Lines of Evidence

[Davian]

And this differs from your definition of species, exactly how?

Care to explain why Tigers and Lions are different species, when the interbreed and produce fertile offspring?
...

"Most ligers suffer from embryonic fatality or premature death, those that survive are often genetically or physically sterile and therefore unable to reproduce and continue their lineage."

Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------------
How are things going over at Cosmoquest?

 

[FredVB]

Lions and tigers can be considered different species for legitimate reasons, but the way species are defined in many other cases are not for the same reasons. They are still of the same kind, being variations from ancestors with genetic makeup for producing each sort of descendents.

 

[Zosimus]

"Most ligers suffer from embryonic fatality or premature death, those that survive are often genetically or physically sterile and therefore unable to reproduce and continue their lineage."

Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------------
How are things going over at Cosmoquest?

Even assuming that fertility is a true test of species, something I disagree with completely, there are a number of obstacles to overcome, for example:

How exactly can you determine whether two fossils were of the same species? Can you warp back in time to determine the extent to which reproductive compatibility existed?

Since bacteria never breed sexually, how can you determine whether two bacteria are the same species?

Since a chihuahua is incapable of producing fertile offspring with a St. Bernard, would you classify them into two distinct species?

Wolfdog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In many cases the resulting adult wolfdog may be larger than either of its parents due to the genetic phenomenon of heterosis (commonly known as hybrid vigor).[7] Breeding experiments in Germany with Poodles and wolves, and later on with the resulting wolfdogs showed unrestricted fertility, mating via free choice and no significant problems of communication (even after a few generations)....The researchers therefore concluded that domestic dogs and wolves are the same species."

However, at FAQ we are assured that there are actually three different species of wolves. Red wolves can breed with coyotes. Grey wolves are not supposed to breed with coyotes, but DNA studies have shown that they do. Can grey wolves breed with red wolves? I assume so! How do we know that they're different species?

 

[[serious]]

Even assuming that fertility is a true test of species, something I disagree with completely, there are a number of obstacles to overcome, for example:

How exactly can you determine whether two fossils were of the same species? Can you warp back in time to determine the extent to which reproductive compatibility existed?

Since bacteria never breed sexually, how can you determine whether two bacteria are the same species?

Since a chihuahua is incapable of producing fertile offspring with a St. Bernard, would you classify them into two distinct species?

Wolfdog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In many cases the resulting adult wolfdog may be larger than either of its parents due to the genetic phenomenon of heterosis (commonly known as hybrid vigor).[7] Breeding experiments in Germany with Poodles and wolves, and later on with the resulting wolfdogs showed unrestricted fertility, mating via free choice and no significant problems of communication (even after a few generations)....The researchers therefore concluded that domestic dogs and wolves are the same species."

However, at FAQ we are assured that there are actually three different species of wolves. Red wolves can breed with coyotes. Grey wolves are not supposed to breed with coyotes, but DNA studies have shown that they do. Can grey wolves breed with red wolves? I assume so! How do we know that they're different species?

Species describes the population, not the individual. Per wikipedia, "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." emphasis mine.

So a chihuahua and a great dane might not be able to mate, but both can mate with poodles. Since they are both part of a shared reproductive pool, they are both in the same species. One could also look at any number of ring species to see a similar situation in which the groups at opposite margins may be unable to mate directly, but they are still part of the same species due to the presence of groups they can both mate with.

Now, there are some grey areas where there is reduced fertility between two groups, but it isn't completely impossible for gene transfers to occur. This is the fairly narrow grey area in speciation. The process of a species split is a gradual as one would expect.

 

[Split Rock]

Not really because the example I was using was for the species of bats. So there are 1000 bat species that all look like bats but for the purpose of evolution they are different species even though they look the same. We are talking about the morphing of one shaped animal into another when talking about transitions and whether the features of that animals are signs of those transitions or just natural features they have within the same species. So thats where this ambiguity comes in with species that look the same yet are used to show how evolution works. So are the similar looking creatures with similar features just variations within that shaped animals or is it a sign of evolution and them morphing into a new shaped animals.

Bats don't all look the same, except they are all bats. They represent an entire order, Chiroptera. Here is a drawing showing all the variety of bats.. you really can't mistake certain bats from others (Bat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Mammals are also all the same from your argument.. they all are hairy and have four legs. I could say they all have the same "shape." The variation within Mammals is greater than within Chiroptera, since mammal is a class, and Chiroptera is an order. If Chiroptera could be considered a single "species" then so could Mammalia. Evolution does not morph one shaped organism into a completely different shaped organism, in any case.

say its hard to tell just like the species level is always up for debate. You may have to go to a higher level of order to get a clearer picture of distinct animals. The question is how far can natural variation within the same animals go and where the line is for what evolution cites as evidence for transitions between two completely different shaped animals. This has been the area that has been disputed even between evolutionists when it comes down to the features of animals and what it represents. Especially when only using observations methods. Here they can cite one or two features to say this is evidence of a transition. But those features may just be the natural variation of that creature that can extend towards similarities of another creature. After all if all creatures are made from the same blue prints then they are going to have some similarities across the board. But evolution will say that is evidence for common decent.

It is all natural variation as far as nature is concerned. Nature does not create species, genera, orders, classes, etc. Just populations. Bats can be considered a variation of mammal, just as mammal can be considered a variation of animal. If common descent is correct, then that is to be expected. Special creation, on the other hand, demands separate categories that are distinct and have no common heredity. Yet, no creationist can give us a list of all the specially created "kinds," because they cannot figure out how to differentiate between what are supposed to be distinct creations. Why would these kinds be made form the same "blueprint?" There should be separate blueprints for separately created kinds. They may share some characteristics, but they certainly wouldn't fit into a nested hierarchy, like genetic descent creates automatically. That is the big problem with special creation.

 

[Davian]

Even assuming that fertility is a true test of species, something I disagree with completely,

What are the 'true tests' for determining species?

there are a number of obstacles to overcome, for example:

How exactly can you determine whether two fossils were of the same species?

Have you considered some courses in palaeontology?

Can you warp back in time to determine the extent to which reproductive compatibility existed?

As soon as my time machine is back from the cleaners.

Since when is the delineation of species limited to reproductive compatibility?

Since bacteria never breed sexually, how can you determine whether two bacteria are the same species?

DNA differences.

Since a chihuahua is incapable of producing fertile offspring with a St. Bernard, would you classify them into two distinct species?

Where did you get this idea from? Even if they could not physically mate, their descendants could still potentially share genetic material.

Wolfdog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In many cases the resulting adult wolfdog may be larger than either of its parents due to the genetic phenomenon of heterosis (commonly known as hybrid vigor).[7] Breeding experiments in Germany with Poodles and wolves, and later on with the resulting wolfdogs showed unrestricted fertility, mating via free choice and no significant problems of communication (even after a few generations)....The researchers therefore concluded that domestic dogs and wolves are the same species."

However, at FAQ we are assured that there are actually three different species of wolves. Red wolves can breed with coyotes. Grey wolves are not supposed to breed with coyotes, but DNA studies have shown that they do. Can grey wolves breed with red wolves? I assume so! How do we know that they're different species?

Define how you are using "species" in this context.

 

[Zosimus]

Species describes the population, not the individual. Per wikipedia, "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." emphasis mine.

So a chihuahua and a great dane might not be able to mate, but both can mate with poodles. Since they are both part of a shared reproductive pool, they are both in the same species. One could also look at any number of ring species to see a similar situation in which the groups at opposite margins may be unable to mate directly, but they are still part of the same species due to the presence of groups they can both mate with.

Now, there are some grey areas where there is reduced fertility between two groups, but it isn't completely impossible for gene transfers to occur. This is the fairly narrow grey area in speciation. The process of a species split is a gradual as one would expect.

Your post did not answer my objection.

Since no single bacterium can breed, your definition requires that every bacterium be a different species.

 

[Zosimus]

What are the 'true tests' for determining species?


Have you considered some courses in palaeontology?


As soon as my time machine is back from the cleaners.

Since when is the delineation of species limited to reproductive compatibility?

DNA differences.


Where did you get this idea from? Even if they could not physically mate, their descendants could still potentially share genetic material.


Define how you are using "species" in this context.

A list of 26 Species “Concepts” – Evolving Thoughts

As I said, there is no universally-accepted and meaningful definition of the word "species." The above link contains fully 26 different species concepts, many of which are mutually exclusive.

You have claimed that DNA differences are sufficient to delineate creatures into different species. My DNA is different from that of my father. Does that make me part of a different species?

How different is sufficiently different?

 

[Davian]

A list of 26 Species “Concepts” – Evolving Thoughts

As I said, there is no universally-accepted and meaningful definition of the word "species." The above link contains fully 26 different species concepts, many of which are mutually exclusive.

Is there point in there somewhere?

You have claimed that DNA differences are sufficient to delineate creatures into different species. My DNA is different from that of my father. Does that make me part of a different species?

How different is sufficiently different?

I did not claim that claim that DNA differences are sufficient to delineate creatures into different species.

 

[Zosimus]

Is there point in there somewhere?

There is no meaningful, universally-accepted definition of the word "species."

Accordingly, it is impossible to say whether macro evolution occurs.

 

[Davian]

There is no meaningful, universally-accepted definition of the word "species."

So what? The concept is only a set of classification methodologies that we project upon the biology of the planet. There is no stamp underneath each critter or twig to see if it is "true".

Accordingly, it is impossible to say whether macro evolution occurs.

How so?

 

[Zosimus]

So what? The concept is only a set of classification methodologies that we project upon the biology of the planet. There is no stamp underneath each critter or twig to see if it is "true".

How so?

Since macro evolution is a "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa" one cannot claim that macro evolution occurs until the species problem is solved.

 

[selfinflikted]

Since macro evolution is a "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa" one cannot claim that macro evolution occurs until the species problem is solved.

Simply not true. Genetics, anyone?

 

[Davian]

Since macro evolution is a "major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa" one cannot claim that macro evolution occurs until the species problem is solved.

What species problem?

 

[[serious]]

Your post did not answer my objection.

Since no single bacterium can breed, your definition requires that every bacterium be a different species.

Species, as applied to sexually reproducing organisms, is defined as I mentioned.

Asexually reproducing organisms have long posed a challenge as you mentioned.

Originally, bacteria were classified based on phenotype. This worked pretty well, but we know from experience that organisms could look superficially alike but not be related.

Then, we started sequencing things. We could look at an over all comparison of the DNA (DNA-DNA Hybridization) to get a much more reliable picture of the genetic separation of bacterial populations. This was much better. It cleaned up any ambiguity with superficial phenotypic similarities, and gave decent resolution of the underlying relationships. But it wasn't perfect as it was prone to experimental error.

A sequence of ribosomal RNA which served a structural function was found to change very slowly (the 16S region). The alterations we found in those regions could be used to determine the separation time of those populations on the necessary time scales. This worked really really well, but again, not perfectly. A couple bacteria were found with a 16S region similar to a group of bacteria not closely related by other methods.

What we do now is look at all the available data and build a consensus position. This is called polyphasic taxonomy. until we find some gold standard indicator like we have in sexual reproduction, we have to settle for realy, really, good and reliable systems.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"Most ligers suffer from embryonic fatality or premature death, those that survive are often genetically or physically sterile and therefore unable to reproduce and continue their lineage."

Liger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---------------
How are things going over at Cosmoquest?

Banned of course, did anyone ever expect anything different when the questions became too much for them to answer?

And why did you leave out this?

"The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y). According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[22]
In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[23] In 2013 the same pair of an African lion and a female liger produced three more female cubs."

So you choose to disregard your own main classification, simply because you once believed it was impossible. Now knowing better, you still argue against it, because you simply don't want to admit you were wrong. Just as those that point to the fossil record were wrong, and don't want to admit it either.

One of your own even showing half the things you believed to be false, yet you still have great faith. You still ignore and refuse to investigate the millions of claimed species, knowing they will end up like these, simply of the same Kind. You run from the truth, because it speaks words you do not want to hear. Because it turns everything you believed upside down and leaves you with no clear links to anything in the past. Run Forest run.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Even assuming that fertility is a true test of species, something I disagree with completely, there are a number of obstacles to overcome, for example:

How exactly can you determine whether two fossils were of the same species? Can you warp back in time to determine the extent to which reproductive compatibility existed?

Since bacteria never breed sexually, how can you determine whether two bacteria are the same species?

Since a chihuahua is incapable of producing fertile offspring with a St. Bernard, would you classify them into two distinct species?

Wolfdog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In many cases the resulting adult wolfdog may be larger than either of its parents due to the genetic phenomenon of heterosis (commonly known as hybrid vigor).[7] Breeding experiments in Germany with Poodles and wolves, and later on with the resulting wolfdogs showed unrestricted fertility, mating via free choice and no significant problems of communication (even after a few generations)....The researchers therefore concluded that domestic dogs and wolves are the same species."

However, at FAQ we are assured that there are actually three different species of wolves. Red wolves can breed with coyotes. Grey wolves are not supposed to breed with coyotes, but DNA studies have shown that they do. Can grey wolves breed with red wolves? I assume so! How do we know that they're different species?

You might try cutting those bones apart, but then they are too precious for actual science aren't they? In a mere few years one of your own has thrown your entire decent into disarray, and this with just the study of a few main ones in North America. How many other incorrect classifications are yet to be discovered when they are looked at scientifically? How many more paths of decent will crumble before your eyes, while you close them so you do not have to see?

The same problem exists with Kind's as does with species. What applies to one, may not apply to the other. Yet some want to use that strawman as a reason to dismiss Kinds, while ignoring that same problem so they can accept species. They choose when to close their eyes so they need not recognize the same problem in their own house they complain about another.

Red wolves, grey wolves, no different than black man and white man, Chinese or Indian. Just different breeds within the same Kind. If like in the wild white and black rarely mated because survivability favors those of the same breed, in 10,000 years white and black might no longer be able to interbreed, yet we would still know they were of the same Kind. Yet you don't classify black man, white man, chinese man, or indian man as different species, because you know you can't.

It's funny how those that favor evolution point to dogs, when dogs are the biggest obstacle to evolution. Being that in a few thousand years we have breed what would have taken nature hundreds of millions of years to produce. yet we still classify them as the same Kind - Canidae.

By requirement any changes due to natural events are merely infraspecific taxa. Evolution demands only one original species, with everything else being merely a subset thereof. According to that very theory the classification system is no longer valid.

"Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae)."

Only with those who believe in evolution are those specific locally adapted traits claimed to make new species, even if their own theory requires they all be merely infraspecific taxa such as subspecies, varieties, subvarieties and formae.

So from the very first formation of life (a species) all else is merely a subdivision thereof from locally adapted traits. Yet this is not what is followed, even if required by that very theory. If evolutionists will not even follow what they believe, why should anyone else even consider it as viable?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is what is being found more and more as we map the genome of animals and find the great complexity. Animals are being separated more by their genetics because they are finding more function that goes with each animal. The observational evidence used in the past is being shown wrong is many cases. Darwin's tree of life is being turned into a hedge or orchard instead. It may not be a single common ancestor but many lines of creatures that branched out to make the animals kingdom. I think I have cited support for this before with you so I will only do this if you insist on me finding them again.

The genome is destroying evolution, they just refuse to see.

What was once a claimed tree, is now being shown as merely individual bushes (Kinds), and soon even the claimed root connections will disappear as technology continues to advance.

PLOS Biology: Bushes in the Tree of Life

Mutation no longer an accepted cause of producing new species. All but given up in animal and plant husbandry, because it was found not to be a viable source. What was thought would save them, ends up destroying the theory.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

But of course eyes will be closed so the light needn't be seen.

 

[Davian]

And why did you leave out this?

"The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y). According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[22]
In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[23] In 2013 the same pair of an African lion and a female liger produced three more female cubs."

So you choose to disregard your own main classification,

Whatever gave you the impression that I was involved in the classification process?

simply because you once believed it was impossible.

Where did I state this?

Now knowing better, you still argue against it, because you simply don't want to admit you were wrong.

Where have I argued this?

Just as those that point to the fossil record were wrong, and don't want to admit it either.

One of your own even showing half the things you believed to be false, yet you still have great faith. You still ignore and refuse to investigate the millions of claimed species, knowing they will end up like these, simply of the same Kind. You run from the truth,

What is this "truth" that you allude to?

because it speaks words you do not want to hear. Because it turns everything you believed upside down and leaves you with no clear links to anything in the past. Run Forest run.

Provide a scientific, testable definition of what you mean by "kind" in this context.

Banned of course, did anyone ever expect anything different when the questions became too much for them to answer?

I saw why you were banned. You have inspired your own Urban Dictionary entry:

"In a discussion or debate forum, the tactic of breaking rules unrelated to the discussion at hand in order to invoke wrath of the moderators, with the resulting suspension/ban saving one from the embarrassment of having to carry on after having one's arguments completely dismantled. Also applies to trolls, as a means to an exit."

Urban Dictionary: Death by Mod

 

[[serious]]

Banned of course, did anyone ever expect anything different when the questions became too much for them to answer?

And why did you leave out this?

"The fertility of hybrid big cat females is well documented across a number of different hybrids. This is in accordance with Haldane's rule: in hybrids of animals whose sex is determined by sex chromosomes, if one sex is absent, rare or sterile, it is the heterogametic sex (the one with two different sex chromosomes e.g. X and Y). According to Wild Cats of the World (1975) by C. A. W. Guggisberg, ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile: in 1943, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an 'Island' tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, though of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.[22]
In September 2012, the Russian Novosibirsk Zoo announced the birth of a "liliger", which is the offspring of a liger mother and a lion father. The cub was named Kiara.[23] In 2013 the same pair of an African lion and a female liger produced three more female cubs."

So you choose to disregard your own main classification, simply because you once believed it was impossible. Now knowing better, you still argue against it, because you simply don't want to admit you were wrong. Just as those that point to the fossil record were wrong, and don't want to admit it either.

One of your own even showing half the things you believed to be false, yet you still have great faith. You still ignore and refuse to investigate the millions of claimed species, knowing they will end up like these, simply of the same Kind. You run from the truth, because it speaks words you do not want to hear. Because it turns everything you believed upside down and leaves you with no clear links to anything in the past. Run Forest run.

How are we ignoring it? i mentioned such gray areas here:

Species describes the population, not the individual. Per wikipedia, "A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." emphasis mine.

So a chihuahua and a great dane might not be able to mate, but both can mate with poodles. Since they are both part of a shared reproductive pool, they are both in the same species. One could also look at any number of ring species to see a similar situation in which the groups at opposite margins may be unable to mate directly, but they are still part of the same species due to the presence of groups they can both mate with.

Now, there are some grey areas where there is reduced fertility between two groups, but it isn't completely impossible for gene transfers to occur. This is the fairly narrow grey area in speciation. The process of a species split is a gradual as one would expect.