Why Evolution is True

[PsychoSarah]

no one is saying it is. I simply am asking for a hybrid or any transition to prove your point, now you can attack hybrids, and transitions and the definition of macro evolution, but you still come up short. With no evidence.

No, we have transitional fossils, but the transitional species between humans and chimpanzees, as well as between humans and other creatures, are now extinct.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, we have transitional fossils, but the transitional species between humans and chimpanzees, as well as between humans and other creatures, are now extinct.

yes but photos have not been submitted for examination or anything. What are you afraid of, that they may be proven wrong? Such is the scientific method. Intellectual honesty requires us to place all our beliefs on the table and examine them regularly if they are true or not. Be honest.

 

[PsychoSarah]

yes but photos have not been submitted for examination or anything. What are you afraid of, that they may be proven wrong? Such is the scientific method. Intellectual honesty requires us to place all our beliefs on the table and examine them regularly if they are true or not. Be honest.

You have been shown photos, but even better, how about I list out all the museums that contain said fossils and you buy yourself a ticket and see them in person? Much better than a photo. All museums in the United States, anyways, as per your icon.

 

[sfs]

well then you would simply be wrong. A hybrid is a transition between kinds, species, genra and the like.

Wrong.

Not just a genus hybrid. Here is the definition:

Hybrid | Define Hybrid at Dictionary.com

Right. You provided a definition that does not say that hybrids are "transitions" between species.

and thus you would have to retract this statment that can be interpreted as you not believing in observations of macroevolution of any kind. If you do believe, please provide one.

Well, it can be interpreted that way by someone who doesn't read English. Is English not your native language? You are certainly showing difficulty reading ordinary English sentences.

 

[Loudmouth]

well then you would simply be wrong. A hybrid is a transition between kinds, species, genra and the like.

No it isn't. You are completely wrong.

A hybrid is produced by cross breeding two LIVING species. That is not evolution. In an evolutionary transition, there is an intermediate stage between an ancestor that is dead and a descendant who is yet to be born. Those are not the same things.

and thus you would have to retract this statment that can be interpreted as you not believing in observations of macroevolution of any kind.

I didn't say "of any kind". Quit telling lies.

I clearly said that if two populations diverged from one another for millions of years that they should NOT be able to produce hybrids because the amount of genetic divergence would prevent it.

Your demand of a hybrid is the same as asking someone to prove gravity with a floating 50 lb anvil. Your demand of proof is not in line with the theory of evolution.

then please provide one observation, for scrutiny.

I already did in another thread. Here it is again.

Hypothesis: "Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 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 sequences

Experiment: Sequence the human and chimp genomes and map the ERV's in each genome. This is easily repeatable by anyone with the know-how.

Results: Out of the 200,000 ERV's in the human genome, more than 99% of them are found at the same location in the chimp genome.

Conclusion: The hypothesis is supported. We find the same ERV's at the same location in each genome.

There it is. The scientific method being used to test the theory of evolution.

Thanks Otherwise we will take your word for it, namely that observations cannot exist for macroevolution.

I never said that observations can not exist for macroevolution. Stop lying.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's put this in terms that gradyll might understand.

Your father is transitional between you and your grandfather. Does this mean that you should be able to mate with your cousin and produce your father?

 

[biggles53]

Then the next was my opinion, a hybrid between two already proving common ancestry.

You have it completely backwards.....how surprising...

A 'parent' species will divide to produce 'daughter' species.....NOT two species combining to form a 'hybrid'...

Get yourself an education...!

For anyone tempted to be influenced by Grady's incoherent rambling, here is an analogy...

Let's suppose your ancestors were Irish....an original clan found only in that country, speaking the native Celtic tongue and living an Irish life style.

After some time, the clan 'splits', with one section migrating to the US and another to Australia. After several generations, each of the migrant populations has changed considerably....language, life styles, modes of work, etc. In fact, given enough time, the only features linking the two 'splits' to the original clan are their surnames... Otherwise, it would seem that there are 3 completely separate and quite different groups of people...

The descent of species is similar in principle, if not in a species or reproductive sense...

A population of a particular species becomes divided for some reason...each of the two divided groups continues to reproduce, each with their own genetic variations which are passed down, added to, and modified over many, many generations.... This eventually results in the two groups being markedly different from each other, and from the original species...

Its a very simplified analogy and it isnt completely appropriate, but I think it approaches something that would be useful in aiding understanding....

 

[createdtoworship]

You have it completely backwards.....how surprising...

A 'parent' species will divide to produce 'daughter' species.....NOT two species combining to form a 'hybrid'...

Get yourself an education...!

For anyone tempted to be influenced by Gardy's incoherent rambling, here is an analogy...

Let's suppose your ancestors were Irish....an original clan found only in that country, speaking the native Celtic tongue and living an Irish life style.

After some time, the clan 'splits', with one section migrating to the US and another to Australia. After several generations, each of the migrant populations has changed considerably....language, life styles, modes of work, etc. In fact, given enough time, the only features linking the two 'splits' to the original clan are their surnames... Otherwise, it would seem that there are 3 completely separate and quite different groups of people...

The descent of species is similar in principle, if not in a species or reproductive sense...

A population of a particular species becomes divided for some reason...each of the two divided groups continues to reproduce, each with their own genetic variations which are passed down, added to, and modified over many, many generations.... This eventually results in the two groups being markedly different from each other, and from the original species...

Its a very simplified analogy and it isnt completely appropriate, but I think it approaches something that would be useful in aiding understanding....

you spelled my name wrong. secondly the traditional link for evolution is a hybrid between ape and man. these are separate populations. but as I have stated repeatedly you can choose as many hybrid steps as you wish as long as common ancestry is intact. and thats the difficult thing to do. so please educate me. give me evidence for macroevolution.

 

[biggles53]

you spelled my name wrong.

Corrected.

secondly the traditional link for evolution is a hybrid between ape and man.

No it isnt....you are completely wrong...

these are separate populations. but as I have stated repeatedly you can choose as many hybrid steps as you wish as long as common ancestry is intact. and thats the difficult thing to do. so please educate me. give me evidence for macroevolution.

After that garbled gibberish, I'm not sure that education is within your grasp.........wilfull ignorance is impossible to overcome......

 

[createdtoworship]

Let's put this in terms that gradyll might understand.

Your father is transitional between you and your grandfather. Does this mean that you should be able to mate with your cousin and produce your father?

this question is arbitrary since we are all the same species. secondly macroevolution is above the species level so that would also make your analogy false. look at lucy, a transition allegedly between two genra. any more questions?

 

[PsychoSarah]

this question is arbitrary since we are all the same species. secondly macroevolution is above the species level so that would also make your analogy false. look at lucy, a transition allegedly between two genra. any more questions?

A transition between two genra again doesn't necessarily live at the same time as those genra. Plus, sure, there are more recent transitions such as between humans and chimpanzees, but your assumption would lead one to believe humans and cats should be able to reproduce together too, just because we share a mammalian ancestor at some point in the past.

 

[Loudmouth]

look at lucy, a transition allegedly between two genra. any more questions?

Yes. Did modern humans have to mate with a distant ancestor to produce Lucy?

 

[Loudmouth]

secondly the traditional link for evolution is a hybrid between ape and man.

That is false. A hybrid is the offspring of two LIVING species. All transitionals come from the mating of two individuals within the same species.

 

[Naturalism]

this question is arbitrary since we are all the same species. secondly macroevolution is above the species level so that would also make your analogy false. look at lucy, a transition allegedly between two genra. any more questions?

The important part is not that they are from different Genus' but that as speciation occurs you have basically two separate and discrete populations (parent & daugher) that are unlikely to crossbreed any further into the future.

As the populations diverge and become increasingly genetically isolated it allows for each population to accrue new mutations & selection on those mutations as differential reproduction takes over.

When you look at A.Afarensis (that Lucy is one specimen of) you can observe that where those species are found in the geological layers (biostratigraphy) is consistent with common ancestry. When you look at the overall morphology of that species and others of the same Genus you find Apes that share a number of features that are midway between the Homo and Afarensis Genus'.

 

[Dizredux]

Originally Posted by gradyll

secondly macroevolution is above the species level so that would also make your analogy false.

No you are wrong. Macroevolution is *at* or above speciation. If you have speciation, you have macroevolution.

Plenty of stuff available on this, here are two.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:
Evolution at different scales: micro to macro

Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Originally Posted by gradyll

No you are wrong. Macroevolution is *at* or above speciation. If you have speciation, you have macroevolution.

I believe you are in fact the one mistaken here:

as the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml
"Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level"
(link works half the time)

also indiana university:

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/pap.macroevolution.pdf

also some institutes of Biological Sciences:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

national evolution sythesis center:

https://www.nescent.org/media/NABT/

2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM
This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

3rd Annual AIBS, BSCS, NESCent Evolution Science and Education Symposium

want more?

 

[createdtoworship]

The important part is not that they are from different Genus' but that as speciation occurs you have basically two separate and discrete populations (parent & daugher) that are unlikely to crossbreed any further into the future.

As the populations diverge and become increasingly genetically isolated it allows for each population to accrue new mutations & selection on those mutations as differential reproduction takes over.

When you look at A.Afarensis (that Lucy is one specimen of) you can observe that where those species are found in the geological layers (biostratigraphy) is consistent with common ancestry. When you look at the overall morphology of that species and others of the same Genus you find Apes that share a number of features that are midway between the Homo and Afarensis Genus'.

without begging the question, one would have to submit which features "that are midway" between Homo and Afarensis.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe you are in fact the one mistaken here:

as the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".

Above the level of species is when you have two species where there used to be one. Speciation is macroevolution. More to the point, speciation is all that evolution requires to produce the biodiversity we see today.

 

[createdtoworship]

Above the level of species is when you have two species where there used to be one. Speciation is macroevolution. More to the point, speciation is all that evolution requires to produce the biodiversity we see today.

can you document this?

take your time.

secondly, I take a more straightforward interpretation of "above the level of species." Namely that "level" is referring to taxonomy. The next level above species, being genus.

 

[CabVet]

can you document this?

take your time.

Document what?

take your time.