemistry class, I was taught that if a typical protein had to try out every possible way of folding back on itself, it would take billions of years, in short, longer than life has been on the earth. Obviously this does not happen. What does happen is that electrical forces within the molecule cause it to fall into the conformation that the protein will be found in. I suggest that you avoid this type of reasoning. There are forces that move things along.