What about the DNA evidence?

[Justatruthseeker]

Except for the fact that since their offspring have very limited fertility so they are clearly of different species. The Wiki articles that you quoted even point that out. Too bad you never read past the introduction.

Poor Justa, he cannot even get the simplest of facts straight.

Limited does not matter, the fact they they can produce fertile offspring is all that matters. It clearly shows they are one species, you just won't admit it, nor will evolutionists, because that would take away your name game and scientists could no longer get their names in the books for discovering a species already discovered.

Poor subduction, always making excuses for ignoring the facts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I believe micro evolution can happen outside of species level, but not past the genus level, your illustrations prove that perfectly. None of the above was "out of genus" while still breeding and not sterile.

good post.

I don't consider it evolution in any sense, merely variation of the species. variation that always stays within the bounds of the species.

House cat mates with Ocelot - showing they are one species. Ocelot mates with Jaguar - showing house cat, Ocelot and Jaguar are one species. Jaguar mates with Panther - showing house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar and Panther are one species. Panther mates with Lion - showing house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar, Panther and Lion are one species. Lion mates with Tiger - showing house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar, Panther, Lion and Tiger are one species.

The interbreeding chain is clear, without dispute. They are not different species, they are different breeds (or variations) within the same species.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't consider it evolution in any sense, merely variation of the species. variation that always stays within the bounds of the species.

House cat mates with Ocelot - showing they are one species. Ocelot mates with Jaguar - showing house cat, Ocelot and Jaguar are one species. Jaguar mates with Panther - showing house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar and Panther are one species. Panther mates with Lion - showing house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar, Panther and Lion are one species. Lion mates with Tiger - showing house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar, Panther, Lion and Tiger are one species.

The interbreeding chain is clear, without dispute. They are not different species, they are different breeds (or variations) within the same species.

there are lots of examples of interspecies breeding, I don't contest that. I just look at it as micro evolution because they are not breeding above the species level, which is the definitino of macroevolution (or common ancestry).

leapords and tigers are a different species yet can interbreed. Horses and donkeys, etc etc.

they are the same genus however and this is my definition of the Biblical "kind" as being a genus level taxonomy.

 

[USincognito]

your lower picture is a perfect example of how dissimilar a dog like creature and a whale are.

That's to be expected because whales didn't evolve from dog-like beings.

 

[USincognito]

House cat mates with Ocelot - showing they are one species. Ocelot mates with Jaguar - showing house cat, Ocelot and Jaguar are one species. Jaguar mates with Panther - showing house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar and Panther are one species. Panther mates with Lion - showing house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar, Panther and Lion are one species. Lion mates with Tiger - showing house cat, Ocelot, Jaguar, Panther, Lion and Tiger are one species.

You have posted this before and it was shown to be a lie. Why do you continue to repost it?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

there are lots of examples of interspecies breeding, I don't contest that. I just look at it as micro evolution because they are not breeding above the species level, which is the definitino of macroevolution (or common ancestry).

leapords and tigers are a different species yet can interbreed. Horses and donkeys, etc etc.

they are the same genus however and this is my definition of the Biblical "kind" as being a genus level taxonomy.

They are not separate species, they are simply incorrectly classified as separate species. All felines are of the same species, simply variations of that same species. Scientists like to play the name game so they can get their names in the books for discovering new species. You can't get your name in the books for discovering a Tiger if it is classified the same species as a Lion. Just as all dogs are the same species, merely variations thereof.

Just as bacteria are not several species, but merely variations of the same species.

This is why the Genus is always capitalized, while the species name is never capitalized. because in reality genus and species is the exact same thing.

Science has a species problem because they can't settle on just what a species is. Their entire taxonomic ranks are in disarray and complete confussion.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intentional I believe so no one can pin them down when it comes to evolution. Even their famous evolutionary paleontologist Jack Horner admits they have a problem with the name game.

Jack Horner: Shape-shifting dinosaurs | Video on TED.com

They have even classified the babies of the same species as different species, because once again you can't get your name in the books for discovering a species someone else already has. And a correct classification of species would show how futile is their attempts at transitional species.

But you are correct, as science currently classifies them no change is ever observed above the Genus rank, which again precludes one Genus evolving into another, a necessary step in evolution from single cell organisms to human beings. Although as it currently stands I believe the Family taxonomic rank may be more relevant to kind, being it is a stable grouping and contains all the variations capable within a kind, including species and Genus.

This would place all cats in the felidae kind, all dogs within the canidae kind, all bears within the ursidae kind. Even then they can't be consistent as have whales divided into several families, subfamilies, etc.

All because in reality they have no idea how to classify anything except by whimsy and spur of the moment. Whatever gets their names written in the books.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have posted this before and it was shown to be a lie. Why do you continue to repost it?

Show me one single paper that shows those I said mated and produce fertile offspring have not mated and produced fertile offspring. You can't. All you can do is "claim" it isn't true, you will never produce a single solitary fact showing otherwise. therefore your claim of incorrectness is a lie in and of itself.

Although I did mean to say leopard and not panther breeding with Jaguars.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are not separate species, they are simply incorrectly classified as separate species. All felines are of the same species, simply variations of that same species. Scientists like to play the name game so they can get their names in the books for discovering new species. You can't get your name in the books for discovering a Tiger if it is classified the same species as a Lion. Just as all dogs are the same species, merely variations thereof.

Wrong. All felines cannot interbreed. Some can interbreed with limited success. You cannot even complete a chain like you would see in ring species. Clearly you do not know any of the various definitions of species. Your ignorant denial is not evidence. Don't you remember the countless times you were wrong about tigers and lions? Their offspring are very rarely fertile and they are related quite close to each other:

Tigon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Guggisberg wrote that ligers and tigons were long thought to be sterile; in 1943, however, a fifteen-year-old hybrid between a lion and an "Island" tiger was successfully mated with a lion at the Munich Hellabrunn Zoo. The female cub, although of delicate health, was raised to adulthood.

See, very limited fertility. Not what you would find if they were the same species. There is no bridge from cats to lions. Let's see you find a source that says there is one.

Just as bacteria are not several species, but merely variations of the same species.

Oh my! You do like to shout your ignorance from the rooftops. There is as much variation in bacteria as there is in all of animal and plant life combined:

This is why the Genus is always capitalized, while the species name is never capitalized. because in reality genus and species is the exact same thing.

Evidence? I know you have none. More ignorance from justa, why am I not surprised.

Science has a species problem because they can't settle on just what a species is. Their entire taxonomic ranks are in disarray and complete confussion.

No, science has no species problem. Since evolution is a fact the borders of species are fuzzy and not sharp. The fuzzy boundary is a problem for creationists, it is not a problem for scientists.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And justa saves me from posting a link. The link explains how evolution makes the differences between species fuzzy at best sometimes.

Intentional I believe so no one can pin them down when it comes to evolution. Even their famous evolutionary paleontologist Jack Horner admits they have a problem with the name game.

No, not intentional. It is a result of evolution being a fact. And I have debunked many of your Jack Horner claims as have others. Why did you bring him up here again. Second you are conflating his error with a totally unrelated subject. Your ignorance speaks volumes.

They have even classified the babies of the same species as different species, because once again you can't get your name in the books for discovering a species someone else already has. And a correct classification of species would show how futile is their attempts at transitional species.

No, that was just Jack Horner's claim. If he was correct you could have found other scientists that agree with him and have peer reviewed papers showing how Jack was right. You know that you can't find any. Jack had an interesting idea, but it was mostly wrong. You have found one species that my have been misidentified. You need to do a lot better than that.

But you are correct, as science currently classifies them no change is ever observed above the Genus rank, which again precludes one Genus evolving into another, a necessary step in evolution from single cell organisms to human beings. Although as it currently stands I believe the Family taxonomic rank may be more relevant to kind, being it is a stable grouping and contains all the variations capable within a kind, including species and Genus.

No, wrong. Since all populations are constantly evolving even genera are constantly shifting. Don't give us baseless speculation, if you want to use the word "kind" you must provide a working definition of it. So far I have by making it a homonym of "clade" the trouble is that when defined in that way "kind after kind" supports evolution.

This would place all cats in the felidae kind, all dogs within the canidae kind, all bears within the ursidae kind. Even then they can't be consistent as have whales divided into several families, subfamilies, etc.

Wait a second. Who is not being consistent? I hope you mean that you are being inconsistent. We have already gone over your ability to judge real science.

All because in reality they have no idea how to classify anything except by whimsy and spur of the moment. Whatever gets their names written in the books.

Sure this is a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. You are libeling people who are ten times your superior when it comes to thinking. Why don't you look at their actual work instead of relying on lying creationist sites for your ideas?

 

[Black Akuma]

Oh my! You do like to shout your ignorance from the rooftops. There is as much variation in bacteria as there is in all of animal and plant life combined:

I love it when creationists talk about bacteria as a species. It's just so painfully obvious that they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about it.

 

[createdtoworship]

They are not separate species, they are simply incorrectly classified as separate species. All felines are of the same species, simply variations of that same species. Scientists like to play the name game so they can get their names in the books for discovering new species. You can't get your name in the books for discovering a Tiger if it is classified the same species as a Lion. Just as all dogs are the same species, merely variations thereof.

Just as bacteria are not several species, but merely variations of the same species.

This is why the Genus is always capitalized, while the species name is never capitalized. because in reality genus and species is the exact same thing.

Science has a species problem because they can't settle on just what a species is. Their entire taxonomic ranks are in disarray and complete confussion.

Species problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intentional I believe so no one can pin them down when it comes to evolution. Even their famous evolutionary paleontologist Jack Horner admits they have a problem with the name game.

Jack Horner: Shape-shifting dinosaurs | Video on TED.com

They have even classified the babies of the same species as different species, because once again you can't get your name in the books for discovering a species someone else already has. And a correct classification of species would show how futile is their attempts at transitional species.

But you are correct, as science currently classifies them no change is ever observed above the Genus rank, which again precludes one Genus evolving into another, a necessary step in evolution from single cell organisms to human beings. Although as it currently stands I believe the Family taxonomic rank may be more relevant to kind, being it is a stable grouping and contains all the variations capable within a kind, including species and Genus.

This would place all cats in the felidae kind, all dogs within the canidae kind, all bears within the ursidae kind. Even then they can't be consistent as have whales divided into several families, subfamilies, etc.

All because in reality they have no idea how to classify anything except by whimsy and spur of the moment. Whatever gets their names written in the books.

I can see your point now, thanks

 

[USincognito]

Show me one single paper that shows those I said mated and produce fertile offspring have not mated and produced fertile offspring. You can't. All you can do is "claim" it isn't true, you will never produce a single solitary fact showing otherwise. therefore your claim of incorrectness is a lie in and of itself.

It's your claim champ! It's up to you to support your assertion.

Domestic cats have 38 chromosomes. Ocelots have 36 chromosomes. It's impossible for them to breed.

Now, YOU provide a paper showing how two species with two different numbes of chromosomes are able to breed.

 

[stevevw]

It's your claim champ! It's up to you to support your assertion.

Domestic cats have 38 chromosomes. Ocelots have 36 chromosomes. It's impossible for them to breed.

Now, YOU provide a paper showing how two species with two different numbes of chromosomes are able to breed.

I found this on wikipedia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Authenticated_Felid_Hybrids_(2013).jpg

 

[USincognito]

I found this on wikipedia.

That image and, in fact, the entire listing of domestic hybrids is taken from this webpage and it provides no citations for the hybrids.
Domestic x Wild Cat Hybrids

And a search for "domestic cat ocelot 2007" turns up nothing.

 

[stevevw]

That image and, in fact, the entire listing of domestic hybrids is taken from this webpage and it provides no citations for the hybrids.
Domestic x Wild Cat Hybrids

And a search for "domestic cat ocelot 2007" turns up nothing.

They also think there is more cross breeding going on than first thought. Especially among plants and sea life as their fertilization can be mixed easier because of the methods involved. It seems genetic results are not matching the tree that was built and the results are throwing up new relations between species that doesn't match the Darwinian model because of horizontal gene transfer.

Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life | Science | theguardian.com

Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog Molecular Phylogeny Proves Evolution is False. | Blueprints For Living | Creation vs Evolution Blog

 

[stevevw]

I can understand evolution maybe changing the colour of a moth to camouflage it from predators. But how on earth would it produce a creature like these.

http://[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]evolution.tumblr.com/

Sorry the site is the one who call itself that name. So you will have to look it up yourself. It has other strange creatures on it that seem to have unusual features. Some mimic faces and unusual objects that i find hard to believe just weren't made that way. How would evolution know how to even make them. Did it go through thousands of mutations until it found the right imitation.

 

[Strathos]

That's just an argument from personal incredulity. It's quite simple really - over many generations the animals with the less effective camouflage are killed and eaten more often by predators, and the ones with more effective camouflage survive and reproduce. Thus the camouflage is slowly optimized, becoming more and more intricate and effective. Natural selection in action.

 

[stevevw]

That's just an argument from personal incredulity. It's quite simple really - over many generations the animals with the less effective camouflage are killed and eaten more often by predators, and the ones with more effective camouflage survive and reproduce. Thus the camouflage is slowly optimized, becoming more and more intricate and effective. Natural selection in action.

Yes but some of the camouflage is imitations of faces and pictures of what looks like insect printed on wings that look like they are eating another creature. Its like their genetics already had this ability as it is so specific and a mutation would not be putting out a detailed picture of an insect on an insect. Mutations would just put out random features one after the other until one was suitable and was taken on. This suggests a lot more than that.

 

[46AND2]

Yes but some of the camouflage is imitations of faces and pictures of what looks like insect printed on wings that look like they are eating another creature. Its like their genetics already had this ability as it is so specific and a mutation would not be putting out a detailed picture of an insect on an insect. Mutations would just put out random features one after the other until one was suitable and was taken on. This suggests a lot more than that.

No, one mutation would not...but the image could get a bit clearer with successive generations. If a pattern fools a predator just slightly more than another, then the organism with that pattern is more likely to reproduce more offspring with similar patterns.

Your assertion that mutations would just put out random patterns is wrong. Similar patterns can be inherited from parents, and the ones which work better, reproduce more often. The ones with which work less often, get weeded out through predation.

You keep insisting on quick changes, but evolution doesn't state this, and nobody who accepts evolution thinks that.

 

[Michael]

No, one mutation would not...but the image could get a bit clearer with successive generations. If a pattern fools a predator just slightly more than another, then the organism with that pattern is more likely to reproduce more offspring with similar patterns.

Your assertion that mutations would just put out random patterns is wrong. Similar patterns can be inherited from parents, and the ones which work better, reproduce more often. The ones with which work less often, get weeded out through predation.

You keep insisting on quick changes, but evolution doesn't state this, and nobody who accepts evolution thinks that.

I agree with you. I think that's probably the most common misconception about evolutionary theory.

 

[Michael]

Creationists continue to claim there are no transitional fossils (which is not true) and will ignore any evidence presented to them regarding the same. So, what about the DNA evidence that supports evolution? And, what about Francis Collins (a christian) who led the Human Genome Project and his stance below?

http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/slides08.pdf


Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

FYI, you may have already seen it, but a recently published study breaks down the percentages of various beliefs by political affiliation as well as by religious affiliation. The fact that 1/3 of Americans still reject the idea of evolution seem utterly incomprehensible to me. I can relate to a "guided evolution" position, but the percentage of outright rejection of the idea seems outrageously high to me, all evidence considered.

A third of Americans don't believe in evolution