The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Speedwell]

Once again you are taking a black and white view of what evolution is. As stated above there are non-religious people including scientists who disagree with the Neo-Darwinian (Modern Synthesis) interpretation of evolution.

Your line of argument is bogus. People who have issues with modern synthesis are not disputing evolution. They are all part of the same scientific community as those who still support modern synthesis. They are all working on evolution.

No this is your assumption because you stereotype people (Believers) ie all believers must only disagree with evolution because of their religious belief. That discounts all theistic evolutionists, scientists and anyone else who have a religious faith. If all these people were honest they would say the same thing that though they may support evolution they also believe that a creator God was involved. It is funny how many who claim any opposition to evolution is only because of religious belief yet cite theistic evolutionists, the Pope and Catholic Church supporting evolution as evidence for evolution at the same time. That sort of exposes a hypocrisy as well.

That is because they have no dispute with evolutionary biology. That is not evidence of evolution, it is evidence that many Christians have no problem with it. It is creationists, and creationists only who declare that evolution must be false because it disagrees with their interpretation of Genesis. They reject evolution because it interferes with a strongly-held religious belief.

Once again you are basing things on a major fallacy. That any challenge/disagreement with evolution is based on religious belief. I think I have supplied ample scientific support for my position which shows that I also base things on the science.

No, you have not. All you have shown (once again) is that there is academic debate within evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There's plenty and I just gave a couple of examples previously with how mainstream scientists that support the EES disagree with the interpretation of Neo-Darwinism in how it makes natural selection and random mutations the main and often only force in evolution. So they dispute evolution as you see it.

Grossly dishonest misrepresentation.

Biologists who support and / or look into EES, don't oppose evolution as a natural process for the explanation of biological diversity at all.

When I say "dispute evolution", I mean "dispute evolution". As in: denying it took place. As in saying: "no, humans do not share ancestors with the rest of life on this planet".

Once more, in my experience, virtually all opposition to evolution, is religiously motivated.

See it depends on what you mean by evolution as this is such a loose term.

It really isn't. The scientific scope and meaning is pretty clear.
Creationists use it as a loose term, that is certainly true.

Within the scope of biology though, it's not. It's very clear what exactly is meant by it and what the scope of the process is.

Many religious people believe in microevolution and not macro so technically they support evolution.

No. Technically, they argue a strawman by pretending as if these are two different processes, while they really really aren't.

Today there are several different views about evolution, especially with recent discoveries. There is a growing number of people who do not support the traditionalist view ie (Modern Synthesis) and place more importance on other forces that influence change in living things. Considering the EES places emphasis on fundamentally different mechanisms that produce variation and minimize or bypass natural selection it is a new interpretation of evolution.

So there are plenty of people who dispute evolution who are not theistic creationists as you call it.

What you call "dispute" here, is really not accurate.
These people do not dispute the idea of common descent and speciation through natural processes at all.

There are also different versions of theistic evolution

The "theistic" part, is religion. Yes, there are different versions of religious belief.
This has nothing to do with the science of evolutionary biology and everything with theistic attempts to marry scientific discoveries with a priori religious beliefs.

People who don't have such a priori religious beliefs, have no need to invent additional things in an attempt to defend/protect their religious beliefs.

So I think you are being too narrow in your interpretation of what evolution is.

Ow yes, I'm absolutely being narrow. I'm just talking about the science and I limit my understanding of a biological thing to ... you know...biology.

I have no need to make up additional things to protect an a priori belief.

And besides arguing from popularity and numbers is a logical fallacy.

Says the guy who keeps going on about certain amounts of people having certain beliefs / interpretations of a science - motivated by a priori religious beliefs.

Once again you are taking a black and white view of what evolution is.

Not black and white. i'm just sticking to the science when talking about a scientific topic. You should try it sometime....

As stated above there are non-religious people including scientists who disagree with the Neo-Darwinian (Modern Synthesis) interpretation of evolution.

But who don't dispute evolution as a whole. Which is what I asked about.

No this is your assumption because you stereotype Believers ie all believers must only disagree with evolution because of their religious belief.

No. I'm just talking about those folks who have this urge to mix their religious beliefs with scientific discovery and who insist on adding unsupportable things to the science in an attempt to protect / defend their a priori religious beliefs.

That discounts all theistic evolutionists, scientists and anyone else who have a religious faith.

Not at all. We even have examples right here on this forum of theists who have no problem at all with mainstream biology and who don't feel the urge to add stuff to the theory to protect their religious beliefs. Like Speedwell.

There are plenty of famous and even more infamous scientists who do the exact same thing. In fact, most of them do. Francis Collins, Ken Miller,...

If all these people were honest they would say the same thing that though they may support evolution or disagree with it they also believe that a creator God was involved.

And the honest ones among them will have no issue with distinguishing what they believe religiously on the one hand and what the supported science says on the other. And they would also acknolwedge that if their faith say X while science demonstrates Y - then it's not the science that is incorrect.

It is funny how some claim any opposition to evolution is only because of religious belief yet cite theistic evolutionists, the Pope and Catholic Church supporting evolution as evidence for evolution at the same time.

I've never cited "theistic evolutionists" as evidence for evolution.
People believing X, is not evidence that X is accurate.

I might have cited "theistic evolutionists" to demonstrate that it's perfectly possible to be a theist while also accepting mainstream science as-is, without inventing supernatural factors to protect ones religious beliefs.

That sort of exposes a hypocrisy as well.

The only thing it exposes so far is either your inability to properly understand what people mean, or how you are sneakily trying to be dishonest about it. I'm gonna go ahead and assume option 1: that you simply don't understand the point being made when pointing at the Pope or Francis Collins to show that being christian doesn't imply being a creationist.

We could also say that because you see evolution in such black and white terms and stereotype religious people that you can also be motivated by your own biased views on how you see things.

You could say that, but you would not be correct.

Considering that Darwinian evolution is based on some non-verified science and major assumptions

Really? Which "non-verified science" and "major assumptions" would those be?

and that new discoveries are exposing those assumptions

What discoveries and exactly how do they expose which assumptions?

and how some supporters are sticking dogmatically to the traditionalist view

Or evidence based view?

we could also say that they too are only supporting evolution through their preconceived beliefs.

That makes no sense.

 

[stevevw]

epigenesis isn’t really Lamarckian . These abilities to adapt to different environments that can be passed to the next generation are already in the parent genome . It’s like a switch . If A happens then do B and if A doesn’t happen then do C

It seems a contradiction to say that these abilities to adapt to different environments are already in parent genomes when epigentic influence actually stem from the way a creature lives and from the environmental pressures during their own life time. This then becomes an influence for how genes are expressed in future generations.There has to be a point when some of these abilities to adapt were not in the parent to begin with.

Regardless of whether these changes are Lamarckian or not the point is they stem from enviromental influences and lifestyle and not the result of random mutations and not always involving natural selection. As mentioned some plasticity is the result of form change from the enviromental influences of soil makeup, a creatures own ability to control and change environments and the influences of this on the surrounding enviroment and other living things. In fact some the changes to phenotype are not resulting in changes to the genes but are more to do with how cell and tissues respond to environmental pressures/conditions through developmental plasticity. Thee genes cement these changes later.

 

[stevevw]

Your line of argument is bogus. People who have issues with modern synthesis are not disputing evolution.

My point is if the EES is fully recognised and accepted it will change the meaning of what evolution is. Natural selection and random mutations will no longer be the main and only driving force for evolution. They will be relegated to a smaller role and in fact influences like random mutations may be seen as irrelevant causes of variation because mutations are more directed through development processes.

Natural selection will be just a refiner to something that is already selected as being well suited or may be irrelevant as well because most variation and change is already well integrated and suited through the processes the EES supports. In that sense this is a big change to evolution as Darwin seen it and would be equivalent to the change in concept about gravity when Einstein knocked Newton off his perch.

They are all part of the same scientific community as those who still support modern synthesis. They are all working on evolution.

How can that be when the Modern Synthesis and the EES contradict each other in many ways. The EES processes will displace Natural Selection and random mutations from their prominent position in the Modern Theory. This will be replaced by other processes that show more direction in evolution from pre-existing mechanisms that all life is equipped with to handle new environments.

That is because they have no dispute with evolutionary biology. That is not evidence of evolution, it is evidence that many Christians have no problem with it. It is creationists, and creationists only who declare that evolution must be false because it disagrees with their interpretation of Genesis. They reject evolution because it interferes with a strongly-held religious belief.

Yes that is the creationist view which is one extreme and dogmatic. But there are many other views in between including some at the other extreme who dogmatically stick to a traditional view of evolution in which the only force is natural selection and random mutation. All views need to be considered.

For me theistic evolution is a contradiction. They believe that God set in motion evolution so therefore whatever evolution is it is something directed by God. The mechanisms of evolution are more directed and show Gods creative ability than what the world view of evolution states ie "Design without a designer". Remember the worldview of evolution is something that is naturalistic, unguided, blind to what is to future events. Surely if someone believes God was involved then the process of evolution whichever way it works is directed by God to achieve certain end results.

There are also different views about theistic evolution that range from Gods intervention at the beginning only to His continued intervention at certain points. Once again this contradicts the science because of the need for Gods guidance as a designer with more direction in evolution. So in reality, if we really consider those who believe God created all life in one way or another He either set in motion laws and programs that direct how living things change which is contradictory to the scientific worldview of evolution.

Theistic evolution.
Just as different types of evolutionary explanations have evolved, so there are different types of theistic evolution.
Creationists Henry M. Morris and John D. Morris, point out that there are different terms which have been used to describe different positions: "Orthogenesis" (goal-directed evolution), "nomogenesis" (evolution according to fixed law), "emergent evolution", "creative evolution", and others".[5]
Others argue that one should read the creation story in the book of Genesis only metaphorically.[6][7][8]
Others see "evolutionary creation"[9] (EC, also referred to by some observers as "evolutionary creationism") as the belief that God, as Creator, uses evolution to bring about his plan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

So which is it? Are some versions excluded because they include Gods intervention more than others? The point is though people are trying to fit the science in with their beliefs they cannot deny the truth that to fit their faith into the science they will have to acknowledge that there is an underlying guidance to evolution through some sort of programing, code or laws even if they stick with the Darwinian version of evolution.

No, you have not. All you have shown (once again) is that there is academic debate within evolution.

Then are you saying if the processes described in the EES eventually proves correct that this will not diminish the current gene-centric and adaptive view of Neo-Darwinism and show that natural selection and random mutations are not the central forces of evolution?
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.
Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080

 

[stevevw]

Grossly dishonest misrepresentation.

Biologists who support and / or look into EES, don't oppose evolution as a natural process for the explanation of biological diversity at all.

I never said they didn't oppose natural processes and in fact said their position is still about naturalistic processes that generate change and has nothing to do with trying to support any religious view.

When I say "dispute evolution", I mean "dispute evolution". As in: denying it took place. As in saying: "no, humans do not share ancestors with the rest of life on this planet".

OK well that's a different thing. I have no issue with that.

Once more, in my experience, virtually all opposition to evolution, is religiously motivated.

Um now I am unsure what you mean according to the above interpretation of what you say evolution is in that all life share ancestors. I think you have injected a vague definition that doesn't cover all that is evolution. Once again there are some people who support ID and common ancestry. I think the real debate and difference is in the mechanism that actually changes living things ie the core tenet of evolution which is represented with Neo-Darwinism ie evolution is the result of natural selection and random mutations and how the EES challenges that with other mechanisms that are more directed and inbuilt. In this sense, there is a lot of dispute because it is diminishing the basis of Darwin's theory.

It really isn't. The scientific scope and meaning are pretty clear.
Creationists use it as a loose term, that is certainly true.

Within the scope of biology though, it's not. It's very clear what exactly is meant by it and what the scope of the process is.

And what is that process?

No. Technically, they argue a strawman by pretending as if these are two different processes, while they really really aren't.

Still my point is they support a form of evolution which is based on the same fundamental cause of evolution. They just limit its ability so technically they support a form of evolution and that is why peoples views are varied as there will be even more versions of these as I have mentioned such as different views of theistic evolution, different views on the roles of selection and random mutations etc.

What you call "dispute" here, is really not accurate.
These people do not dispute the idea of common descent and speciation through natural processes at all.

Yes, some do because the tree of life is one concept that is being undermined by these new discoveries. As the articles say some of the core tenets of evolution, their predictions are being undermined and shown to be inaccurate. Some of the things being seen in how life works are not fitting into the idea of the Standard theory and are better supported and explained by new conceptions like the EES.

Like I said common descent does not distinguish things enough. Changes in a form that was said to represent speciation and were assigned to natural selection are being found to stem from plasticity or other processes where some do not even involve immediate gene change that diminishes selection and random mutations role. I have already covered this and posted scientific support. Plus the OP also presents another support that speciation does not necessarily represent evolution anyway.

The "theistic" part, is religion. Yes, there are different versions of religious belief.
This has nothing to do with the science of evolutionary biology and everything with theistic attempts to marry scientific discoveries with a priori religious beliefs.

People who don't have such a priori religious beliefs have no need to invent additional things in an attempt to defend/protect their religious beliefs.

I find it hard to get my head around as I do not think the definition is clear and assumes some aspect of Gods supernatural intervention in some way depending on the version of theistic evolution. And as you say those without a prior religious belief do not need to accommodate this which begs the question why even bother with theistic evolution if it supports a worldview of evolution. It's only an add-on for the sake of religious belief.

Oh yes, I'm absolutely being narrow. I'm just talking about the science and I limit my understanding of a biological thing to ... you know...biology.

I have no need to make up additional things to protect an a priori belief.

Either do I and I are also talking about the science, hense my concerted effort to support things scientifically. If I am going to add any additional views about what that represents then I will state that this is my belief. The thing is despite you saying that you are just talking about the science the fact is being human we cannot help but inject our personal beliefs into things. So it is not so much the science but the scientists and person and their beliefs and personal views about evolution that can motivate their position whether that's from a religious or non-religious position. So when I say that there are some who take the position that evolution is not only science but also is a worldview that does away with God and belief. Richard Dawkins comes to mind.

Says the guy who keeps going on about certain amounts of people having certain beliefs/interpretations of a science - motivated by a priori religious beliefs.

But I am not saying they outnumber anyone but rather keep pointing out that some have this position and that it is an ongoing development that is still being debated. Big difference to people who continue to say because most people or all scientists or even religious people believe in evolution so it must be true.

I will leave it there as it is getting too long. Sorry.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never said they didn't oppose natural processes and in fact said their position is still about naturalistic processes that generate change and has nothing to do with trying to support any religious view.

It also has nothing to do with disputing evolution, which was the point of the initial statement that you derailed: that virtually all opposition to evolution is religiously motivated.

OK well that's a different thing. I have no issue with that.

So, you agree that virtually all opposition to evolution is religiously motivated?

Um now I am unsure what you mean according to the above interpretation of what you say evolution is in that all life share ancestors. I think you have injected a vague definition that doesn't cover all that is evolution.

For crying out loud........

Common ancestry of living things through natural processes: descend with modification, natural selection, sexual selection,......


You know....... evolution theory as broadly understoond in the natural sciences.

Once again there are some people who support ID and common ancestry.

And I'm sure they believe the "D" is the God they happen to believe in on faith.
And ID isn't part of the scientific theory.

I think the real debate and difference is in the mechanism that actually changes living things ie the core tenet of evolution which is represented with Neo-Darwinism ie evolution is the result of natural selection and random mutations and how the EES challenges that with other mechanisms that are more directed and inbuilt. In this sense, there is a lot of dispute because it is diminishing the basis of Darwin's theory.

No, it's not.

The core remains: descend with modification followed by selection processes.
Debate about the importance and / or impact of factors and sub-process, does not change that at all.

People like to point at Punctuated Equilibrium as well, like you are doing here, as if it is somehow a thing that is in opposition to "Darwin's Theory". It really, really isn't.
At best, it's an expansion.

And what is that process?

- Reproduce with variation (somehow, change needs to be introduced during reproduction - be it through mutation or otherwise)
- Survive (natural selection - those best equipped to survive, have most chances of doing so. Those that survive, can potentially reproduce. Those best equipped to find a mate and breed, have most chances of doing so)
- Repeat (evolution happens gradually by passing on (modified) genes from one generation to the next).

Still my point is they support a form of evolution which is based on the same fundamental cause of evolution. They just limit its ability so technically they support a form of evolution and that is why peoples views are varied as there will be even more versions of these as I have mentioned such as different views of theistic evolution, different views on the roles of selection and random mutations etc.

Not a single scientific idea ends up in theistic evolution - the point.
Roles of the various factors or sub-processes, specifically how important they are in the great scheme of things, are debated, questioned and scrutinized all the time... that's what scientists do every day.

Like I said common descent does not distinguish things enough. Changes in a form that was said to represent speciation and were assigned to natural selection are being found to stem from plasticity or other processes where some do not even involve immediate gene change that diminishes selection and random mutations role. I have already covered this and posted scientific support.

The problem is that you keep exagerating its impact. None of this challenges the core principles of evolutionary biology. If anything, it expands it.

Scientists will continue to do research and continue to discover and learn new things. And as that plays out, the model of evolution will continue being perfected, expanded,...

None of this, however, can be considered "disputing" the overall model. Neither does any of this point to anything theistic.

Plus the OP also presents another support that speciation does not necessarily represent evolution anyway.

The OP is a collection of intellectually dishonest misrepresentation of science and creationist drivel.

I find it hard to get my head around as I do not think the definition is clear and assumes some aspect of Gods supernatural intervention in some way depending on the version of theistic evolution. And as you say those without a prior religious belief do not need to accommodate this which begs the question why even bother with theistic evolution if it supports a worldview of evolution. It's only an add-on for the sake of religious belief.

Exactly. It's completely meaningless and it doesn't add to the science, the explanation, the knowledge, the model, the evidence, the understanding... at all.

It's like trying to forcefit a "god variable" in an equation like E = mc², turning it into E = mc² + G.

But when you work that out, G ends up being equal to 0.

The thing is despite you saying that you are just talking about the science the fact is being human we cannot help but inject our personal beliefs into things.

That sounds like an accusation at my addrss.
This is the point where you state which "personal beliefs" I am "injecting" into my understanding of biology.

So when I say that there are some who take the position that evolution is not only science but also is a worldview that does away with God and belief. Richard Dawkins comes to mind.

Well, in the case of Dawkins, you are wrong about that as well.
Evolution isn't a worldview - it's a scientific theory explaining a phenomena of reality.
Dawkins says it contradicts the biblical narrative. I agree. It literally does. It also does so figuratively.

First, it contradicts a literal genesis for obvious reasons.
It also contradicts a figurative genesis imo. Because the evolution model as prsently understood, means that if you could press the reset button and turn back time a couple billion years - humans would not end up existing again. We are not the point of the universe. Neither is any other currently extant species. That's what evolution teaches us, among other things.

Yes, I surely agree that it doesn't play nice with the religious idea that we humans are the point of the universe and predestined to exist somehow.

Enter "theistic evolution", where the proponents will then say things like "yes, but god interfered or 'guided' evolutionary paths to make sure humans would exist". A claim that is completely without evidence and only serves to marry reality with religious beliefs.

That's fine though, don't get me wrong. People can believe what they want, and at least this type of belief doesn't require one to deny/ignore demonstrable reality.

But it's just a belief that is religiously motivated.
We don't have any evidence that suggests any intervention or guidance took place at all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Common ancestry of living things through natural processes: descend with modification, natural selection, sexual selection,......


You know....... evolution theory as broadly understoond in the natural sciences.

Problem is, every link to any claimed past ancestry is at every single point only substantiated by common ancestors that are each and every one missing, no matter which tree we discuss.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Problem is, every link to any claimed past ancestry is at every single point only substantiated by common ancestors that are each and every one missing,

Maybe, just maybe, that might be because they have been dead and gone for millions / billions of years?

Not that it matters though... genetics of extant species provides us all the evidential support we need to call common ancestry of species nothing short of a fact.

Just like we can determine that you and your siblings / cousins share a biological ancestor 1 or 2 generations ago, while only having access to the DNA of you and your siblings/cousins/whatever while NOT having any access to said biological ancestor at all.

Off course, the fact that the fossil record, while severely incomplete for obvious reasons (like fossilization being a very rare process, requiring rather specific circumstances), is completely in line with the conclusion from genetic studies, which is also completely in line with other independend lines of evidence like geographic distribution, comparative anatomy, comparative psychology, etc... is just icing on the cake.

no matter which tree we discuss.....

I'm betting you'll prefer discussing either imaginary trees, or misrepresentations of existing trees.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Maybe, just maybe, that might be because they have been dead and gone for millions / billions of years?

That might be a believeable story if you didnt have many before the claimed split, many after, just none of those that were the common ancestor.

Not that it matters though... genetics of extant species provides us all the evidential support we need to call common ancestry of species nothing short of a fact.

What evidence is that, the point where ERV's occur?

Just like we can determine that you and your siblings / cousins share a biological ancestor 1 or 2 generations ago, while only having access to the DNA of you and your siblings/cousins/whatever while NOT having any access to said biological ancestor at all.

And then claiming I am descended from Ghengis Khan with no proof whatsoever he was even in my bloodline....

Off course, the fact that the fossil record, while severely incomplete for obvious reasons (like fossilization being a very rare process, requiring rather specific circumstances), is completely in line with the conclusion from genetic studies, which is also completely in line with other independend lines of evidence like geographic distribution, comparative anatomy, comparative psychology, etc... is just icing on the cake.

Except every fossil remains the same for that type of creature for the oldest one found to the youngest one found. It supports evolution of species not at all...

I'm betting you'll prefer discussing either imaginary trees, or misrepresentations of existing trees.

No, lets discuss that fossil record where every single type of creature remains the same from the oldest to the youngest found for that type of creature. Where you then insert missing common ancestors to link one form to the next, because you cant find any change in each type.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Except every fossil remains the same for that type of creature for the oldest one found to the youngest one found. It supports evolution of species not at all...

Not quite. Nature is gradual, but our categorizations are not. There are tons of fossil "species" which are different enough to be distinguishable from other species discovered, but we can't tell if they actually belong to the same species as that other one or not.

A good example of this is Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis. Paleontologists legitimately are unsure if the latter is just a late generation of the former or if it is a different species.

Another good example is our own species. Early humans and modern humans have distinct differences in traits, such as bone density and brain size. You can't attribute all of the difference to crossing with Neanderthals or Denisovans because the entire modern human population doesn't have genes from both or one of those and they didn't have most of the traits that are different between modern humans and early humans.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not quite. Nature is gradual, but our categorizations are not. There are tons of fossil "species" which are different enough to be distinguishable from other species discovered, but we can't tell if they actually belong to the same species as that other one or not.

You mean like dogs, that if you only had bones they would incorrectly classify as separate species?

They got finches mating right in front of their eyes and still apparently cant tell, even if the DNA evidence says their classifications are all wrong......

A good example of this is Homo heidelbergensis and Homo rhodesiensis. Paleontologists legitimately are unsure if the latter is just a late generation of the former or if it is a different species.

Nothing more than a subsecies of man.

Another good example is our own species. Early humans and modern humans have distinct differences in traits, such as bone density and brain size. You can't attribute all of the difference to crossing with Neanderthals or Denisovans because the entire modern human population doesn't have genes from both or one of those and they didn't have most of the traits that are different between modern humans and early humans.

Like a Poodle has different traits than a wolf????

Like finches having different beak sizes?

I see no difficulty.

They once claimed the DNA proved neanderthall man had no relationship to humans either.... 20 years later that fell through. They make lots of claims based upon scant evidence Sarah. Evidence which fails time after time over the years.Right now they are claiming finches are separate species, despite what the DNA data says. So DNA doesnt matter to their beliefs.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You mean like dogs, that if you only had bones they would incorrectly classify as separate species?

A problem that only gets that extensive with artificial selection, not natural selection. You have yet to demonstrate that variation to that extent exists without human intervention.

-_- you also have yet to demonstrate that a female chihuahua and a male Great Dane can successfully reproduce. I am not going to budge from my position that dogs aren't all actually the same species until you can demonstrate that cross.

They got finches mating right in front of their eyes and still apparently cant tell, even if the DNA evidence says their classifications are all wrong......

Our classifications don't accommodate grey areas. That is, for a population to be considered a species, all members must be capable of reproducing with each other. So if species B can mate with A and C, but A and C cannot mate with each other, all 3 end up being labeled as separate species.

Nothing more than a subsecies of man.

-_- you are claiming this to be the same species as ourselves

Furthermore, thanks to DNA evidence, we know that a species much closer to ourselves in appearance isn't the same species, so I'd like you to try to justify your assertion

That is, we know this second skull doesn't belong to the same species as ourselves, so tell me, how could the first one possibly be?

Gosh, image links just are not working today, but you'll see it when you reply.

Like a Poodle has different traits than a wolf????

Like finches having different beak sizes?

I see no difficulty.

-_- explain how any modern humans could end up with lower bone density than ancient Homo sapiens populations by crossing those ancient Homo sapiens with species that had even denser bones. Explain how the entire modern population would end up with that trait, yet not every member of the modern population even has Neanderthals and/or Denisovans in their ancestry.

They once claimed the DNA proved man had no relationship to humans either.... 20 years later that fell through. They make lots of claims based upon scant evidence Sarah. Evidence which fails time after time over the years.

-_- citation for people claiming humans had no relationship with humans... or are you thinking of the Neanderthals? The reason for that was because initial comparisons were with mitochondrial DNA only, and it is quite true that not a single human on this planet shares any mitochondrial DNA with Neanderthals. Only after the comparison with nuclear DNA was completed did we see the sometimes shared sequences, since it is a very small portion of the DNA in anyone that inherited them.

They still aren't our ancestors or the same species as us. After all, the lack of mitochondrial DNA means that either females of the cross were infertile, or male Homo sapiens couldn't impregnate female Neanderthals at all.

 

[stevevw]

Not black and white. i'm just sticking to the science when talking about a scientific topic. You should try it sometime....

I do, how is my posting about the EES not based on science. I think out of all the posts I have been the only one who backs what I have said with scientific support. If anything it is the other way around where others are making statements from their own views without any support.

But who don't dispute evolution as a whole. Which is what I asked about.

If you base evolution on what you have said earlier then this makes things very vague. Making the argument for whether some are disputing evolution as a whole or not is a logical fallacy as an either and or argument. Disputing something does not begin with disputing the entire thing but important aspects of it which can eventually bring the whole idea into dispute.

What the EES does is challegne the main tenets of the Standard theory, the mechanisms for change. Neo-Darwinism relies heavily on gene change and adpative evolution through random mutations and natural slection and if these are undermined then it is like undermining Jesus as a central figure for Christainity.

No. I'm just talking about those folks who have this urge to mix their religious beliefs with scientific discovery and who insist on adding unsupportable things to the science in an attempt to protect/defend their a priori religious beliefs.

Well, thats the beauty of theistic evolution and those whose faith can stand dispite the science. I think if one allows the science to pan out then they should not be afraid of it undermining their belief.

Not at all. We even have examples right here on this forum of theists who have no problem at all with mainstream biology and who don't feel the urge to add stuff to the theory to protect their religious beliefs. Like Speedwell.

Yes but that is only one version. Are the others discounted because they have varying positions. Who decides which. That is my problem in that it is not very clear. They all will support evolution but just have varying degrees of Gods intervention.

For those who do not add anything, I would like to know if they believe that God just started a blind and random pprocess or they believe that there is some underlying guidence there that God had meant to install which directs things so that life finds it earier to adapt to planet earth.

There are plenty of famous and even more infamous scientists who do the exact same thing. In fact, most of them do. Francis Collins, Ken Miller,...

Francis Collins is a good example. His view is that God planned creation through evolution. God planning it means it is something with a method so there should be certain codes, programs and laws that achieve this. As he says
The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

And the honest ones among them will have no issue with distinguishing what they believe religiously on the one hand and what the supported science says on the other. And they would also acknolwedge that if their faith says X while science demonstrates Y - then it's not the science that is incorrect.

Thats correct the science is the science and it should be left to do its work so long as it is verified by the principles of science. Unfortuanely it is not always that simple as some views are motivated by preconcieved ideas both religiously and materialistically. Sometimes it is the person and especially a scientist who can have an influence on peoples views who promote their own views and this can be taken as being the truth.

Science formulates hypothesis and theories but they are not the ultimate truth as to how things happen. People add their own beliefs to this and this and it can be misleading. Ie a large percentage of scientific papers were said to be the result of poor work or misrepresentation. Much of the evidence for evolution can be viewed in more than one way. IE common descent can be viewed as the result of natural selection or of design by God.

The only thing it exposes so far is either your inability to properly understand what people mean or how you are sneakily trying to be dishonest about it. I'm gonna go ahead and assume option 1: that you simply don't understand the point being made when pointing at the Pope or Francis Collins to show that being christian doesn't imply being a creationist.

Fair enough, it is just my intention to understand things as I find it very confusing.

Really? Which "non-verified science" and "major assumptions" would those be?

What discoveries and exactly how do they expose which assumptions?

There's plenty and perhaps because you do not see this may be an indication of how a person's preconcieved ideas/views can distort the way they see things just as it is said about religious people and their beliefs. For one there is much misinterpretation about the variations in living things being support for transitions in evolution. The underlying assumption is that all variation is becuase of natural selection.

The problem with this view is that it is being exposed as not accounting for many anomelies being found like similar features in unrelated species, a wide variation in the same species that goes beyond the variation of different species. Plus the evidence from other processes which produce variation that is not associated with random mutations and selection that is not being taken into consideration because of those assumptions.

Or evidence based view?

The EES and other reseach are challenging that evidence now becuase of ongoing and new discoveries. Like any scientific hypothesis or theory, it can be challenged with new info and even overhauled or disregarded.

That makes no sense.

Why if a scientist already assume that all variation is the result of natural selection then that is how they will view all variations. If they allow other interpetations to come into it then they will be open to it being possibly the result of other processes. That is human nature. The science is one thing but the person is subject to these human influence despite them professing that the science itself is unbiased.

 

[Speedwell]

My point is if the EES is fully recognised and accepted it will change the meaning of what evolution is. Natural selection and random mutations will no longer be the main and only driving force for evolution. They will be relegated to a smaller role and in fact influences like random mutations may be seen as irrelevant causes of variation because mutations are more directed through development processes.

I doubt it, but so what?

Natural selection will be just a refiner to something that is already selected as being well suited or may be irrelevant as well because most variation and change is already well integrated and suited through the processes the EES supports. In that sense this is a big change to evolution as Darwin seen it and would be equivalent to the change in concept about gravity when Einstein knocked Newton off his perch.

I doubt it, but so what?

How can that be when the Modern Synthesis and the EES contradict each other in many ways. The EES processes will displace Natural Selection and random mutations from their prominent position in the Modern Theory. This will be replaced by other processes that show more direction in evolution from pre-existing mechanisms that all life is equipped with to handle new environments.
Yes that is the creationist view which is one extreme and dogmatic. But there are many other views in between including some at the other extreme who dogmatically stick to a traditional view of evolution in which the only force is natural selection and random mutation. All views need to be considered.

They are being considered. That is why there is debate within evolution about them.

For me theistic evolution is a contradiction. They believe that God set in motion evolution so therefore whatever evolution is it is something directed by God. The mechanisms of evolution are more directed and show Gods creative ability than what the world view of evolution states ie "Design without a designer". Remember the worldview of evolution is something that is naturalistic, unguided, blind to what is to future events. Surely if someone believes God was involved then the process of evolution whichever way it works is directed by God to achieve certain end results.

What "end results" are those?

There are also different views about theistic evolution that range from Gods intervention at the beginning only to His continued intervention at certain points. Once again this contradicts the science because of the need for Gods guidance as a designer with more direction in evolution. So in reality, if we really consider those who believe God created all life in one way or another He either set in motion laws and programs that direct how living things change which is contradictory to the scientific worldview of evolution.

Theistic evolution.
Just as different types of evolutionary explanations have evolved, so there are different types of theistic evolution.
Creationists Henry M. Morris and John D. Morris, point out that there are different terms which have been used to describe different positions: "Orthogenesis" (goal-directed evolution), "nomogenesis" (evolution according to fixed law), "emergent evolution", "creative evolution", and others".[5]
Others argue that one should read the creation story in the book of Genesis only metaphorically.[6][7][8]
Others see "evolutionary creation"[9] (EC, also referred to by some observers as "evolutionary creationism") as the belief that God, as Creator, uses evolution to bring about his plan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

I would not rely on Morris for a description of the beliefs of those who he regards as evil apostates. In fact I would not rely on Morris for anything at all. If he said grass was green and the sky was blue I would look out the window and check before I agreed with him.

So which is it? Are some versions excluded because they include Gods intervention more than others? The point is though people are trying to fit the science in with their beliefs they cannot deny the truth that to fit their faith into the science they will have to acknowledge that there is an underlying guidance to evolution through some sort of programing, code or laws even if they stick with the Darwinian version of evolution.

The "Darwinian" version of evolution has been obsolete for a hundred years.

Then are you saying if the processes described in the EES eventually proves correct that this will not diminish the current gene-centric and adaptive view of Neo-Darwinism and show that natural selection and random mutations are not the central forces of evolution?

No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that I don't care. Whatever the resolution of the current debate within evolutionary biology, evolution will still be a naturalistic process resulting in the diversity of life we see around us.

 

[Brightmoon]

It seems a contradiction to say that these abilities to adapt to different environments are already in parent genomes when epigentic influence actually stem from the way a creature lives and from the environmental pressures during their own life time. This then becomes an influence for how genes are expressed in future generations.There has to be a point when some of these abilities to adapt were not in the parent to begin with.

Regardless of whether these changes are Lamarckian or not the point is they stem from enviromental influences and lifestyle and not the result of random mutations and not always involving natural selection. As mentioned some plasticity is the result of form change from the enviromental influences of soil makeup, a creatures own ability to control and change environments and the influences of this on the surrounding enviroment and other living things. In fact some the changes to phenotype are not resulting in changes to the genes but are more to do with how cell and tissues respond to environmental pressures/conditions through developmental plasticity. Thee genes cement these changes later.

this isn’t how it works . The methylation blocks a gene from expressing itself and that blocked gene can SOMETIMES be passed to offspring . However the gene is there and it’s not damaged just prevented from working . Methylation can sometimes be removed when chromosomes become haploid gametes in the following generation. This process adds more flexibility to what environmental conditions an organism and it’s immediate descendants can withstand and still be healthy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A problem that only gets that extensive with artificial selection, not natural selection. You have yet to demonstrate that variation to that extent exists without human intervention.

There is no difference between man bringing a Husky and mastiff together to mate, than natural causes like famine, geological changes, etc, except for time......

Why would I expect to show you the same variation when if left alone dogs would only have a few variations themselves? What you see in dogs is simply nature sped up a billion fold.

Or can you not honestly admit to yourself that there would be no difference between a Mastiff mating with a Husky brought together by man or if left to natural occurrances like famine causing relocation except time itself?

-_- you also have yet to demonstrate that a female chihuahua and a male Great Dane can successfully reproduce. I am not going to budge from my position that dogs aren't all actually the same species until you can demonstrate that cross.

We have had this discussion. You know they come from the same lineage. You may call them subspecies if you like.

Our classifications don't accommodate grey areas. That is, for a population to be considered a species, all members must be capable of reproducing with each other. So if species B can mate with A and C, but A and C cannot mate with each other, all 3 end up being labeled as separate species.

And finches who's DNA is so mixed they cant even distinguish one species from another genetically? No grey areas indeed. Watching them breed right in front of their eyes. Please, the PR is getting really old.....

-_- you are claiming this to be the same species as ourselves

Furthermore, thanks to DNA evidence, we know that a species much closer to ourselves in appearance isn't the same species, so I'd like you to try to justify your assertion

That is, we know this second skull doesn't belong to the same species as ourselves, so tell me, how could the first one possibly be?

Gosh, image links just are not working today, but you'll see it when you reply.

When they decide to reclassify finches as the same species, I'll believe they are serious whenh it comes to what the DNA says.

-_- explain how any modern humans could end up with lower bone density than ancient Homo sapiens populations by crossing those ancient Homo sapiens with species that had even denser bones. Explain how the entire modern population would end up with that trait, yet not every member of the modern population even has Neanderthals and/or Denisovans in their ancestry.

its called breeding the same type over and over with those of similar type. Its how we got Asian features and African. Not by magical evolution, but by those with the same features selectively breeding with those of similar features. Just as those with less dense bone and therefore different body features, selectively bred with those with similar features. It's how dogs end up with less dense bone than other dogs with denser bones. Its an abnormality from inbreeding, not an advancement in evolution.....

-_- citation for people claiming humans had no relationship with humans... or are you thinking of the Neanderthals? The reason for that was because initial comparisons were with mitochondrial DNA only, and it is quite true that not a single human on this planet shares any mitochondrial DNA with Neanderthals. Only after the comparison with nuclear DNA was completed did we see the sometimes shared sequences, since it is a very small portion of the DNA in anyone that inherited them.

They still aren't our ancestors or the same species as us. After all, the lack of mitochondrial DNA means that either females of the cross were infertile, or male Homo sapiens couldn't impregnate female Neanderthals at all.

Thats what they said about mules and horses until a mule gave birth.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

That might be a believeable story if you didnt have many before the claimed split, many after, just none of those that were the common ancestor.

Are your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great parents still alive?

To get to the species you want to observe, you can add another couple hundred "greats" in there.

Also, it's not needed. As said, all we need to determine common ancestry, are dna samples from extant species.

All fossils could disappear overnight and evolution theory would be as solid as ever on the genetic evidence alone.

What evidence is that, the point where ERV's occur?

Shared ERV's are but one of the many, many, MANY ways we can determine common ancestry.

And then claiming I am descended from Ghengis Khan with no proof whatsoever he was even in my bloodline....

Either you are trolling, or you didn't understand a word I said. I'm going with the latter.
Nobody is claiming that we can know wich specific individual the common ancestor was.
I specifically stated that we can determine, based on DNA of YOU AND YOUR SIBLINGS/COUSINS alone that you share a BIOLOGICAL ANCESTOR.

I didn't mention names nore did I claim that these DNA samples can magically tell us who exactly the common ancestor was. In fact, I specifically said "while NOT having any access to said biological ancestor at all". That means that this ancestor can't be identified from the available evidence. Only that we can determine that this common ancestor existed.

In terms of ancestral species, we can make educated guesses concerning what it looked like, what traits it would have likely have etc.

And in fact, scientists have done exactly that in the past: predict what features a certain ancestor would have had AND where it most likely lived. If that likely location and timeframe concerns circumstances in which fossilization might occur, we can actually go there and start digging. And lo and behold, doing this, fossils have been found by prediction, holding the exact features and traits they were expected to have.

Like Tiktaalik and a whale ancestor with nostrils "on their way" from the front of the face to the top of the skull.


You may resume your denial mode now. Perhaps another red herring or something?
Come on, earn those combo points. Plenty of achievements remain unlocked.

Except every fossil remains the same for that type of creature for the oldest one found to the youngest one found. It supports evolution of species not at all...

No, lets discuss that fossil record where every single type of creature remains the same from the oldest to the youngest found for that type of creature. Where you then insert missing common ancestors to link one form to the next, because you cant find any change in each type.

See above for some google images that pop-up in the first 20 results upon searching for "fossils evolution"

No further comment.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great parents still alive?

Nope, but i'm not the one claiming my great, great ad infintium grandparents were monkeys, back to fish, back to slime. You are..... It's you that when it comes time to switch species, need to add missing ancestors...

To get to the species you want to observe, you can add another couple hundred "greats" in there.

Why, youve never observed anything evolve, why postulate its existence where it can never be tested except to prevent falsification?

Also, it's not needed. As said, all we need to determine common ancestry, are dna samples from extant species.

Tell that to those that classify finches as separate species....

Rather than finding evidence for Darwin’s “slight, successive [genetic] changes” between the finches, the team discovered gene sharing – not sequential genetic evolutionary changes.

“Extensive sharing of genetic variation among populations was evident, particularly among ground and tree finches, with almost no fixed differences between species in each group.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14181

Your DNA says they are the same species, yet they refuse to call them the same species.....

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/9/5101.full

"The traditional classification of ground finches into six species and tree finches into five species is not reflected in the molecular data.”

So don't give me that PR spiel about what the DNA says when you wont even follow what it says.....

All fossils could disappear overnight and evolution theory would be as solid as ever on the genetic evidence alone.

Yah if we ignore finches....

Shared ERV's are but one of the many, many, MANY ways we can determine common ancestry.

i know, that's why its wrong. ERV's bring DNA from other species. You mistake the point of insertion as shared ancestry.

http://www.jbc.org/content/276/17/14271.long

"In various natural and experimental scenarios, mammalian genomes become the targets for foreign DNA insertions. Many DNA- and RNA-containing viruses are capable of integrating their genomes into the genomes of their host cells."

Either you are trolling, or you didn't understand a word I said. I'm going with the latter.
Nobody is claiming that we can know wich specific individual the common ancestor was.
I specifically stated that we can determine, based on DNA of YOU AND YOUR SIBLINGS/COUSINS alone that you share a BIOLOGICAL ANCESTOR.

I'm claiming you can't say that any are....

I didn't mention names nore did I claim that these DNA samples can magically tell us who exactly the common ancestor was. In fact, I specifically said "while NOT having any access to said biological ancestor at all". That means that this ancestor can't be identified from the available evidence. Only that we can determine that this common ancestor existed.

Based on your interpretation of inserted foriegn genomes by viruses. If you say so.

In terms of ancestral species, we can make educated guesses concerning what it looked like, what traits it would have likely have etc.

Yah right, If all you had were pugs and poodles, and had never seen a wolf, the DNA would never tell you what the wolf looked like. Don't you people ever get tired of PR hype?

And in fact, scientists have done exactly that in the past: predict what features a certain ancestor would have had AND where it most likely lived. If that likely location and timeframe concerns circumstances in which fossilization might occur, we can actually go there and start digging. And lo and behold, doing this, fossils have been found by prediction, holding the exact features and traits they were expected to have.

Like Tiktaalik and a whale ancestor with nostrils "on their way" from the front of the face to the top of the skull.

You mean the one whose skuuls are missing conveniently both the portion where nostrils would have been or a blowhole would have been? Convenient that....

You may resume your denial mode now. Perhaps another red herring or something?
Come on, earn those combo points. Plenty of achievements remain unlocked.



View attachment 232680

View attachment 232681

View attachment 232682

View attachment 232683




See above for some google images that pop-up in the first 20 results upon searching for "fossils evolution"

No further comment.

Yah I've seen your attempt at calling subspecies separate species, and then using those missing common ancestors to link together the ones you cant fit......

No more variation in most of those than we see in dogs....

You seem to forget I firmly believe in variation, Just not your claim one species becomes another......

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nope, but i'm not the one claiming my great, great ad infintium grandparents were monkeys, back to fish, back to slime. You are..... It's you that when it comes time to switch species, need to add missing ancestors...

Are you claiming that your great, great, great.... grandmother didn't exist?
You're moving the goalpost of the point that was being made.
Again, it's not surprising.

Why, youve never observed anything evolve

Bzzzzt.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

, why postulate its existence where it can never be tested except to prevent falsification?

It's like you are not reading what you are replying to.......
It's existance is demonstrated by extant DNA.
It can easily be falsified, if it is wrong.

For example: find me a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.
Go ahead. Try.

Tell that to those that classify finches as separate species....

Rather than finding evidence for Darwin’s “slight, successive [genetic] changes” between the finches, the team discovered gene sharing – not sequential genetic evolutionary changes.

“Extensive sharing of genetic variation among populations was evident, particularly among ground and tree finches, with almost no fixed differences between species in each group.”

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14181

Your DNA says they are the same species, yet they refuse to call them the same species.....

http://www.pnas.org/content/96/9/5101.full

"The traditional classification of ground finches into six species and tree finches into five species is not reflected in the molecular data.”

So don't give me that PR spiel about what the DNA says when you wont even follow what it says.....

This literally has NOTHING to do with the point that was being made. Once again.

Yah if we ignore finches....

Finches do not disprove evolution.
No species does, in fact.

i know, that's why its wrong.

LOL!
So, because we have many independend lines of evidence...that's why it's wrong?
You crack me up.

ERV's bring DNA from other species. You mistake the point of insertion as shared ancestry.

LOL!

That erv's are inherited from the ancestor that had the initial insertion/infect, is a fact.

http://www.jbc.org/content/276/17/14271.long

"In various natural and experimental scenarios, mammalian genomes become the targets for foreign DNA insertions. Many DNA- and RNA-containing viruses are capable of integrating their genomes into the genomes of their host cells."

Funny how the link doesn't even mention ERV's, nore how the authors draw the conclusion that you are drawing.

Don't even pretend as if you understand what that paper is talking about please. Because you clearly don't.

I'm claiming you can't say that any are....

LOL!!!!

So you think DNA paternity tests are not real?
You are absolutely hilarious.

Based on your interpretation of inserted foriegn genomes by viruses. If you say so.

Entire "foreign genomes" ha? LOL!!!!

Perhaps you should read up a bit, it will prevent you from making a further fool of yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

Yah right, If all you had were pugs and poodles, and had never seen a wolf, the DNA would never tell you what the wolf looked like. Don't you people ever get tired of PR hype?

Don't you ever get tired of bearing false witness, lying, getting it wrong almost on purpose and talking nonsense about breeds, that are even created BY US through artificial selection and of which most wouldn't even survive in the wild, while we are talking about SPECIES?

You mean the one whose skuuls are missing conveniently both the portion where nostrils would have been or a blowhole would have been? Convenient that....

No.
I mean actual fossils showing the exact predicted features it should, found in the locations where it should be, in the geological layer where it should be.

No, I don't mean whatever lies are being told on creationist propaganda sites.

Yah I've seen your attempt at calling subspecies separate species, and then using those missing common ancestors to link together the ones you cant fit......

No more variation in most of those than we see in dogs....

View attachment 232693

View attachment 232694

These are all skulls from extant animals. You're being dishonest again.

Your claim was that we don't see a progression in the fossil record from old to young. This is false, as the fossils I posted prove.

Denial mode in 3...2...1....

You seem to forget I firmly believe in variation, Just not your claim one species becomes another......

Speciation is an observed fact.
Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

Plenty of independend lines of evidence, not even all from biology, testify to that fact.

But I get it...

If reality disagrees with your fundamentalist interpretation of your bible, then you have to "defend the faith" and either declare that reality is wrong or simply deny that reality is the way it is.

That's your problem though.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Are you claiming that your great, great, great.... grandmother didn't exist?
You're moving the goalpost of the point that was being made.
Again, it's not surprising.

Nope, but she was sure human....

Bzzzzt.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Yes, they have a tendency to calssify subspecies as separate species. I already know this.

It's funny how you point to a source which uses the biological definition of species, then ignore it when it comes to finches below....

It's like you are not reading what you are replying to.......
It's existance is demonstrated by extant DNA.
It can easily be falsified, if it is wrong.

For example: find me a non-primate that shares more ERV's with humans then primates.
Go ahead. Try.

Viruses attack the same type of cells, so why would a non-primate share more viral insertion points with a primate than another primate?

But are you sure you don't want to discuss mice, which have more in common with man without those ERV's?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-2-5-of-dna-turns-mice-into-men/

This literally has NOTHING to do with the point that was being made. Once again.

It just proves your selective classification system. You got DNA data that shows every single finch is related and shows no species defining differences. Yet when it comes time and are called out on it, suddenly it makes no difference, because you just don't want to admit those finches are not separate species.

It's ok, I would ignore it too if i was you, that's your only option besides admitting their classifications are incorrect. And we know you would never do that. So if they cant tell the truth about finches, I cant trust them or you on anything...

Finches do not disprove evolution.
No species does, in fact.

No, they just show how arbitrary is your classification system and how you cant admit to anything being classified incorrectly. Which makes you an untrustworthy source.....

So, because we have many independend lines of evidence...that's why it's wrong?
You crack me up.

You crack me up since none of those independent sources support each other.

That erv's are inherited from the ancestor that had the initial insertion/infect, is a fact.

Agreed. The ERV which infected the human and passed chimp DNA was after infection passed vertically. The ERV which infected the chimp and passed human DNA was after infection passed vertically. But neither show any relation before the point of infection. You simply mistake infection as meaning shared ancestry.

Funny how the link doesn't even mention ERV's, nore how the authors draw the conclusion that you are drawing.

Just what do you think ERV's are? Hint, they are virus.

Don't even pretend as if you understand what that paper is talking about please. Because you clearly don't.

More than you do. I understand virus commonly carry foreign DNA from one host to another. The fact that they target similar cells is why in fact we can use them for specific genome alterations.

So you think DNA paternity tests are not real?
You are absolutely hilarious.

Oh I think they are quite real. I'll tell you what. I'll send a sample of my DNA to you, you tell me what my Great, Great, Great, great, Great grandfather looked like from it and we'll see how correct you are. I'll give you 1,000 to one odds they cant even get close......

Entire "foreign genomes" ha? LOL!!!!

Perhaps you should read up a bit, it will prevent you from making a further fool of yourself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus

What on the part you ignore?

"When integration of viral DNA occurs in the germ-line, it can give rise to an ERV, which can later become fixed in the gene pool of the host population."

I agree that's exactly what happened with both human and apes. Its you that confuses the later fixation after insertion being passed vertically in each species as meaning shared ancestry.

Don't you ever get tired of bearing false witness, lying, getting it wrong almost on purpose and talking nonsense about breeds, that are even created BY US through artificial selection and of which most wouldn't even survive in the wild, while we are talking about SPECIES?

That's just it. In most of the instances you claim separate species we are talking merely subspecies. But go ahead, tell us some more lies about being able to tell what a past form may have appeared like from extant DNA. I'll repeat, had you never seen a wolf, you would never know what one looked like from the DNA of a poodle or pug.
You all would call dogs separate species if all you had were bones and had never seen them in real life.

And your name calling just shows you know your on shaky ground and afraid, so you resort to such tactics.

No.
I mean actual fossils showing the exact predicted features it should, found in the locations where it should be, in the geological layer where it should be.

No, I don't mean whatever lies are being told on creationist propaganda sites.

Really, just the lies being told on evolutionists propaganda sites?

The discoverer himself admits it.

https://opentheword.org/2015/05/10/a-whale-of-a-story-and-we-are-not-talking-about-jonah/

Like I said, missing the parts that would confirm or falsify your claims. How conveinent. But you got no problems making partial flippers until you found they didnt have them at all, or making blowholes where none of the skeleton existed. Such artistic talent they have..

Talk about lying and hiding the truth from people just to support your ends.

These are all skulls from extant animals. You're being dishonest again.

Which just goes to show if the same species can have such remarkable variation.......

Your claim was that we don't see a progression in the fossil record from old to young. This is false, as the fossils I posted prove.

No, it just proves you mistake subspecies as separate species. We both agree that just like in dogs, the successive generations may appear different, but they remain the same species.

Denial mode in 3...2...1....

Which is exactly what you are in. You see real examples of extant creatures of the same species that vary greatly in appearance, then call something in the past a separate species because it exhibits that same variance, some to an even lesser degree...... Denial mode indeed.

Speciation is an observed fact.

Yah when you call finches that have no genetic differences separate species anyways. I guess youll tell yourself whatever bedtime stories you need to so you can ignore the DNA data and still call them separate species.....

Which us sad really, it just means people cant be trusted to tell the truth on such a little thing like the classification of some birds. If you cant be trusted with the little things, you certainly cant be trusted with the larger issues....