Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And if some of the more exotic breeds, say toy poodles or, yes, chihuahuas, become so inbred that they can no longer mate with German shepherds? Yes, they are still dogs, but they become a different kind of dog, a separate species. Just as you said rabbits, hares, and jackrabbits are all different kinds of lagomorphs.
It is the same way a Carnivore population split up into various weasel-like kinds which eventually became weasels, ferrets, badgers and wolverines, and two larger kinds, felines, which in turn split into the various cat kinds, and hemicyons, which split into bears and canines, which split into jackals, foxes, wolves, and dogs. Dogs are still canines, and carnivores. Cats are still felines and carnivores. Skunks, weasels, ferrets, badgers, and wolverines are still carnivores.
All carnivores are still placental mammals. All mammals are still vertebrates. All vertebrates are still chordates. And so on.
A different kind of dog is not a separate species.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck
And evolution does not claim it does.Yes it does. That is the crux of evolution---at some point, an A became a B.
What it claims is that the "a" type of Kind X and the "b" type of Kind X stop interbreeding for some reason.
WEonderful, Provide the reason.
Each type continues to undergo mutations, and each type continues to adapt to its separate environment. Eventually the differences become so great that we don't call them 'the "a" type,' but just "a" or "b." At some point, not only do they not breed with one another, they no longer can breed with one another. Some time after that, we consider "a" to be Kind A, and "b" to be Kind B. But they both continue also to be Kind X.
You need to get off of the mutation kick. Mutations do not add new characteristics, They only alter the characteristic that would have occured without the mutation. The albino doe snot get skin from the mutation, the skin he woulr have gotten is altered by the mutation. Not only that, what ever the mutation was it NEVER results in a change of species. Not even in a gazillion years.
kermit
My laptop is down and I can't easily cut and paste on my mobile. Can someone please post the YouTube clips "Ring Species," and "Potholer and Hovind Come Together (Not Like That)" both by Potholer54? They provide some of the evidence Kermit is asking for.
Thank you.
Yes, there is. We share over 200,000 retroviral insertions at the same position in our genomes.
Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 109 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14).
Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus
We have the evidence in spades. It is in our genomes which is the directly written history of our ancestry.
also our DNA is different. How did that take place? Mutations do not
Of course but only withing a species. That is why our gnome is unique to a species and so is the DNA. We can trace our DNA to our parents but you cannot trace any DNA of an A species to a B species, because all life forms, with a couple of excpetion, have a DNA ' it is unique and it never changes as far as we know.
add characteristics, they only alter the characteristic the kid would have gotten without the mustation.[/qutoe]
Then why are chimps and humans different? How do you explain that? If it isn't due to differences in our DNA, then what causes us to be different?
It is because of our difference in DNA. That is the point. The DNA in a species does not change.
I have shown that it is so.
You have not. You just said it happened.
I just showed you the intermediate forms.
You did not. You showed me 2 separate and distinct fossils. Even evolutionist admit the fossil record should nt be used to try and support evolution. I think it was Gould who admitted that ,but don't hold me to trhat.
The accumulation of species specific mutations is what prevents interbreeding.<<
Mutations DO NOT ADD NEW CHARACTERISTICS and time will not change that. You need to some study on mutations.
How does that prove that they do not share a common ancestor?
Because they all have a different gnome and DNA and you cannot link them back to that first blob you say was the first lifeform. You cannot link the DNA of homo sapian back to the DNA of apes.
k
Already have. You run away from it.
Yes it does. That is the crux of evolution---at some point, an A became a B.
WEonderful, Provide the reason.
You need to get off of the mutation kick. Mutations do not add new characteristics, They only alter the characteristic that would have occured without the mutation. The albino doe snot get skin from the mutation, the skin he woulr have gotten is altered by the mutation. Not only that, what ever the mutation was it NEVER results in a change of species. Not even in a gazillion years.
kermit
Humans are primates. Lemurs are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. It is just primates producing primates. So why do you have a problem with this?
So you really don't know how evolution works, do you. Did wolves come from chihuahuas? Did great danes come from chihuahuas?<<
No. Because evolution does not work.
Were wolves ever chihuahuas?
Already presented the genetic and fossil evidence. You run away from it.
Yes, they did. They gave evidence of the accumulation of lineage specific mutations and lineage specific morphology. They showed that LTR's within the same ERV diverge as expected due to the accumulation of mutations. The fossils show the accumulation of modern human features over time. How is this not evidence?
Sorry, but that isn't true. We have observed microbes--in a laboratory, under supervised conditions--evolve the ability to metabolize citrate in an oxygen-rich environment, when a defining characteristic of the species was its its inability to do this.You need to get off of the mutation kick. Mutations do not add new characteristics, They only alter the characteristic that would have occured without the mutation. The albino doe snot get skin from the mutation, the skin he woulr have gotten is altered by the mutation. Not only that, what ever the mutation was it NEVER results in a change of species. Not even in a gazillion years.
You saying so, does not make it so.
To say homo sapians and lemurs had a common anscesor is laughable.
I did not run away from anything you said. I refutrede it all.
When you can explain how a dog-like animal lost it legs, get back to me>
FYI I have looked at the argument for ring species and the do not change species. A salamander is still a salamander. Why some who could breed and now can't is a mystery that no one has soved as far as I know. In fact, some are classified as a sub-species, and that is not a new species.
k
If you accept what you offered as evidence, you don't understand genetics, gnome or DNA.
No, as I said, an a-type of X is now called an A, and a b-type of X is now called a B
It depends on what the Kind X is that we are talking about. It could be a mountain, or a canyon, or a lake, an ocean or a desert. It could even be man (selective breeding, or urbaniztion splitting a large habitat into separate smaller habitats. It really does not matter what prevents interbreeding, it is only necessary that interbreeding be halted.
You are correct in that the mutation does not cause speciation. I never claimed that it does.
What it does is add to the variation in the species. After the mutation, there are more and more albinos in the population, or more members with longer legs, or with loose flaps of skin, or webs between the toes, or whatever, as the mutation spreads through the generations.
Then (many generations later) when the population spreads to a new environment, these variations are what Natural Selection uses to drive adaptation. It is only when two sub-populations adapt for different environments, and the adatations and newly aquired mutations make them too different physically and genetically to interbreed that we call them diferent species.
Yet we all come out different and you cnot link difdferend species from ghe genomes. We all hve DNA, but scientists can tell which species a lifeform is by its DNA.
If they share a common ancestor the EVR locus does not prove it.
also our DNA is different. How did that take place? Mutations do not
Of course but only withing a species. That is why our gnome is unique to a species and so is the DNA. We can trace our DNA to our parents but you cannot trace any DNA of an A species to a B species, because all life forms, with a couple of excpetion, have a DNA ' it is unique and it never changes as far as we know.
It is because of our difference in DNA. That is the point. The DNA in a species does not change.
You have not. You just said it happened.
You did not. You showed me 2 separate and distinct fossils.
Even evolutionist admit the fossil record should nt be used to try and support evolution.
I think it was Gould who admitted that ,but don't hold me to trhat.
Mutations DO NOT ADD NEW CHARACTERISTICS and time will not change that.
You need to some study on mutations.
Because they all have a different gnome . . .
but he lack of the ability to breed is ot a mechanism for evolution. The salamaner is still a salamander.
What prevents a mutation from changing the species?There may not be more. The mutation may not be present in the next gneration. Even if it is in all the next generation, th species does not change.
It most certainly is. Are you rejecting natural selection now?Environment is not a mechanism for a species too change.
Based on what evidence?It may make a species becomeextinct but it will not make them evolve into a different species.
Talk is cheap and so are examples.
You are right. Teh cause doe snot matter, but he lack of the ability to breed is ot a mechanism for evolution. The salamaner is still a salamander.
I don' think I accused you of that.
There may not be more. The mutation may not be present in the next gneration. Even if it is in all the next generation, th species does not change.
Environment is not a mechanism for a species too change.
It may make a species becomeextinct but it will not make them evolve into a different species.
Same with natural selection, which has never been proven.
The rabbit with the stroenge legs may keep that species from becoming extinct, but it will never make it into anything other than a rabbit.
Also, because of the gene mix, the stronger legs are not guarented in the next generation.
k
We see the gradual stuff all the time, like the Greenish Warbler example. When we show you that, you guys demand to see a lizard give birth to a bird.
Well, that is because you are just describing variety within a species. Not a creature that say didn't have wings, light bones, internal navigation, feathers, etc. gradually gaining those capabilities over long time. That would produce lots of fossil evidence of all the gradual transitions. The evidence does not show that.
That is because evolution in action looks exactly like variation in a species.
What you ask for would not prove evolution, it would disprove it. The fact that we can't find it is evidence that evolution is correct.
Once again, what you are demanding is to be equal to someone pointing to a young child and demanding the exact date and hour when it was no longer a baby.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?