Another case of observed speciation

[tas8831]

Weird how a certain someone abandoned this thread right after I posted this....LOL!

So typical...

The religious fanatic that hates science simply ignores and handwaves context.

Who "invented" clades? Nobody. Clades are one way to group related organisms. Which you would know if you were actually informed.
Even the more honest and educated and intelligent creationists admit that creatures change over time - they just place arbitrary limits on how much change is allowed.

Do you think ALL living things were independently created as-is from dust? I do hope so, for you will have sunk your previous silly ark myth.

So precious - the usual keyword parsing.
OK, so evolution is a belief, just like the belief that the Hebrew tribal deity, Yahweh, is the actual one true god that created the universe in 6 days and all that.

The difference is that the 'belief in evolution' at least has lots of evidence in its favor, whereas the Yahweh-cult has only ancient tall tales and self-delusion.


Curious that you opted for a dictionary definition instead of your usual parsing-target of dumbed-down info:


"A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor. Using a phylogeny, it is easy to tell if a group of lineages forms a clade. Imagine clipping a single branch off the phylogeny — all of the organisms on that pruned branch make up a clade."

It is almost as if you chose the dictionary because it had the word "believed" in it. Your antics are pretty transparent.


And you guys ignore the evidence and do word searches that you think you can exploit.

Just because your sources say "God did" and not "we believe God did" does not make your sources true.

You do understand that, right?


Because your lying eyes rely on logical fallacies to give them comfort - in this case, the fallacy of begging the question.

Also, you know, because why should birds have scales?

Imaginary timeline. Right. Totally made up for no reason other than to deny the TROOF of ancient middle eastern tall tales and numerology. OK.. makes sense.


Really? Sounds like you only see what you want (no surprise there).

Giant ground sloth?


Oh - har har har! So clever!

Ignorance really is bliss, I see.



Love it!

The religionist is so wrapped up in ego gratification that she cannot see the obvious -

1. Adapt - that is EVOLUTION, not creation.
2. Bacteria have no immune system, so they CANNOT actually BE immune to anything.

As you like dictionaries:

im·mune
Dictionary result for immune

adjective: immune

resistant to a particular infection or toxin owing to the presence of specific antibodies or sensitized white blood cells.

Bacteria do not produce antibodies.

Bacteria ARE cells, they do not have white blood cells.


Your hatred and ignorance of science coupled with your massive ego makes for some rather frustrating but hilarious outcomes.

The person that claims cladograms are 'made up'?
The person that claims bacteria are immune to antibiotics?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, we have a case of incorrect classification from people ignoring scientific definitions.....

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction."

"Subspecies: a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race."

 

[Bear Wild]

No, we have a case of incorrect classification from people ignoring scientific definitions.....

"A species is often defined as the largest group of organisms in which any two individuals of the appropriate sexes or mating types can produce fertile offspring, typically by sexual reproduction."

"Subspecies: a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race."

Your definition of species is incorrect and does not account for those that can mate and do not as well as the many that do not use sexual reproduction. Darwin doubted that species is a real category in nature as he recognized the difficulty of determining if something was a species or not. The definition of a species is very much debated and lacks defining properties. It is human form of classification. Our theoretical understanding of species is far from defined. There are ontological questions such as are species natural kinds or individuals? There is the problem with pluralism within what we call a species and more importantly does species refer to a real category of nature or only our artificial one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your definition of species is incorrect and does not account for those that can mate and do not as well as the many that do not use sexual reproduction. Darwin doubted that species is a real category in nature as he recognized the difficulty of determining if something was a species or not. The definition of a species is very much debated and lacks defining properties. It is human form of classification. Our theoretical understanding of species is far from defined. There are ontological questions such as are species natural kinds or individuals? There is the problem with pluralism within what we call a species and more importantly does species refer to a real category of nature or only our artificial one.

So you would agree that species in entirely meaningless in the scheme of things.... So evolutionists insisting that evolution develops by changing creatures gradually into new species would be based upon a frivolity of human indecision...... I got no problem with that.....

We don't have to worry about those that can not mate, since they reproduce by cloning..... hence the E coli bacteria remained E coli bacteria regardless of how many times they tried to change them.... Hence our observation of 2 billion year old bacteria that remained unchanged from those today.... Although small changes can be observed because bacteria do indeed exchange genes from other bacteria, scavenge them from dead ones, or even from the environment. So an exchange of genes still occurs.

conjugation (prokaryotes) | Learn Science at Scitable

"Conjugation is the process by which one bacterium transfers genetic material to another through direct contact."

Genetic Transfer in Prokaryotes | Boundless Microbiology

"Homologous recombination is a major DNA repair process in bacteria. It is also important for producing genetic diversity in bacterial populations."

So no, they are not humping like rabbits, but they are still exchanging genetic information, just in a way not known about in Darwin's day.....

 

[Bear Wild]

So you would agree that species in entirely meaningless in the scheme of things.... So evolutionists insisting that evolution develops by changing creatures gradually into new species would be based upon a frivolity of human indecision...... I got no problem with that.....

We don't have to worry about those that can not mate, since they reproduce by cloning..... hence the E coli bacteria remained E coli bacteria regardless of how many times they tried to change them.... Hence our observation of 2 billion year old bacteria that remained unchanged from those today.... Although small changes can be observed because bacteria do indeed exchange genes from other bacteria, scavenge them from dead ones, or even from the environment. So an exchange of genes still occurs.

conjugation (prokaryotes) | Learn Science at Scitable

"Conjugation is the process by which one bacterium transfers genetic material to another through direct contact."

Genetic Transfer in Prokaryotes | Boundless Microbiology

"Homologous recombination is a major DNA repair process in bacteria. It is also important for producing genetic diversity in bacterial populations."

So no, they are not humping like rabbits, but they are still exchanging genetic information, just in a way not known about in Darwin's day.....

Species is absolutely not meaningless just not so easy to define which is what you would expect in evolutionary theory. With genetic drift and increasing variation the lines that define species are not always clear since genetic changes are occurring as predicted in evolution. Darwin realized this from the very beginning as he notices what some people called species seemed to be a variation of the species instead. The defining of species is clearly easier with some organisms and less clear with others. There are organisms that could mate but don't due to behavioral differences and have been identified as possible different species.

The problem is the term species is a taxonomic term and often misunderstood when understanding evolution. Evolutional changes occur and based on human classification of animals there are points where we say two organisms are different and when two organisms can no longer share genetic material via sexual reproduction. Life is a huge continuum of variations of genetic expression and we use our classification system identify the different expressions along lines of development with time. What is amazing is how much dna we actually share.
What is also amazing is how the changes in DNA along phylogenic progression agrees with the fossil evidence showing the progression of organisms over time.

 

[Polymath257]

Species is absolutely not meaningless just not so easy to define which is what you would expect in evolutionary theory. With genetic drift and increasing variation the lines that define species are not always clear since genetic changes are occurring as predicted in evolution. Darwin realized this from the very beginning as he notices what some people called species seemed to be a variation of the species instead. The defining of species is clearly easier with some organisms and less clear with others. There are organisms that could mate but don't due to behavioral differences and have been identified as possible different species.

The problem is the term species is a taxonomic term and often misunderstood when understanding evolution. Evolutional changes occur and based on human classification of animals there are points where we say two organisms are different and when two organisms can no longer share genetic material via sexual reproduction. Life is a huge continuum of variations of genetic expression and we use our classification system identify the different expressions along lines of development with time. What is amazing is how much dna we actually share.
What is also amazing is how the changes in DNA along phylogenic progression agrees with the fossil evidence showing the progression of organisms over time.

I once saw a newsnet post talking about all the different definitions out there for the term 'species'. At the time (early 2000's), the list included at least 20 different notions, from morphospecies, to cladospecies, to 'evolutionary unit'. I might be able to find this post somewhere if anyone is interested.

 

[Polymath257]

I once saw a newsnet post talking about all the different definitions out there for the term 'species'. At the time (early 2000's), the list included at least 20 different notions, from morphospecies, to cladospecies, to 'evolutionary unit'. I might be able to find this post somewhere if anyone is interested.

I found the post in my saved material, but it is long and probably not a good one to post in its entirety. It was the PhD work of the poster at that time.

Anyone interested can send me a PM and I will send it to you.

 

[Bear Wild]

I once saw a newsnet post talking about all the different definitions out there for the term 'species'. At the time (early 2000's), the list included at least 20 different notions, from morphospecies, to cladospecies, to 'evolutionary unit'. I might be able to find this post somewhere if anyone is interested.

I think it is interesting. One of the greatest misunderstandings of terms is related to the increasing complexity of what is trying to be defined. We use words to describe a concept in which the simpler the concept the better the definition. Physics has this advantage to other sciences because the definition may in in mathematical terms. Once we leave simple concepts all our definition become incomplete not because we should not use a definition to agree on when discussing something but the inherent complexity of biological systems always creates problems. Ecology has faced this problem more than most sciences. Ecosystems are just so complex that definitions are always approximate and full of exceptions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you. But I do not think that Deeje will be able to see the post you quoted. The ignore button protects the delicate sensibilities of those that use that option from even such indirect methods. All she will see is your response. You could paraphrase my argument. There is no need to credit me with the post.

That strategy is very common among creationists. Since the actual theory is too reasonable a strawman of it needs to be made that can be refuted or denied.

The ignore button is how creationists run from other posters.

 

[dad]

Interbreeding of a native species and an intruder species has produced a new species. It is genetically isolated, has distinct behaviors, etc.

So, once again, we have evolution in process actually observed, crossing species barriers.

'But they are all just finches', I am sure the creationists will say, thereby ignoring the whole point.

Bird seen becoming new species

Modern adapting and evolving has nothing to do with your supposed shared ancestor with a flatworm. The main part of the theory of evolution has to do with the past.

 

[Polymath257]

Modern adapting and evolving has nothing to do with your supposed shared ancestor with a flatworm. The main part of the theory of evolution has to do with the past.

Yes, actually, it does. Ever hear of Archimedes principle?

 

[gnostic]

Interbreeding of a native species and an intruder species has produced a new species. It is genetically isolated, has distinct behaviors, etc.

So, once again, we have evolution in process actually observed, crossing species barriers.

'But they are all just finches', I am sure the creationists will say, thereby ignoring the whole point.

Bird seen becoming new species

If anything, I am surprised at how much change can happen in so few generations. We get reproductive isolation that quickly? And then people wonder why it isn't captured in the fossil record?

This evolutionary mechanism is referred to as Gene Flow, where a migratory population (species) breed with population of native species, to produce generation of newer species.

Gene Flow focused on populations between two different species interbreeding and hybridization, hence take fewer generations to occur, while Natural Selection are the result of many generations and the environmental changes are the major contributing drivers for changes in species, eg fitness and adaption to survive.

Fascinating to see Gene Flow in action.

 

[gnostic]

Well, to me the whole point is just that Polymath.....they are still finches and will never be anything else. This is adaptation, not an indication of macro-evolution. If you look at the two pictures in your link, these finches are almost identical. Any wonder that mating was not a problem. You guys appear to get excited over very little. Much ado about nothing IMO.

You have just demonstrated @Wild Fox’s points about creationists, like yourself...

Yes creationists will say they are still just finches because the do not want to see how this clearly demonstrates evolutions. They do not understand reproductive rate and time frame as factors to see changes in genus or species ( which is a man made idea for organization anyway). And will ignore another amazing piece of evidence of evolution.

...not understanding speciation in Evolution.

Speciation always occur in small stages. The accumulation of these small changes, incrementally add to larger changes over time.

What is tragically sad is that creationists have allowed their biased (religious) beliefs to cloud their minds, time and time again, through their needs to ignoring evidence. I believe that the passages from Matthew 7:3-5 & Luke 6:41-42 would apply to creationists quite aptly.

 

[Audie]

So you would agree that species in entirely meaningless in the scheme of things.... So evolutionists insisting that evolution develops by changing creatures gradually into new species would be based upon a frivolity of human indecision...... I got no problem with that.....

We don't have to worry about those that can not mate, since they reproduce by cloning..... hence the E coli bacteria remained E coli bacteria regardless of how many times they tried to change them.... Hence our observation of 2 billion year old bacteria that remained unchanged from those today.... Although small changes can be observed because bacteria do indeed exchange genes from other bacteria, scavenge them from dead ones, or even from the environment. So an exchange of genes still occurs.

conjugation (prokaryotes) | Learn Science at Scitable

"Conjugation is the process by which one bacterium transfers genetic material to another through direct contact."

Genetic Transfer in Prokaryotes | Boundless Microbiology

"Homologous recombination is a major DNA repair process in bacteria. It is also important for producing genetic diversity in bacterial populations."

So no, they are not humping like rabbits, but they are still exchanging genetic information, just in a way not known about in Darwin's day.....

Bacteria are immensely successful.

See if you can figure what that means about evolution and your argument.

If you can't, it means you don't know enough to have any argument at,all.

Anyone can play cut n paste. Can you display understanding?

 

[Left Coast]

Bacteria are immensely successful.

See if you can figure what that means about evolution and your argument.

If you can't, it means you don't know enough to have any argument at,all.

Anyone can play cut n paste. Can you display understanding?

The person you're rebutting hasn't been online since May 2019. So they probably won't see your question.