The evidence for Evolution.

[Cearbhall]

ok

here is my response
There is no evolution .

So compelling.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Really? You care to take a guess at what natural selective pressures would result in bulldogs, or poodles, or shi tzus, or dachshunds, King Charles spaniels, or pekingese?

All we did was breed two different infraspecific taxa to create a new one. Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a Husky and a Mastiff were to mate without man being around a Chinook wouldn't be produced?

When an Asian mates with an African a Afro-Asian is produced. Without those two mating there would never be an Afro-Asian.

And you were already told what natural processes, the same ones you claim. Migration due to famine, geological changes which force the relocation of a infraspecific taxa to areas it previously did not inhabit.

You're welcome to swap the label 'species' for 'sub-species' and vice-versa wherever you like. There are many definitions of 'species'. The ToE doesn't depend on the definition of species, it's a convenient categorization that has fuzzy edges. How many grains of sand does it take to make a heap?

Yes, it's quite convenient when you can ignore your own scientific definitions, isn't it?

I have no idea what you're talking about. Discard what plants? what are you implying?

Oh please, you were just arguing we could ignore dogs because man breeded them instead of it happening slowly over time on their ow. Yet biologists have no problem using plants they genetically altered in the lab as proof of evolution.

I'm implying you don't know what you want to believe and are wish washy in what you choose to believe. If biologists alter a plant or bacteria in the lab and claim proof of evolution you'll say see, but when we alter dogs all of a sudden we can't accept the evidence because man did it. That's so wish washy it's actually a pathetic attempt to discard what you don't want to accept for the same reason you accept data on bacteria and plants.

You're making false accusations at the wrong person; I've said nothing about Darwin's finches in this thread, and I've never attempted to classify them.

So then you agree they are one species and their classification system is incorrect? You, them, it's all the same.

Are you saying you disagree with their classifications? If not then you basically agree with a what they say so are saying it.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just like evolution predicts.

Now, if those huskies would suddenly produce a pitbull - then the theory would be in trouble.

So then man is just a breed of ape and not a seperate species? Since this is after all what you just claimed evolution predicts. Or are you claiming some mythical common ancestor suddenly produced what led to ape and man? Even if every dog ever produced is still of the same species?

You also seem to have a problem with understanding the difference between race and species.

I have no problem understanding it. I didn't claim Asians were a seperate species from Africans. Is this what you believe? Then why make such a ridiculous claim? I said they are seperate infraspecific taxa within the species. Do you have a problem understanding the difference between infraspecific taxa and species? The differences in human races are no different than breeds of dogs. You just call one infraspecific taxa race and the other breed. Not my fault you confuse infraspecific taxa within the species as me claiming seperate species.

And since you are a creationists, you must necessarily believe that some kind of evolutionary process produced all those different races, because there are more then 2, while according to your mythology, it started with just 2 individuals named Adam and Eve.

Why would I need a false theory of evolution? Adam was created genetically perfect with all possible combinations contained within his genomes. Half of those genomes were separated into Eve.

So I start with let's say A, B and C in Adam and D, E and F in Eve. Now A+D gets us to G. While you on the other hand start with A and want us to believe A+A gets us to B. Even if in every experiment ever performed A always remains A.

So yea... let's turn this nonsense around, shall we?
How do YOU explain the different races of humans, if not by an evolutionary process, assuming it all started out with 2 individuals?

See above.

That's actually an inappropriate and dishonest thing to say. Because the many different races of dogs that we all know and love... are not natural.

That's a dishonest thing to say. Because the many different taxa of peas we all love created in the lab you have no problem exclaiming as proof of evolution.... are not natural either.

Many of them wouldn't even be able to survive in the wild!

Many animals have gone extinct. Survivability has nothing to do with wether they exist or could exist. But then without man we would only have wolves, mastiffs and huskies and a few hardy breeds. The week ones would simply die off. Isn't that what you also claim with your TOE - survival of the fittest? Which does not preclude the weak existing for short periods.

What it does show that you want to ignore is that those combinations already exist within the genome and require no damaging mutations to bring about. All it takes is the every day process of mating to combine genomes. I need not pretend that some mythical common ancestor magically become something else, I just need accept what is right in front of our eyes, the mating of different infraspecific taxa to create new infraspecific taxa. As I have said and will say again, it's not my fault you classified the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record as seperate species incorrectly.

I wouldn't know about that. I'm actually not so sure.
In any case, if we would manage to get our hands on their DNA, that situation would quickly be rectified and we would see how they fit unto the phylogenetic tree of life. Their shared ancestry would be exposed.

Yes it would, it would show your classification of 90% of the fossil record as seperate species is incorrect and they were merely different breeds of the same species as are dogs. But you just never know, after all, they once claimed soft tissue was impossible until they found it by accident.

And you, off course, know better then the thousands, millions of actual experts in this field around the world.

Irrelevant argument.

All the experts once claimed the world was the center of the universe. All the experts once claimed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. All the experts once claimed Colecanth was extinct and was a transitional species. Shall we go on with all the other claims the so called experts made that turned out to be totally wrong? Reliance on majority or experts to try to defend your stance is a failed argument from the start. It just shows you are to the point where you are becoming afraid you can't defend your claims so turn to the, "but the experts claim", when the experts have been wrong uncountable times.

 

[Jimmy D]

So then man is just a breed of ape and not a seperate species? Since this is after all what you just claimed evolution predicts. Or are you claiming some mythical common ancestor suddenly produced what led to ape and man? Even if every dog ever produced is still of the same species?


I have no problem understanding it. I didn't claim Asians were a seperate species from Africans. Is this what you believe? Then why make such a ridiculous claim? I said they are seperate infraspecific taxa within the species. Do you have a problem understanding the difference between infraspecific taxa and species? The differences in human races are no different than breeds of dogs. You just call one infraspecific taxa race and the other breed. Not my fault you confuse infraspecific taxa within the species as me claiming seperate species.


Why would I need a false theory of evolution? Adam was created genetically perfect with all possible combinations contained within his genomes. Half of those genomes were separated into Eve.

So I start with let's say A, B and C in Adam and D, E and F in Eve. Now A+D gets us to G. While you on the other hand start with A and want us to believe A+A gets us to B. Even if in every experiment ever performed A always remains A.


See above.


That's a dishonest thing to say. Because the many different taxa of peas we all love created in the lab you have no problem exclaiming as proof of evolution.... are not natural either.


Many animals have gone extinct. Survivability has nothing to do with wether they exist or could exist. But then without man we would only have wolves, mastiffs and huskies and a few hardy breeds. The week ones would simply die off. Isn't that what you also claim with your TOE - survival of the fittest? Which does not preclude the weak existing for short periods.


Yes it would, it would show your classification of 90% of the fossil record as seperate species is incorrect and they were merely different breeds of the same species as are dogs. But you just never know, after all, they once claimed soft tissue was impossible until they found it by accident.


Irrelevant argument.

All the experts once claimed the world was the center of the universe. All the experts once claimed the Milky-Way was the entire universe. All the experts once claimed Colecanth was extinct and was a transitional species. Shall we go on with all the other claims the so called experts made that turned out to be totally wrong? Reliance on majority or experts to try to defend your stance is a failed argument from the start. It just shows you are to the point where you are becoming afraid you can't defend your claims so turn to the, "but the experts claim", when the experts have been wrong uncountable times.

Do you ever comprehend what people are saying to you? Whether you use the term species, 'infraspecific taxa', breed, race or kind is irrelevant, they're just categories made for our convenience based on certain criteria. Your opinions on those criteria has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the differences and similarities of different species etc can be measured, quantified and compared to demonstrate inconclusively the fact of common descent.

I know that you are aware of phylogenetic trees, ERV evidence etc etc. How you can seriously attempt to deny them by quibbling over the definition of the word species is mind boggling.

On the other hand, you have blatantly made up your rather ridiculous 'super genome' idea to try and force fit what we see in nature into your religious beliefs. Have you got any data or observations to back it up? Any predictions that could confirm it if tested? Anything at all?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So then man is just a breed of ape and not a seperate species? Since this is after all what you just claimed evolution predicts.

A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species. Breeds are formed through genetic isolation and either natural adaptation to the environment or selective breeding, or a combination of the two

Humans are not domesticated animals.

In any case, what evolution predicts is that all organisms produce after their kind. Mammals produce more mammals.
Primates produce more primates.
Humans produce more humans.

2 africans reproducing will not result in an asian.
2 huskies reproducing will not result in a pitbull.

Or are you claiming some mythical common ancestor suddenly produced what led to ape and man?

No. Every individual ever born was the same species as its direct parents.
No non-human has ever given birth to a human.

Just like every human ever born spoke the same language as the parents that raised it. No Latin speaking mother has ever raised a Spanish speaking child.

Yet, spanish derived from latin.

It's the exact same thing.

Even if every dog ever produced is still of the same species?

As I said, every individual ever born, was of the same species as its direct parents. Due to accumulation of variation / mutations, species gradually change and might speciate into sub-species.

Descendents of dogs will always be dogs or sub-species of dogs.

Just like humans are "still" tetrapods, mammals, primates, ...

The differences in human races are no different than breeds of dogs.

Aside, off course, from the fact that the "breeds of dogs" aren't natural.

Why would I need a false theory of evolution? Adam was created genetically perfect with all possible combinations contained within his genomes.

So.... Adam had ALL blood types simultanously and also was an african, an asian, a caucasion, an aboriginal,... all at the same time?

You make no sense.

So I start with let's say A, B and C in Adam and D, E and F in Eve. Now A+D gets us to G. While you on the other hand start with A and want us to believe A+A gets us to B. Even if in every experiment ever performed A always remains A.

If you don't understand the process of evolution, you should refrain from making such ignorant statements about it.

In evolution "B" would be a subset of "A".

Cats don't produce dogs. Cats produce more cats.
Mammals don't produce reptiles. Mammals produce more mammals.

That's a dishonest thing to say. Because the many different taxa of peas we all love created in the lab you have no problem exclaiming as proof of evolution.... are not natural either.

That's just you not understanding the point of those experiments. No matter if they happen in the lab or not.

Take dogs, since you love that example so much.
The sheer fact that we CAN use artificial selection to produce all these different breeds, demonstrate that all the mechanisms of evolution are right there....

If these mechanisms would not exist, then you could artificially select breeding pairs till you are blue in the face and it wouldn't make any difference. After x generations, these dogs would still be the same as the original ones you started out with.

But the fact that managed to take wolf-type creature and in only a couple thousands years have it result in things like huskies, st bernards, labradors, pitbulls, chiuwawa's, etc.... is demonstration that all the mechanisms that evolution posits, are very very real.

If evolution could not happen, then you'ld have only 1 dog breed.

Pitbulls weren't created in the lab through genetic manipulation, you know...

Many animals have gone extinct. Survivability has nothing to do with wether they exist or could exist

You're not getting it, which comes as no surprise to me.

In natural selection, selection happens based on functionality.
In artificial selection, as in dog breeding, selection happens based on appearance.

Canines, by nature, are carnivors. Hunters.
In the wild, they need to find, capture and eat prey.

Take a chiuwawa. This dog neither has the speed, nore the bite strength to devour live prey. This is why it would never naturally evolve.

This dog was bred by selecting for appearance. Functionality is secondary (at most).

Another example: the bulldog.

In the wild, species go extinct due to all kinds of reasons. Mainly because of abrupt changes in environment and/or eco-system at large.

The bulldog however... you can drop this creature in any environment in the wild and it will simply die.

Because again, this breed was created by selecting for appearance. Not functionality. It isn't fit to live in the wild. Anywhere. It will just die. Most of them can't even naturally reproduce....

But then without man we would only have wolves, mastiffs and huskies and a few hardy breeds. The week ones would simply die off. Isn't that what you also claim with your TOE - survival of the fittest? Which does not preclude the weak existing for short periods.

The Bulldog is not just "weak".
It is literally unfit in every sense of the word.
It is not just "unfit" for specific environments. It is simply unfit for life.
It is an artificial creature in that sense. It's ability to naturally reproduce is near zero.

Health, functionality, fitness,.... all these are secondary at best and an afterthought at worst.

With a few exceptions of course, like hunting dogs or literally killer dogs bred for guarding etc. But even in those... most likely they would not exist naturally.
But they could survive in the wild.

I'm just saying, you seem very short sighted about this...

Yes it would, it would show your classification of 90% of the fossil record as seperate species is incorrect

No. You also need to understand that classifications of "species" are just our way of grouping animals in a way that makes sense so that we can communicate about them.

In essence, our classification of species is but a snapshot of the current state of life.
In a sence, it is kind of arbitrary as well. Which is seen also in the very definitions (plural!) of the word "species". What definition best applies is kind of dependend on the angle from which you are coming from.

Sometimes, species are seen as those that genetically could reproduce.
Other times, species are seen as those that actively reproduce with one another.

There are quite a few species/races/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it that COULD genetically interbreed and have fertile off spring, but simply don't in nature.

The fact of the matter is that genetics always has the last word, when it comes to assessing the level of relatedness between organisms.

It's a pretty objective way of making such assessments.

But you just never know, after all, they once claimed soft tissue was impossible until they found it by accident.

And subsequently explained it. It's called learning.

Irrelevant argument.

I disagree. If all the experts say X and then some layman claims that it's actually Y instead... why would I listen to the layman?

If all doctors tell you that you have a cancer, and your garagists tells you that the lump in your neck is just a big zit instead of a tumor... who are you going to believe?

All the experts once claimed the world was the center of the universe.

And then other experts learned new things and demonstrated that new knowledge.

All the experts once claimed the Milky-Way was the entire universe.

And then other experts learned new things and demonstrated that new knowledge.

All the experts once claimed Colecanth was extinct and was a transitional species.

First, Colecanth is not a species, but an order of fish including many species.
Since it was only known from the fossil record, it was assumed that the entire order had gone extinct. And then they found a few living fish of that order. It's called evidence and demonstration.

Shall we go on with all the other claims the so called experts made that turned out to be totally wrong?

No, you already made it clear enough that you don't understand how we learn new things, how progress is made and how you like to throw the baby out along with the bath water.

Reliance on majority or experts to try to defend your stance is a failed argument from the start.

No, it's not. You do that everyday.
You don't visit your doctor for a problem with your car. Instead, you visit a car mechanic.
You don't ask a bakkery about that lump in your neck. Instead, you ask a doctor.
You don't ask a butcher to build an airplane. Instead, you go to a company like Boeing.

Because you understand the value of expertise.

It just shows you are to the point where you are becoming afraid you can't defend your claims so turn to the, "but the experts claim", when the experts have been wrong uncountable times.

And yet, you rely on experts for all aspects of your life, every second of every day.

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm afraid I'm off now so I can't carry on this discussion for a week or so...

Happy Christmas everyone!

 

[Ophiolite]

In natural selection, selection happens based on functionality.
In artificial selection, as in dog breeding, selection happens based on appearance.

It is necessary to correct your otherwise excellent post. The majority of dog breeds were, at least until recently, bred for functionality first, and second, and third.

Pointers, as the name suggested pointed towards the game.
Terriers hunted rats, or rabbits.
Bulldogs were bred for fighting.

I am sure an aficionado of dog breeding could expand, or correct those couple of examples, but it would not alter the fact that functionality is the key.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A breed is a specific group of domestic animals having homogeneous appearance (phenotype), homogeneous behavior, and/or other characteristics that distinguish it from other organisms of the same species. Breeds are formed through genetic isolation and either natural adaptation to the environment or selective breeding, or a combination of the two

Humans are not domesticated animals.

Irrelevant argument since the mating of an Asian and an African is selective breeding, since they chose to mate and produce offspring. Just as someone chose to mate two breeds of dogs and produce offspring. Your will try anything to dismiss the evidence won't you.

In any case, what evolution predicts is that all organisms produce after their kind. Mammals produce more mammals.
Primates produce more primates.
Humans produce more humans.

No, that's what creation predicts.

Evolution predicts bacteria will become slugs which become fish which become reptiles and mammals. At least get your theory correct if your going to argue for it. So the first mammal came about how, since you say it predicts mammals from mammals? Ahhhh, so what you said isn't quite true now is it.

2 africans reproducing will not result in an asian.
2 huskies reproducing will not result in a pitbull.

No kidding? Apparently you did not read my post where I said Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky..... I'm glad you are beginning to see the light and recognize the truth.

No. Every individual ever born was the same species as its direct parents.
No non-human has ever given birth to a human.

So what was this species that gave birth to the line that led to ape and human?

Just like every human ever born spoke the same language as the parents that raised it. No Latin speaking mother has ever raised a Spanish speaking child.

Not germane to the subject since language has nothing to do with evolution.

Yet, spanish derived from latin.

It's the exact same thing.

Are you now claiming language developers through mutations too? Oh boy, I can see this conversation is rapidly devolving into plain silliness.

As I said, every individual ever born, was of the same species as its direct parents. Due to accumulation of variation / mutations, species gradually change and might speciate into sub-species.

Agreed they will become infraspecific taxa within the species. I am again glad you are finally admitting the truth.

Descendents of dogs will always be dogs or sub-species of dogs.

agreed of the canine species.

Just like humans are "still" tetrapods, mammals, primates, ...

Dogs are mammals too. Humans are of the species Homo sapiens as dogs are canines. So according to you dogs remain of the species canine since they will always be dogs, even if they are mammals, but humans changed species from whatever mythical species became the ape and human species? You can't even keep your arguments for your theory consistent.

Aside, off course, from the fact that the "breeds of dogs" aren't natural.

More natural than those genetically spliced peas you use as proof of evolution. Or those lab mutated bacteria that in the "wild" would never have happened. Oh, but that's different right because it supports your belief???

So.... Adam had ALL blood types simultanously and also was an african, an asian, a caucasion, an aboriginal,... all at the same time?

You make no sense.

More sense than you do since your genes have almost every race in existence in them. Try doing a racial genetic test on yourself sometime, you might just be surprised.

If you don't understand the process of evolution, you should refrain from making such ignorant statements about it.

Whatever makes you feel better about your false beliefs and inability to defend it.

In evolution "B" would be a subset of "A".

Yah I know, "B" magically appears even when it didn't exist in the first place. Even if you just claimed dogs will always be dogs, so the first bacteria will always be the first bacteria since no new genes will be added.

Cats don't produce dogs. Cats produce more cats.
Mammals don't produce reptiles. Mammals produce more mammals.

So we get from fish to mammals, how exactly since by reasoning fish only produce fish?

That's just you not understanding the point of those experiments. No matter if they happen in the lab or not.

Take your own advice. That just you not understanding the point of dogs whether they happened in the lab or not. All the combinations for every breed of dog that exists already existed within the genome.

Take dogs, since you love that example so much.
The sheer fact that we CAN use artificial selection to produce all these different breeds, demonstrate that all the mechanisms of evolution are right there....

No it disproves that mutation is not needed at all to produce variation. It proves that dogs always remain dogs and will as you say never become cats. Just as some common ancestor never magically became both ape and man. Just as fish never became reptiles and mammals. But you jump back in forth so often in what you profess to believe you can't see your own contradictions.

If these mechanisms would not exist, then you could artificially select breeding pairs till you are blue in the face and it wouldn't make any difference. After x generations, these dogs would still be the same as the original ones you started out with.

Just as E. coli remained E. coli no matter how many mutations it underwent in the lab. So basically your arguing against evolution without even realizing it.

But the fact that managed to take wolf-type creature and in only a couple thousands years have it result in things like huskies, st bernards, labradors, pitbulls, chiuwawa's, etc.... is demonstration that all the mechanisms that evolution posits, are very very real.

No, it shows that all the combinations already existed within the genome. That not a single mutation was needed to create variation. That you only get what you start with, which you agree with, and then agree that fish become reptiles and mammals even if you just argued mammals will always be mammals. So by default fish will always be fish and your TOE falls flat on its face.

If evolution could not happen, then you'ld have only 1 dog breed.

I would have just as many as I do now, because not a single mutation was required. I start with all possible combinations. It is you that starts with a single common ancestor that magically becomes many. It is you that requires fish to become mama,s, even if you argue that can't happen.
[/quote]
Pitbulls weren't created in the lab through genetic manipulation, you know...[/quote]
I know, those peas and other plants you claim are proof of natural selection were.

You're not getting it, which comes as no surprise to me.

Says the guy that argues mammals only produce mammals and then requires fish to become mammals and reptiles and everything that exists..... talk about not getting it.

In natural selection, selection happens based on functionality.
In artificial selection, as in dog breeding, selection happens based on appearance.

Wrong, dogs were originally bred for funcunality, such as greyhounds for speed, mastiffs for brute size as they were used in war. The small terriers for rodent control. Just because we breed for appearance today does not mean that was always the case.

Canines, by nature, are carnivors. Hunters.
In the wild, they need to find, capture and eat prey.

Take a chiuwawa. This dog neither has the speed, nore the bite strength to devour live prey. This is why it would never naturally evolve.

This dog was bred by selecting for appearance. Functionality is secondary (at most).

Another example: the bulldog.

View attachment 187261

In the wild, species go extinct due to all kinds of reasons. Mainly because of abrupt changes in environment and/or eco-system at large.

The bulldog however... you can drop this creature in any environment in the wild and it will simply die.

Because again, this breed was created by selecting for appearance. Not functionality. It isn't fit to live in the wild. Anywhere. It will just die. Most of them can't even naturally reproduce....




The Bulldog is not just "weak".
It is literally unfit in every sense of the word.
It is not just "unfit" for specific environments. It is simply unfit for life.
It is an artificial creature in that sense. It's ability to naturally reproduce is near zero.

Health, functionality, fitness,.... all these are secondary at best and an afterthought at worst.

With a few exceptions of course, like hunting dogs or literally killer dogs bred for guarding etc. But even in those... most likely they would not exist naturally.
But they could survive in the wild.

I'm just saying, you seem very short sighted about this...

Apparently you didn't read the part where I said if left to natural process we would just have a lot fewer breeds. Because if left to natural processes it would have taken a million years just to produce the first couple breeds, which were extremely hearty and capable of survival. Just as we have produced plants that can't survive in the wild.

No. You also need to understand that classifications of "species" are just our way of grouping animals in a way that makes sense so that we can communicate about them.

In essence, our classification of species is but a snapshot of the current state of life.
In a sence, it is kind of arbitrary as well. Which is seen also in the very definitions (plural!) of the word "species". What definition best applies is kind of dependend on the angle from which you are coming from.

Sometimes, species are seen as those that genetically could reproduce.
Other times, species are seen as those that actively reproduce with one another.

There are quite a few species/races/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it that COULD genetically interbreed and have fertile off spring, but simply don't in nature.

The fact of the matter is that genetics always has the last word, when it comes to assessing the level of relatedness between organisms.

It's a pretty objective way of making such assessments.



And subsequently explained it. It's called learning.



I disagree. If all the experts say X and then some layman claims that it's actually Y instead... why would I listen to the layman?

If all doctors tell you that you have a cancer, and your garagists tells you that the lump in your neck is just a big zit instead of a tumor... who are you going to believe?


And then other experts learned new things and demonstrated that new knowledge.



And then other experts learned new things and demonstrated that new knowledge.



First, Colecanth is not a species, but an order of fish including many species.
Since it was only known from the fossil record, it was assumed that the entire order had gone extinct. And then they found a few living fish of that order. It's called evidence and demonstration.



No, you already made it clear enough that you don't understand how we learn new things, how progress is made and how you like to throw the baby out along with the bath water.



No, it's not. You do that everyday.
You don't visit your doctor for a problem with your car. Instead, you visit a car mechanic.
You don't ask a bakkery about that lump in your neck. Instead, you ask a doctor.
You don't ask a butcher to build an airplane. Instead, you go to a company like Boeing.

Because you understand the value of expertise.



And yet, you rely on experts for all aspects of your life, every second of every day.

Says the person that insists mammals will always be mammals, but yet needs them to come from bacterial sludge. So the first bacteria was a mammal, reptile, fish, avian primate or just what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is necessary to correct your otherwise excellent post. The majority of dog breeds were, at least until recently, bred for functionality first, and second, and third.

Pointers, as the name suggested pointed towards the game.
Terriers hunted rats, or rabbits.
Bulldogs were bred for fighting.

I am sure an aficionado of dog breeding could expand, or correct those couple of examples, but it would not alter the fact that functionality is the key.

You are correct off course, and I did also mention that aside from appearance, there is the purpose of guards, hunting dogs, etc where we would indeed be selecting based on functionality.

Nevertheless though, it's functionality "of our choosing", in context of whatever purpose or goal we have in mind.

Whereas in nature, the "functionality" is completely geared towards survival and reproduction.

A herding dog must be good at herding. A dog that is great at herding but completely useless in hunting and finding a mate, will be chosen to breed more herding dogs with.

But yes, when I wrote that part, I was primarily thinking about chiuwawa's and alike.

 

[John 1720]

She makes it very clear that she is commenting upon the HISTORY of evolutionary theory, not upon the validation of its evidence....

Just let me know if there's anything else that needs explaining for you.......

Hmmm... I wasn't overly impressed by the video. She really didn't mention the clear evidence for macro change evolution that is contained within the Bible. The historical record would be remiss not to consider how macro change evolution is explained there since it actually preceded Darwin by 1800 years. So I think her history is flawed with respect to its genesis.
Pat

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Irrelevant argument since the mating of an Asian and an African is selective breeding, since they chose to mate and produce offspring.

/facepalm

"selective breeding" is when others choose for you, with a specific goal in mind concerning the off spring.

Just as someone chose to mate two breeds of dogs and produce offspring.

No, that is very different.

Your will try anything to dismiss the evidence won't you.

What evidence? The fact that you don't understand the difference between natural selection and artificial selection?

No, that's what creation predicts.

Yes, it's what evolution predicts.
Mammals produce mammals.
Primates produce primates.
Felines produce felines.

In evolution, Primates do not produce felines. Mammals do not produce reptiles.

Evolution predicts bacteria will become slugs which become fish which become reptiles and mammals.

No.
Eukaryotes produce eukaryotes. Vertebrates are eukaryotes.
Vertebrates produce vertabrates. Tetrapods are vertebrates.
Tetrapods produce tetrapods. Mammals are tetrapods.
Mammals produce mammals. Primates are mammals.
Primates produce primates. Hominidae are primates.
Hominidae produce hominidae.

And so on.

Again: if you don't know what you the theory says, it's wise to first inform yourself, before trying to argue against that which you don't even understand.

At least get your theory correct if your going to argue for it.

lol!

So the first mammal came about how, since you say it predicts mammals from mammals? Ahhhh, so what you said isn't quite true now is it.

See above. Mammals are tetrapods.
Tetrapods produced mammals.

See, this is the "speciation is a vertical proces; species speciate into sub-species" part.

On the evolutionary tree of life, a branch splits into sub-branches.
Species don't jump to parallell branches. They split into sub-branches.

Humans and chimps are primates. Their common ancestor was a primate.
Both are sub-species of primate.

Humans and dogs are mammals. Their common ancestor was a mammal.
Both are sub-species of mammal.

It's not rocket science.

Likewise: Spanish and French are roman languages. Their common ancestor (Latin) was a roman language.
Latin did not produce English.
Latin produce sub-species of languages: spanish, italian, french, portugese.

English, dutch and german are germanic languages. Their common ancestor was a germanic language. Which was not Latin.

So what was this species that gave birth to the line that led to ape and human?

Humans ARE apes. I guess you mean Chimpansee then.

Well, it was a primate.
Both humans and chimps are sub-species thereof.

Not germane to the subject since language has nothing to do with evolution.

It's analogous to it in the sense of how gradual accumulation of micro-changes over generations can make it become something quite different. But I get how you wish to avoid this analogy at all costs, because it kind of hurts your goofy logic.

Are you now claiming language developers through mutations too?

Through small changes over generations, yes. You are not aware of this?
Pick up an english text from 3 centuries ago.

You'll understand most of it quite well, but you'll notice quite a few differences.
You're really not aware of this?

Did you think that on some day in the past, english speakers had a meeting and decide to stop with medieval english and adopt modern english overnight?

Oh boy, I can see this conversation is rapidly devolving into plain silliness.

It was plain silliness to start out with. That's kind of a given when discussion a theory of modern biology with bronze-age myth believers.

Agreed they will become infraspecific taxa within the species. I am again glad you are finally admitting the truth.

I said speciate.

agreed of the canine species.

It's true for all nested groups of organism on any level. Family, order, genus, species, races,...

Again: evolution is a branching process. It's a tree. A vertical process. Populations become ever-more specialised within their group. They don't jump groups/branches. That's not how it works. Please learn how it works.

Dogs are mammals too. Humans are of the species Homo sapiens as dogs are canines.

No. Canine is a genus. Dog is the species.
Homo sapiens is a species. Homo is the genus.

So according to you dogs remain of the species canine since they will always be dogs, even if they are mammals, but humans changed species from whatever mythical species became the ape and human species? You can't even keep your arguments for your theory consistent.

Ow boy....................................................................

Taxonomy 101.

Did you get any biology in high school, at all??

More sense than you do since your genes have almost every race in existence in them. Try doing a racial genetic test on yourself sometime, you might just be surprised.

I'll bet you everything that I own and will ever own that all chidren that I and my caucasian wife will ever produce, will all be caucasians.

In fact, if one of our children will come out asian or black, I'll instantly know that either
- my wife cheated on me with respectively an asian or a black person
or
- the babies got switched at the hospital

Yah I know, "B" magically appears even when it didn't exist in the first place.

Yeah... just like how spanish and italian "magically" appeared when it didn't exist in the first place.

Even if you just claimed dogs will always be dogs, so the first bacteria will always be the first bacteria since no new genes will be added.

The bacteria you observe today are on their own evolutionary path and have, just like us, an evolutionary history of 3.8 billion years of unbroken reproduction cycles.

You're failing to understand the concept of a family tree again.

So we get from fish to mammals, how exactly since by reasoning fish only produce fish?

Not fish. Vertebrates.

Fish are, again, modern animals.

No it disproves that mutation is not needed at all to produce variation. It proves that dogs always remain dogs and will as you say never become cats. Just as some common ancestor never magically became both ape and man. Just as fish never became reptiles and mammals. But you jump back in forth so often in what you profess to believe you can't see your own contradictions.

I'm not making any jumps. You simply don't have a clue about the basics of the basics. You have no knowledge of taxonomy and you don't understand how gradual accumulation of changes works.

Just as E. coli remained E. coli no matter how many mutations it underwent in the lab. So basically your arguing against evolution without even realizing it.

Vertical process. Branching tree. Get it into that thick skull of yours.
Descendents of X, remain X. They can speciate into X1, X2,... but they remain X.

No, it shows that all the combinations already existed within the genome. That not a single mutation was needed to create variation. That you only get what you start with, which you agree with, and then agree that fish become reptiles and mammals even if you just argued mammals will always be mammals.

Descendents of mammals will be mammals.
Descendents of tetrapods will be tetrapods.
Descendents of vertebrates will be vertebrates.

Vertical process. Branching tree.

So by default fish will always be fish and your TOE falls flat on its face.

Fish = modern animals.
Fish = vertebrates; eukaryotes.

I would have just as many as I do now, because not a single mutation was required. I start with all possible combinations.

Which is non-sensical, indefensible and not in evidence.

It is you that starts with a single common ancestor that magically becomes many.

There's nothing magical about the accumulation of small changes.
Just like there is nothing magical about Italian, French and Spanish all being descendents of Latin - eventhough at no point in history did Latin speaking parents raise an Italian speaking child.

Says the person that insists mammals will always be mammals, but yet needs them to come from bacterial sludge. So the first bacteria was a mammal, reptile, fish, avian primate or just what?

Vertical process. Branching tree. No branch hopping.

X results in X1.
X does not become Y.

Learn the basics.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

All we did was breed two different infraspecific taxa to create a new one. Are you seriously trying to suggest that if a Husky and a Mastiff were to mate without man being around a Chinook wouldn't be produced?

No, I'm saying that under evolution by natural selection alone, those extreme phenotypes (i.e. of the breeds I listed) would not appear.

Yes, it's quite convenient when you can ignore your own scientific definitions, isn't it?

As I said, there are a number of definitions of species, and nature doesn't fit neatly into our categorizations. But the point is that the theory of evolution is not dependent on the definition of species.

Oh please, you were just arguing we could ignore dogs because man breeded them instead of it happening slowly over time on their ow. Yet biologists have no problem using plants they genetically altered in the lab as proof of evolution.

Oh dear. What I was saying was that evolution by natural selection would not produce the majority of the phenotypes of domestic dogs, so in the context of evolution they're only useful as an example of what selection can achieve and a demonstration of the genetics underpinning evolution.

Biologists may use genetically engineered plants as demonstrable examples of the genetic mechanisms underpinning evolution, but that doesn't in itself 'prove' evolution, and they don't claim it does - unless you have some quote from genetic engineers to that effect?

I'm implying you don't know what you want to believe and are wish washy in what you choose to believe.

That's rather a compliment because none of this is a question of belief, it's a question of what appears to be the best explanation for what we observe. I try to avoid the trap of belief, particularly where science is concerned.

So then you agree they are one species and their classification system is incorrect?

No, that doesn't follow at all. You should get your reasoning looked at, it keeps producing non-sequiturs.

You, them, it's all the same.

Now you're just being silly.

Are you saying you disagree with their classifications? If not then you basically agree with a what they say so are saying it.

No. The fact that I have never attempted to classify something has no implications for whether I agree with the consensus classification or not. Again, your reasoning is seriously faulty.

Incidentally, Darwin's finches may interbreed on occasion, but your assertion that, "they are interbreeding to the point where their DNA can't be told apart" is demonstrably false, as this Nature article explains.

However, the focus on Darwin's finches is rather misleading; finches happened to be what caught Darwin's attention, but we now know that thousands of species on the Galapagos, including birds, reptiles, insects, and mammals, show clear evolutionary radiation from mainland ancestor species.

 

[John 1720]

Incidentally, Darwin's finches may interbreed on occasion, but your assertion that, "they are interbreeding to the point where their DNA can't be told apart" is demonstrably false, as this Nature article explains.

However, the focus on Darwin's finches is rather misleading; finches happened to be what caught Darwin's attention, but we now know that thousands of species on the Galapagos, including birds, reptiles, insects, and mammals, show clear evolutionary radiation from mainland ancestor species.

Not sure I understand the term "evolutionary radiation". Can you clear that up for me?
Also beak size would be an example of micro evolution and not macro evolution. I think everyone believes in microevolution. It is macroevolution, a development of a completely new species, that gives most of the theory of evolution dissenters heartburn. I don't agree with Darwin on that either even though there is historical Biblical evidence for macro evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

Not sure I understand the term "evolutionary radiation". Can you clear that up for me?
Also beak size would be an example of micro evolution and not macro evolution. I think everyone believes in microevolution. It is macroevolution, a development of a completely new species, that gives most of the theory of evolution dissenters heartburn. I don't agree with Darwin on that either even though there is historical Biblical evidence for macro evolution.

It has always interested me that speciation poses such a problem for Creationists. Speciation is not a hard boundary to be crossed; it is a quantitative rather than a qualitative change for which nothing is required but the same processes at work in "micro-evolution."

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Not sure I understand the term "evolutionary radiation". Can you clear that up for me?

Organisms diversifying rapidly from their ancestral species when there is a change in environment that makes new resources available or opens new niches.

Also beak size would be an example of micro evolution and not macro evolution. I think everyone believes in microevolution. It is macroevolution, a development of a completely new species, that gives most of the theory of evolution dissenters heartburn

Could you clear up why you have a problem with macroevolution? You seem to acknowledge that small changes happen within a population. Macroevolution is simply these small changes adding up. If you're going to reject "macroevolution" you need to explain the limit of how much a population of species can change and what the mechanism is that stops these changes from adding up.

Evolution takes place in populations not individuals.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not sure I understand the term "evolutionary radiation". Can you clear that up for me?

I don't have much to add to what's already been said, except that it's particularly noticeable on isolated islands, where there can be many unoccupied niches for new arrivals to exploit.

Also beak size would be an example of micro evolution and not macro evolution. I think everyone believes in microevolution. It is macroevolution, a development of a completely new species, that gives most of the theory of evolution dissenters heartburn.

Micro and macro evolution are the same process viewed at different timescales. A lot of small changes add up to a big change.

The popular view seems to be that when those changes aren't sufficient to satisfy the relevant criteria for a new species, it's called microevolution, and when the changes are sufficient to satisfy the relevant criteria for a new species, it's called macroevolution. I don't recall those terms being used in population genetics when I was at uni, it was understood that the definition of species was, in a sense, taxonomic - it allowed the identification and categorization of living things, and for those that used sex, a good rule of thumb is whether those populations can or whether they do interbreed to produce viable offspring. If they can't, the populations will necessarily go their own way, the species decision is easy. If they could but generally don't interbreed, and the populations are significantly different, it's a judgement call whether you call them separate species or sub-species. Genetics can give us the most quantitative measure of relatedness. But even then, the boundaries are not clear, as ring species demonstrate.

 

[SteveB28]

Stop the obfuscation. If you accept so-called "micro-evolution", then you accept evolution....!

If it's accepted that I'm an older man in my 80's, then likewise it must be accepted that, at some time in the distant past, I was a toddler aged 3 or 4. It's nothing more than the time scale upon which we view the changes.

That's it.



.

 

[John 1720]

Stop the obfuscation. If you accept so-called "micro-evolution", then you accept evolution....!

If it's accepted that I'm an older man in my 80's, then likewise it must be accepted that, at some time in the distant past, I was a toddler aged 3 or 4. It's nothing more than the time scale upon which we view the changes.

That's it.
.

Who is this addressed to? Who are you accusing of obfuscating?
Thanks, Pat

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who is this addressed to? Who are you accusing of obfuscating?
Thanks, Pat

His point was that if you accept so called micro-evolution then you accept so called macro-evolution. They are one and the same thing. Creating an artificial difference is obfuscating.

 

[Speedwell]

At least get your theory correct if your going to argue for it.

I love it when Creationists accuse us of not understanding our own theory when we don't buy into their straw-man version of it.