The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

Juvenissum what are you talking about . That makes absolutely no sense

PsychoSarah said:

Plus, I already gave you an example of a hybrid that became it's own species, that all female lizard species. Clearly, hybridization is a means by which new species are generated.

Click to expand...

Your example is not good enough.

Did the hybridization make the new lizard? or does the "new" lizard show a feature which seems to be a product of hybridization?

If it is the latter, then it is not evolutional.

klutedavid said:

People lived in walled enclosures back then, they had fires and lookouts. You cannot compare Africa in the distant past to modern Africa in the last few hundred years.

Click to expand...

Humans build structures that are tailored to the regions around them. For example, a number of 25,000 to 15,000 year old permanent settlements discovered around Northern Sudan, Southern Egypt and Eastern Eritrea don't appear to have included defensive structures like walls or fences.

Walled enclosures are a characteristic of the later history of Africa - about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago - and seem to primarily occur when the thing that humans were protecting themselves from were other humans. Even then, from the little research I've done these sorts of settlements were most prominent in Northern Africa, around the shores of the Mediterranean.

klutedavid said:

Tigers don't leave scent marks because they don't know where their going. Tigers mark their territory to keep other tigers out, my cat marks inside my house. Do you think my cat needs scent marks to navigate?

Click to expand...

-_- house cats have an ability called homing, which is an uncommon ability also seen in dung beetles, tortoises, and seafaring birds. An ability tigers do not have, why would you assume that tiger navigation is precisely the same as that of your housecat? Regardless, a tiger is not going to notice that it has left its territory without smell based cues. They don't mentally keep track of where they are internally, and they aren't instinctively tied to the territory. Plus, do you seriously think your cat EXCLUSIVELY navigates by instinct? Cats don't instinctively know if they can fit in a given space, which is what the whiskers are for. All animals more easily walk the path they have walked before over a new one, including us.

klutedavid said:

Animals in nature have a phenomenal ability to navigate, and navigate enormous distances. My stupid cat could find it's way home, if I dropped it two hundred miles from home.

Click to expand...

Again, homing. Try doing the same with a dog and see how that goes, because most of them can't find their way back. My bearded dragons recognize their territory by smell, so much so that they don't realize I am putting them back in the same tank after I wash them and they cautiously walk around licking every few steps for the rest of the day because they aren't sure of the layout of this "new" place.

Birds most definitely are great navigators, no doubt, and it is crucial to their survival. Those that don't have homing have measurably extraordinary memories, and instinctual travel is contingent upon seasons. The brains of birds are truly fascinating.

klutedavid said:

How do I know that a house cat can navigate those distances, because our cat did that when we moved. It ran away from our new house and we waited a few days, sure enough we found it at the old residence.

Click to expand...

Homing. You need to go beyond housecats as your basis of how great ALL animals are at navigation, because housecats are extreme outliers even when compared to other mammals. A freaking polar bear wouldn't be able to do the same. A group of meerkats defend a territory between 1-3 kilometers; how much navigation do they really have to do when they never stray far enough from their territory to be out of view? Wolves and many other predators move when the prey moves; they don't instinctively know where to go in order to find prey, they actually have to track it, and they feel no drive to leave any area in which prey is plentiful and the environment isn't too hot or cold.

klutedavid said:

The ability to navigate is a genetic trait that cannot be erased, it is never just lost.

Click to expand...

Lol, mutations on genes can always result in a trait being lost. After all, it was those genes that resulted in that trait to begin with, so if those genes experience a mutation that leaves them perpetually turned off, that trait will not be expressed.

You might think that any individual that lost this ability would be doomed to die, but remember, humans are a communal species that can make maps. Plus, I think you vastly underestimate how good people generally are at navigating; flipping vikings were so good at it that they were able to sail to North America repeatedly after finding it once. You personally may not be good at navigating, and I can relate. However, the majority of people are perfectly capable of doing it and only suck at it because they never had to try, and as we get older, our brain actually removes pathways for expanding on certain areas we never bothered to invest in, because saving the energy is more beneficial than leaving us open to easily expanding on a skill we never used much before the age of 20. That's why kids have such an easier time learning second languages than adults do.

As an example of a trait most people have that absolutely can be absent, consider the ability to recognize people by their faces. To most people, human faces are very distinct compared to other animals, but in reality human faces are remarkably similar to the point that the only reason we can recognize people by facial structure is due to a structure in the brain dedicated to distinguishing faces by the minute differences between them. If a mutation results in this structure not developing properly (hereditary congenital prosopagnosia), a person may range from having notable difficultly in recognizing faces, to being so inept at recognizing faces that they can't recognize themselves in a mirror. Obviously, not being able to distinguish people in a communal species is an extreme detriment, and yet, most people with the condition never recognize that they even have this disorder. That is because people compensate for their weaknesses, utilizing other information by which to recognize people, with only the most severe sufferers experiencing enough problems as to make it obvious.

klutedavid said:

For some unknown reason, humans have never been able to navigate by instinct. We walk in circles if we cannot spot something to navigate by.

Click to expand...

We don't have designated nesting areas or times of year, and our early on nomadic nature made it pointless to instinctively be driven to return to places we had already been just 'cause. Only organisms with the homing ability or with designated breeding grounds actually navigate by instinct alone at any point. That homing ability is also very limited and only works with a small number of spots; even if your cat was left at someone else's house for a week, and you kept doing this with different houses, that cat wouldn't be able to find its way back to all of them. Yet, I could without being to any of these places if given the address.

You seem to be acting as if any ape has instinctual navigation. Chimps find fruit trees by memory, not by instinct. BBC - Earth News - Chimps mentally map fruit trees

klutedavid said:

Toddlers can't climb trees nor can women holding a baby, this is such a crazy idea.

Click to expand...

Partly arboreal doesn't mean travelling in trees while young or while carrying objects. More likely using them to get around obstacles.

Also, you've seen a baby chimp latch on to the mother, right? This latching instinct is also present in humans, but our babies are too weak to reliably hang on. Australopithecus didn't necessarily have the same problem.

klutedavid said:

No one runs around in Africa and especially on the open plains, certainly not thousands of years ago.

Click to expand...

There's at least two groups that still do, and they've been doing it for thousands of years Peoples of the African savannah - Eniscuola

klutedavid said:

People lived in walled enclosures back then, they had fires and lookouts. You cannot compare Africa in the distant past to modern Africa in the last few hundred years.
Academics for some reason seem to miss this point.

Click to expand...

Lol, so walled in, aren't they? http://www.krugerpark.co.za/images/san-bushmen-gl-590a.jpg

This way of life is dying out, but there are still people that do live this way, such as the San bushmen depicted in that picture. They definitely have fire, of course. Fire use predates our species, so we've never been without it.

They live their traditional lifestyle with traditional technology and have done so for thousands and thousands of years.

Btw, the human response to a predator killing a member of our group is to team up and hunt down every individual of that species we can find. It's so uncommon for any predators to regularly hunt us historically that we call the individuals that do Man-eaters.

klutedavid said:

Your posts are becoming even more fictional.

You need to support your mistaken comments with evidence.

We are not talking about a jumping technique that could never be used in the wild. Modern high jumpers jump backwards and land on their backs. We are talking about general mankind, not Olympic athletes that train exclusively in one event for years.

Mankind has always walked on the ground, man never lived in trees. The genetic variations in the DNA, the differences between man and chimpanzees runs into the millions. Why do people believe that man lived in the trees, whose idea was that?

Click to expand...

Talking about BROAD jumping, the kind most useful to man in the state of nature.. You don't do it backwards. what kind of a gym coach did you have, anyway?

And no one has claimed that man ever lived in trees.

IIRC female only lizard species was formed of male and female gametes fusing with the male forming region temporarily shut off . This actually a sort of intersex polyploid that looks female . It’s eggs are self fertile . The lizards need to pretend to have sex in order to produce eggs and they take turns. The offspring are clone twins
The aphids, like social bees, are haploid/diploid males and females . The haploids are males. If you remember your high school biology thats the N number and in humans only gametes are N haploid and fertilized eggs are 2N diploids

juvenissun said:

Your example is not good enough.

Did the hybridization make the new lizard? or does the "new" lizard show a feature which seems to be a product of hybridization?

Click to expand...

-_- the genetics of the species show the lineage of two other species very distinctly. Like having a book where the first 30 pages are from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and the last 30 pages are from J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and I have both complete texts to compare it to. It's very noticeable that this 60 page book was made with material from both of these distinctly different works of literature.

juvenissun said:

If it is the latter, then it is not evolutional.

Click to expand...

The feature of being triploid was certainly a result of the hybridization, but the reproduction via parthenogenesis is not present in either parent species.

However, I fail to understand your assertion that implies a hybridization event that results in unique traits as a consequence of, say, mismatching chromosome numbers is somehow not evolution. All changes in gene frequency within a population are evolution, regardless as to how minimal or drastic it is, and this is an extreme case in which 1 generation could have marked the start of a new species with absolute clarity.

PsychoSarah said:

-_- the genetics of the species show the lineage of two other species very distinctly. Like having a book where the first 30 pages are from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and the last 30 pages are from J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, and I have both complete texts to compare it to. It's very noticeable that this 60 page book was made with material from both of these distinctly different works of literature.

Click to expand...

You are brainwashed in the style of thinking. Your example could also indicate:

Shakespeare's book --> Has Shakespeare's pages
Harry Potter book --> Has Harry Potter's pages
The third book --> (of course) Has both types of pages.

Noticed that the arrows are going toward right, not toward left. The third book may NOT be the mixture of the other two.

PsychoSarah said:

The feature of being triploid was certainly a result of the hybridization, but the reproduction via parthenogenesis is not present in either parent species.

However, I fail to understand your assertion that implies a hybridization event that results in unique traits as a consequence of, say, mismatching chromosome numbers is somehow not evolution. All changes in gene frequency within a population are evolution, regardless as to how minimal or drastic it is, and this is an extreme case in which 1 generation could have marked the start of a new species with absolute clarity.

Click to expand...

The same problem.
Adam has Adam's genetic sig.
An ape has its genetic sig.
Even this two sigs are very similar (even implies a time sequence), it does not logically lead to that Adam evolved from ape.

A --> C1
B --> C2
This does not say anything about the relationship between C1 snd C2

juvenissun said:

The same problem.
Adam has Adam's genetic sig.
An ape has its genetic sig.
Even this two sigs are very similar (even implies a time sequence), it does not logically lead to that Adam evolved from ape.

A --> C1
B --> C2
This does not say anything about the relationship between C1 snd C2

Click to expand...

But man did not evolve from any existing modern creature, so I don't see the point of your argument.

Gene2memE said:

Humans build structures that are tailored to the regions around them. For example, a number of 25,000 to 15,000 year old permanent settlements discovered around Northern Sudan, Southern Egypt and Eastern Eritrea don't appear to have included defensive structures like walls or fences.

Walled enclosures are a characteristic of the later history of Africa - about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago - and seem to primarily occur when the thing that humans were protecting themselves from were other humans. Even then, from the little research I've done these sorts of settlements were most prominent in Northern Africa, around the shores of the Mediterranean.

Click to expand...

I need your sources.

The oldest remains that have been found of constructed dwellings are remains of huts that were made of mud and branches around 17,000 BC at the Ohalo site (now underwater) near the edge of the Sea of Galilee. (wikipedia)

Speedwell said:

But man did not evolve from any existing modern creature, so I don't see the point of your argument.

Click to expand...

Man did not evolve from any creature.

klutedavid said:

You don't lose traits like being able to instinctively navigate, it is essential for survival.

All animals navigate and accurately, we don't so we get lost.

Click to expand...

We LOST the trait to catabolise ascorbic acid.

I showed you what you said couldn’t happen had happened.

It would be nice if you had the good grace to acknowledge that.

klutedavid said:

All animals navigate and accurately, we don't so we get lost.

Click to expand...

You’ve never seen turtles drowned because they have got lost in submerged tunnels?

Honestly, your ignorance of the natural world is astounding: humans didn’t lose the trait to catabolise ascorbic acid, animals can’t get lost.

What next: cat’s can see DEATH?

juvenissun said:

Man did not evolve from any creature.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately your opinion conflicts with reality. You might want to change that.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I am seriously now thinking that everything you said about being a teacher is a lie.

Click to expand...

Only just now?

klutedavid said:

I cannot accept that mankind evolved from a monkey, I will never agree.

Click to expand...

Then you have no business on a debate forum on this topic.

You have made up your mind and by your own admission, nothing will every convince you of being wrong - not even if you are indeed wrong.

This means that you have taken up the intellectually dishonest position of accepting unquestionable dogma.

So any "debate" with you on the topic, is an exercise in futily and a waste of time.

klutedavid said:

Man is a useless animal, slow, weak, can't jump, swim, nor defend himself.

Click to expand...

Euh.... how do you think humans survived and hunted during prehistoric times??

Man lacks that natural strength that all animals have. A chimp is three to five times stronger than us. A chimp can live and sleep in a tree, we can't do that. We lack everything that is required to survive in the wild.

Click to expand...

First, we no longer live "in the wild".
Second, we would manage just fine (as a species). Go see some tibes in africa, latin america, etc... they live in jungles surrounded by dangerous predators and nasty insects.
They survive, don't they?

klutedavid said:

No sir, you don't lose what you never had in the first place. Strength is an essential trait in the wild, add to that speed and agility.

Click to expand...

You think the "wild" world is populated with only big, fierce, strong and fast animals like lions, chimps and grizzly bears?