Creationists: "Kind" = Species; species that evolve.

[Skwim]

Do you ever get dizzy trying to keep everything you say strait?
Or it all just like water off a ducks back?

As for your science daily blurb... you love to post things you think support your position, without bothering to try to understand what is being discussed.

But as you must be aware, attempts at understanding take time and energy, and for some the trade off just isn't worth it.

 

[Autodidact]

Paintedwolf Quote:There is nothing "unmodern" about modern Africans! To even suggest it is IMHO foul.

This is not racisit just showing you guys have no idea. Africans are more human than most of the world according to the latest research. Remember, it's the rest of us that are mongrels.

Mestemia & Autodidact..don't mistake me for someone that cares what you think.
Your theories are a heap of woffle so much so that I can't be bothered debating the point with you lot anymore. Forum rules prevent me from telling you where your credentials belong.

Many scientists smarter than you and vastly more qualified, also feel the current phlogenic tree is misleading. Your views are so narrow minded that your instuction is no longer valid. Just like your creationist arguments you quote your own faulty hypothesis as evidence. You guys can't tell one primates evolution from anothers. Your theories are rubbish.

Schwartz and Grehan challenge these theories as incompatible with the morphological and biogeographic evidence.

ScienceDaily (June 18, 2009) — New evidence underscores the theory of human origin that suggests humans most likely share a common ancestor with orangutans, according to research from the University of Pittsburgh and the Buffalo Museum of Science. Reporting in the June 18 edition of the Journal of Biogeography, the researchers reject as "problematic" the popular suggestion, based on DNA analysis, that humans are most closely related to chimpanzees, which they maintain is not supported by fossil evidence.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, professor of anthropology in Pitt's School of Arts and Sciences and president of the World Academy of Art and Science, and John Grehan, director of science at the Buffalo Museum, conducted a detailed analysis of the physical features of living and fossil apes that suggested humans, orangutans, and early apes belong to a group separate from chimpanzees and gorillas. They then constructed a scenario for how the human-orangutan common ancestor migrated between Southeast Asia—where modern orangutans are from—and other parts of the world and evolved into now-extinct apes and early humans.
The study provides further evidence of the human-orangutan connection that Schwartz first proposed in his book "The Red Ape: Orangutans and Human Origins, Revised and Updated" (Westview Press, 2005).
Schwartz and Grehan scrutinized the hundreds of physical characteristics often cited as evidence of evolutionary relationships among humans and other great apes—chimps, gorillas, and orangutans—and selected 63 that could be verified as unique within this group (i.e., they do not appear in other primates). Of these features, the analysis found that humans shared 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans, compared to only two features with chimpanzees, seven with gorillas, and seven with all three apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Gorillas and chimpanzees shared 11 unique characteristics.
Schwartz and Grehan then examined 56 features uniquely shared among modern humans, fossil hominids—ancestral humans such as Australopithecus—and fossil apes. They found that orangutans shared eight features with early humans and Australopithecus and seven with Australopithecus alone. The occurrence of orangutan features in Australopithecus contradicts the expectation generated by DNA analysis that ancestral humans should have chimpanzee similarities, Schwartz and Grehan write. Chimpanzees and gorillas were found to share only those features found in all great apes.
Schwartz and Grehan pooled humans, orangutans, and the fossil apes into a new group called "dental hominoids," named for their similarly thick-enameled teeth. They labeled chimpanzees and gorillas as African apes and wrote in Biogeography that although they are a sister group of dental hominoids, "the African apes are not only less closely related to humans than are orangutans, but also less closely related to humans than are many" fossil apes.
The researchers acknowledge, however, that early human and ape fossils are largely found in Africa, whereas modern orangutans are found in Southeast Asia. To account for the separation, they propose that the last common human-orangutan ancestor migrated between Africa, Europe, and Asia at some point that ended at least 12 million to 13 million years ago. Plant fossils suggest that forests once extended from southern Europe, through Central Asia, and into China prior to the formation of the Himalayas, Schwartz and Grehan write, proposing that the ancestral dental hominoid lived and roamed throughout this vast area; as the Earth's surface and local ecosystems changed, descendant dental hominoids became geographically isolated from one another.
Schwartz and Grehan compare this theory of ancestral distribution with one designed to accommodate a presumed human-chimpanzee relationship. They write that in the absence of African ape fossils more than 500,000 years old, a series of "complicated and convoluted" scenarios were invented to suggest that African apes had descended from earlier apes that migrated from Africa to Europe. According to these scenarios, European apes then diverged into apes that moved on to Asia and into apes that returned to Africa to later become humans and modern apes. Schwartz and Grehan challenge these theories as incompatible with the morphological and biogeographic evidence.
Paleoanthropologist Peter Andrews, a past head of Human Origins at the London Natural History Museum and coauthor of "The Complete World of Human Evolution" (Thames & Hudson, 2005), said that Schwartz and Grehan provide good evidence to support their theory. Andrews had no part in the research, but is familiar with it.
"They have good morphological evidence in support of their interpretation, so that it must be taken seriously, and if it reopens the debate between molecular biologists and morphologists, so much the better," Andrews said. "They are going against accepted interpretations of human and ape relationships, and there's no doubt their conclusions will be challenged. But I hope it will be done in a constructive way, for science progresses by asking questions and testing results."
Schwartz and Grehan contend in the Journal of Biogeography that the clear physical similarities between humans and orangutans have long been overshadowed by molecular analyses that link humans to chimpanzees, but that those molecular comparisons are often flawed: There is no theory holding that molecular similarity necessarily implies an evolutionary relationship; molecular studies often exclude orangutans and focus on a limited selection of primates without an adequate "outgroup" for comparison; and molecular data that contradict the idea that genetic similarity denotes relation are often dismissed.
"They criticize molecular data where criticism is due," said Malte Ebach, a researcher at Arizona State University's International Institute for Species Exploration who also was not involved in the project but is familiar with it.
"Palaeoanthropology is based solely on morphology, and there is no scientific justification to favor DNA over morphological data. Yet the human-chimp relationship, generated by molecular data, has been accepted without any scrutiny. Grehan and Schwartz are not just suggesting an orangutan–human relationship—they're reaffirming an established scientific practice of questioning data."

What is your point?

Are you capable of arguing the facts without resorting to petty insults?

 

[newhope101]

Autodidact Quote"What is your point?"

Scientists well qualified dispute amongst themselves on fundamental tennants of ToE. You have no basis to see creationists as silly.

Though trivial and not proving ToE false t here's far too many 'little' disputes. Science should at least have been able to tell the difference between chimp or orangatang lineage. I don't think they know what they are looking at is the point that last article brings out.

Petty insults..I also get lots of them. It appears the trick is to handle it and don't dish it out if you can't take it...alternatively just get over it.

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact Quote"What is your point?"

Scientists well qualified dispute amongst themselves on fundamental tennants of ToE.

No they don't. To say that, you either have to be deliberately dishonest, or not understand what the fundamental tenets of ToE are.* There is virtually no NO no disagreement on the fundamental tenets of ToE.

You have no basis to see creationists as silly.

Au contraire, they're extremely silly.

Though trivial and not proving ToE false t here's far too many 'little' disputes. Science should at least have been able to tell the difference between chimp or orangatang lineage. I don't think they know what they are looking at is the point that last article brings out.

It makes no difference to ToE which of these organisms is ancestral or how they are related. You seem unable or unwilling to grasp this simple concept.

Petty insults..I also get lots of them. It appears the trick is to handle it and don't dish it out if you can't take it...alternatively just get over it.

Actually, the trick is to learn sufficient maturity to be able to debate a subject without resorting to them.

*In this respect you behave exactly like every Young Earth Creationist I have ever met, which is why I suspect you of being one.

 

[Autodidact]

newhope: I thought I explained the fundamentals of ToE to you, and that you understood and accepted them. They had nothing to do with orangutangs. Have you forgotton so quickly, or were you not being completely honest?

 

[painted wolf]

Sigh... you don't understand the article you posted or the discussion it was part of at all...

The last common ancestor between humans and chimps did not act or move like a modern chimp. That is, it didn't knuckle walk. They moved more like modern Orangs than any other ape, walking more upright along branches.

Chimps and Gorillas both knuckle walk, but they independently evolved this trait, which is easy to see when you actually study their hand/wrist anatomy.
Chimps didn't just stop evolving... and we do have fossils of their ancestors and those of other modern apes. (despite the fact that forests are very poor at preserving fossils)

Otherwise the "Second Red Ape" hypothesis is not very well supported and only has one popular backer.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Quote Autodidact: No they don't. To say that, you either have to be deliberately dishonest, or not understand what the fundamental tenets of ToE are.* There is virtually no NO no disagreement on the fundamental tenets of ToE.

So you say VIRTUALLY no no no agreement..that's a non non non virtually uncommitted statement.

Well homonids were supposedly a sign of the beginning of 'becoming human'. However the excert below and others cite chimps etc walking bipedally now. That may be seen as one of the tennents being challenged. Bipedal walking is no big deal and never was, yet a whole crap listing is there for homonid and homonidae and all this nonsense. Another scientist reckons we came from orangutangs and many support his work, another thinks a chimp should be in the Homo line, the evo tree should show the branching off of neanderthal and the coming together of the line etc, the species problem ( the concept of species, subspecies a major tennent is vaguely defined), many think an evo tree is misleading, DNA has shown similarilty rather than distinction, I could go on..don't you lot read the science daily or something...you should know all this...

Me thinks it's all far from being sorted. The only major tennant that reamins is we came from chimps. It's just how, when, where and why that keeps changing.

RF scolars are about the only scolars that reckon it's all worked out, no debate, no disagreement...and what does that say????? You all need to meet with NASA and the other researchers and tell them just how it is.

Just a snip below for those with outdated info: Just google 'bipedal walking'.
Previously, the first known bipedal ape was believed to be about 6 million years old, but the new research suggests this was in fact the extinct hominoid Morotopithecus bishopi, which inhabited Uganda over 21 million years ago.

"Humanity can be redefined as having its origin with Morotopithecus," said Filler.

This pushes back the root of our two-footed walk about 15 million years, when we had a common ancestor with chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. A recent research pointed that upright walking could have emerged before our ancestors left the tree life.

"If you look at baby siamangs, which are a kind of gibbon, you'll see them walk bipedally on their own. It's just their natural way of walking. They never knuckle walk." said Filler.

"If bipedalism did evolve 21 million years ago, it more likely evolved to walk in trees than on the ground," said University of Chicago evolutionary anthropologist Russell Tuttle.

"Besides Morotopithecus, fossil vertebrae suggest three other upright ape species precede the 6 million year mark. So you have this fossil evidence for bipedalism, and you have apes such as gibbons. Perhaps humans represent the primitive condition, and knuckle walkers such as chimps and gorillas are modified. The ancestors of chimps and gorillas might have evolved knuckle walking as a speedier mode of travel," said Filler.

 

[painted wolf]

You show gross misunderstanding.... we did not evolve from Chimps...nor did Chimps ever walk upright...

We evolved from a common ancestor with the Chimp, that was neither Chimp nor Human. This common ancestor likely walked upright in the trees. (how it moved on the ground is still uncertain).

The basic tenants of evolution (natural selection, changes in allele frequencies over time, inheritance, et cet.) are not in dispute... there is debate on fine details of the theory. But you conflate this and try to make it more than it is.
There is still debate on the details in every other science, from medicine to math... that does not mean that Gravity is about to be rescinded or that Germ Theory is false.

Remedial classes in science can potentially fix this confused view.

wa:do

 

[DeitySlayer]

Here are the tenets of evolution:

- Replication
- Variation
- Selection

: lead to new species over time.

That's all. Really.

There's nothing about what evolved from what, or which exact evolutionary path occurred. That's all about how it PLAYED OUT. The fundamental tenets of evolution hold only that IT HAPPENED.

 

[Autodidact]

Quote Autodidact: No they don't. To say that, you either have to be deliberately dishonest, or not understand what the fundamental tenets of ToE are.* There is virtually no NO no disagreement on the fundamental tenets of ToE.

So you say VIRTUALLY no no no agreement..that's a non non non virtually uncommitted statement.

Well homonids were supposedly a sign of the beginning of 'becoming human'. However the excert below and others cite chimps etc walking bipedally now. That may be seen as one of the tennents being challenged. Bipedal walking is no big deal and never was, yet a whole crap listing is there for homonid and homonidae and all this nonsense. Another scientist reckons we came from orangutangs and many support his work, another thinks a chimp should be in the Homo line, the evo tree should show the branching off of neanderthal and the coming together of the line etc, the species problem ( the concept of species, subspecies a major tennent is vaguely defined), many think an evo tree is misleading, DNA has shown similarilty rather than distinction, I could go on..don't you lot read the science daily or something...you should know all this...

Me thinks it's all far from being sorted. The only major tennant that reamins is we came from chimps. It's just how, when, where and why that keeps changing.

RF scolars are about the only scolars that reckon it's all worked out, no debate, no disagreement...and what does that say????? You all need to meet with NASA and the other researchers and tell them just how it is.

Just a snip below for those with outdated info: Just google 'bipedal walking'.
Previously, the first known bipedal ape was believed to be about 6 million years old, but the new research suggests this was in fact the extinct hominoid Morotopithecus bishopi, which inhabited Uganda over 21 million years ago.

"Humanity can be redefined as having its origin with Morotopithecus," said Filler.

This pushes back the root of our two-footed walk about 15 million years, when we had a common ancestor with chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. A recent research pointed that upright walking could have emerged before our ancestors left the tree life.

"If you look at baby siamangs, which are a kind of gibbon, you'll see them walk bipedally on their own. It's just their natural way of walking. They never knuckle walk." said Filler.

"If bipedalism did evolve 21 million years ago, it more likely evolved to walk in trees than on the ground," said University of Chicago evolutionary anthropologist Russell Tuttle.

"Besides Morotopithecus, fossil vertebrae suggest three other upright ape species precede the 6 million year mark. So you have this fossil evidence for bipedalism, and you have apes such as gibbons. Perhaps humans represent the primitive condition, and knuckle walkers such as chimps and gorillas are modified. The ancestors of chimps and gorillas might have evolved knuckle walking as a speedier mode of travel," said Filler.

I say "virtually" because there is almost never consensus in science for anything. There's always a couple eccentric souls holding out against the general consensus.

Again, none of what you describe is fundamental ToE. Remember when we reviewed what the basics of ToE are? Again, chimps were not mentioned.

Since we reviewed these fundamentals together, and you said you agreed with them, the fact that you are now disputing them makes me lean toward assessing your position as dishonest rather than ignorant.

This further confirms my suspicion that you are a Young Earth Creationist in agnostic's clothing.

 

[newhope101]

You show gross misunderstanding.... we did not evolve from Chimps...nor did Chimps ever walk upright...

We evolved from a common ancestor with the Chimp, that was neither Chimp nor Human. This common ancestor likely walked upright in the trees. (how it moved on the ground is still uncertain).

The basic tenants of evolution (natural selection, changes in allele frequencies over time, inheritance, et cet.) are not in dispute... there is debate on fine details of the theory. But you conflate this and try to make it more than it is.
There is still debate on the details in every other science, from medicine to math... that does not mean that Gravity is about to be rescinded or that Germ Theory is false.

Remedial classes in science can potentially fix this confused view.

wa:do

What do you call this being that was neither chimp nor human, a chuman? No I'm not going there!!!!

It may interest you to know that researchers, just as credentialed as you, disagree with your solid and unwavering stance and not just in relation to trivial issues. No not such they refute ToE but some basic tennants are in dispute.

Natural selection is not special. There are well credentialed scientists that dispute natural selection as a means of explaining macroevolution and speciation above biochemistry and they are evolutionists. Here's an example below from someone that is educated that also sees some controversy over natural selection, a basic tennant of TOE, that you stated, there is no real controvery over!!!..

The article states re natural selection:
"surprisingly, the patterns of molecular evolution in many of the genes they found did not contain signals of natural selection." ""The research not only increases our understanding of human evolution, but also suggests that many techniques used by evolutionary biologists to detect selection may be flawed,"

Are you saying these researchers are stupid, all that they say is rubbish, regardless of their quals?


Natural Selection Not The Only Process That Drives Evolution?

ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2009) — Why have some of our genes evolved rapidly? It is widely believed that Darwinian natural selection is responsible, but research led by a group at Uppsala University, suggests that a separate neutral (nonadaptive) process has made a significant contribution to human evolution.

Their results have been published January 27 in the journal PLoS Biology.
The researchers identified fast evolving human genes by comparing our genome with those of other primates. However, surprisingly, the patterns of molecular evolution in many of the genes they found did not contain signals of natural selection. Instead, their evidence suggests that a separate process known as BGC (biased gene conversion) has speeded up the rate of evolution in certain genes. This process increases the rate at which certain mutations spread through a population, regardless of whether they are beneficial or harmful.

"The research not only increases our understanding of human evolution, but also suggests that many techniques used by evolutionary biologists to detect selection may be flawed," says Matthew Webster of the Department of Medical Biochemistry and Microbiology at Uppsala University.

BGC is thought to be strongest in regions of high recombination, and can cause harmful mutations can spread through populations. The results lead to the provocative hypothesis that, rather than being the result of Darwinian selection for new adaptations, many of the genetic changes leading to human-specific characters may be the result of the fixation of harmful mutations. This contrasts the traditional Darwinistic view that they are the result of natural selection in favour of adaptive mutations.

The above story is reprinted (with editorial adaptations by ScienceDaily staff) from materials provided by Uppsala University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Would not be a bad time to mention that humans and modern apes closely related to us shared common ancestors and that the whole "chuman" stuff is just non scientific creationist clap trap or that it's quite well known that natural selection isn't the only factor in evolution.

Seriously, nothing you posted was new info.

 

[painted wolf]

What do you call this being that was neither chimp nor human, a chuman? No I'm not going there!!!!

Actually it's called CHLCA (chimp-human last common ancestor).

The article states re natural selection:
"surprisingly, the patterns of molecular evolution in many of the genes they found did not contain signals of natural selection." ""The research not only increases our understanding of human evolution, but also suggests that many techniques used by evolutionary biologists to detect selection may be flawed,"

Are you saying these researchers are stupid, all that they say is rubbish, regardless of their quals?

No... I'm saying you can't read these articles and understand them.
I've never said that natural selection is the only driver of evolution... Nor does the majority of evolutionary biologists. It's well known (and has been for a long time) that other forces like:
Sexual selection
Genetic Drift
HGT
and others play a role in evolution... that does nothing to dispute that evolution happens.
Seriously, you really need to learn some basic science and take the time to read and try to actually understand what you cite.

It's getting comical and I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel bad.

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

Actually it's called CHLCA (chimp-human last common ancestor).

No... I'm saying you can't read these articles and understand them.
I've never said that natural selection is the only driver of evolution... Nor does the majority of evolutionary biologists. It's well known (and has been for a long time) that other forces like:
Sexual selection
Genetic Drift
HGT
and others play a role in evolution... that does nothing to dispute that evolution happens.
Seriously, you really need to learn some basic science and take the time to read and try to actually understand what you cite.

It's getting comical and I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel bad.

wa:do

Paintedwolf..the article suugest that techniques used to detect natural selection may be flawed. And Darwins model appeas to be very simplistic in light of recent research.

I believe geneticists do not know what they are seeing at all, nor what exactly DNA or RNA is telling them. Indeed, two species can be morphologically almost indentical yet are reproductively isolated into different species that meet the general criteria of species distinction. This research , for me, outlines what nonsence all this science is. If something looks the same, why on earth is it called another species. To the ordinary person they are the same. It takes a scientist to confuse what the ordinary person would see as logic. If this is what being educated in evolutionary science does to ones brain then ....no thanks. I'll sit back with my creationist collegues and laugh at the continuing contradictions of Toe. So creationists and evolutionists can both continuing laughing at each other and havng a great time!

Wiki:
In biology, a cryptic species complex is a group of species which satisfy the biological definition of species—that is, they are reproductively isolated from each other—but whose morphology is very similar (in some cases virtually identical).
The species in a cryptic complex are typically very close relatives and in many cases cannot be easily distinguished by molecular phylogenetic studies. If lineage sorting has not yet been completed, members of a cryptic species complex widely share plesiomorphic haplotypes, while individual species might not have evolved distinctive autapomorphic mutations yet. But usually, individual species within the complex can be separated by analysing data from multiple sources, such as by comparing DNA sequence analyses, bioacoustics and thorough life history studies.
They may be parapatric, are frequently sympatric, and are sometimes allopatric. Cryptic species complexes are not the same as populations undergoing speciation: they typically represent a situation where speciation has already broken gene flow between populations, but where evolution has not progressed to a point where easily-recognizable adaptations have taken place.
Cryptic species that do not form a complex may be somewhat more distantly related and simply represent lineages that have been so successful as to require little evolutionary change, possibly coupled with parallel evolution. A famous example are the Eurasian and Short-toed Treecreepers, perhaps the first cryptic species to be recognized as such (by Christian Ludwig Brehm in 1820). Other ornithologists refused to accept that more than one species was involved until Brehm presented his bioacoustic studies, which left no room for doubt. The European Treecreeper has since been found to be a very close relative of the Himalayan Hodgson's Treecreeper, while the Short-toed Treecreeper is probably the sister species of the North American Brown Creeper.
A related concept is the superspecies. This is a clade of at least two more or less distinctive species with approximately parapatric distributions. Not all cryptic species complexes are superspecies, and vice versa, but many are.

 

[Falvlun]

Paintedwolf..the article suugest that techniques used to detect natural selection may be flawed. And Darwins model appeas to be very simplistic in light of recent research.

Uh... duh. He wrote that stuff 150 years ago. DNA hadn't even been discovered at the time. Science is not static; it's supposed to change with further discovery. Painted Wolf has posted, multiple times, the variety of mechanisms by which evolution occurs. So, yes, it would be simplistic to simply say "Natural selection is the only means by which evolution ever occurs". Thankfully, that's not what the ToE states.

 

[Autodidact]

Paintedwolf..the article suugest that techniques used to detect natural selection may be flawed. And Darwins model appeas to be very simplistic in light of recent research.

I believe geneticists do not know what they are seeing at all, nor what exactly DNA or RNA is telling them. Indeed, two species can be morphologically almost indentical yet are reproductively isolated into different species that meet the general criteria of species distinction. This research , for me, outlines what nonsence all this science is. If something looks the same, why on earth is it called another species. To the ordinary person they are the same. It takes a scientist to confuse what the ordinary person would see as logic. If this is what being educated in evolutionary science does to ones brain then ....no thanks. I'll sit back with my creationist collegues and laugh at the continuing contradictions of Toe. So creationists and evolutionists can both continuing laughing at each other and havng a great time!

Wiki:
In biology, a cryptic species complex is a group of species which satisfy the biological definition of species—that is, they are reproductively isolated from each other—but whose morphology is very similar (in some cases virtually identical).
The species in a cryptic complex are typically very close relatives and in many cases cannot be easily distinguished by molecular phylogenetic studies. If lineage sorting has not yet been completed, members of a cryptic species complex widely share plesiomorphic haplotypes, while individual species might not have evolved distinctive autapomorphic mutations yet. But usually, individual species within the complex can be separated by analysing data from multiple sources, such as by comparing DNA sequence analyses, bioacoustics and thorough life history studies.
They may be parapatric, are frequently sympatric, and are sometimes allopatric. Cryptic species complexes are not the same as populations undergoing speciation: they typically represent a situation where speciation has already broken gene flow between populations, but where evolution has not progressed to a point where easily-recognizable adaptations have taken place.
Cryptic species that do not form a complex may be somewhat more distantly related and simply represent lineages that have been so successful as to require little evolutionary change, possibly coupled with parallel evolution. A famous example are the Eurasian and Short-toed Treecreepers, perhaps the first cryptic species to be recognized as such (by Christian Ludwig Brehm in 1820). Other ornithologists refused to accept that more than one species was involved until Brehm presented his bioacoustic studies, which left no room for doubt. The European Treecreeper has since been found to be a very close relative of the Himalayan Hodgson's Treecreeper, while the Short-toed Treecreeper is probably the sister species of the North American Brown Creeper.
A related concept is the superspecies. This is a clade of at least two more or less distinctive species with approximately parapatric distributions. Not all cryptic species complexes are superspecies, and vice versa, but many are.

I agree! Science sucks! Those scientists are a bunch of big dummy-heads just making things more complicated than they need to. Why even bother? It's a big waste of time. We don't need no stinking science! Let's go back to the Dark Ages, when the word of the lord was all we needed.

 

[painted wolf]

Paintedwolf..the article suugest that techniques used to detect natural selection may be flawed. And Darwins model appeas to be very simplistic in light of recent research.

I believe geneticists do not know what they are seeing at all, nor what exactly DNA or RNA is telling them. Indeed, two species can be morphologically almost indentical yet are reproductively isolated into different species that meet the general criteria of species distinction. This research , for me, outlines what nonsence all this science is. If something looks the same, why on earth is it called another species. To the ordinary person they are the same. It takes a scientist to confuse what the ordinary person would see as logic. If this is what being educated in evolutionary science does to ones brain then ....no thanks. I'll sit back with my creationist collegues and laugh at the continuing contradictions of Toe. So creationists and evolutionists can both continuing laughing at each other and havng a great time!

Right... so if it looks the same at first glance it must be the same. Don't go into nature or that attitude will get you killed.

Gosh, they look the same so they must be the same... except one is harmless and one will kill you. Those darn scientists making everything so difficult! I should just be able to look and go "hey what a pretty snake" but no I have to realize that one of them is a different species (genus and family even!) from the other snake so that I won't end up dead.

Stupid stupid science.... making me have to think instead of just deciding what looks ok.


Oh... and yes, genetics has been able to show us that a lot of things that look alike are actually very different... stupid science... making us realize how wonderful the variety of life is. We should all just be happy with "frog" and ignore the rest!

wa:do

 

[newhope101]

I think evolutionists are bold in criticising and not accepting the concept of 'kind' with the mess the term species is in, as previously posted. The snake is no exception. Was this example supposed to clarify the mess your own concept of species is in? It doesn't you know.

Snakes appear to be a monophyly, regardless. The first snakes were created then adapted and became the rich variety you speak of. Hec, evos can't even agree on 'Family". Great example!!!

Not even creationists will argue that various varieties of an organism, eg frogs, should not have names that identify their variety. That was areally dumb comment Wolf. The problem is not with the naming of variety. The problem starts when evos try to side step LCA as the ancestor that came after it was something other than a frog to fit the TOE model. At this point any variety of frog or salamander will be used to claim a mid species find. We all know what researchers originally did with neanderthal sketches until they were reviewed in light of more evidence. Many so called mid species are nothing more than varieties of a kind. Neanderthal is human, tiktallic was not the first creature to climb onto land as there are older tetrapod footprints of the same age, Bird/dino..Arch..well researchers aren't sure which way this evolution went and feathered dinos have been discovered that were not mid anything.

Again I reiterate....Evolutionists do not have a definition of species that has scientific veracity and can be consistently applied. ..and don't you just hate it!

Thanks for leading me to yet another example of the species confusion.

Wiki Snake
Taxonomy

All modern snakes are grouped within the suborder Serpentes in Linnean taxonomy, part of the order Squamata, though their precise placement within squamates is controversial.[1]
There are two infraorders of Serpentes: Alethinophidia and Scolecophidia.[1] This separation is based on morphological characteristics and mitochondrial DNA sequence similarity. Alethinophidia is sometimes split into Henophidia and Caenophidia, with the latter consisting of "colubroid" snakes (colubrids, vipers, elapids, hydrophiids, and attractaspids) and acrochordids, while the other alethinophidian families comprise Henophidia.[14] While not extant today, the Madtsoiidae, a family of giant, primitive, python-like snakes, was around until 50,000 years ago in Australia, represented by genera such as Wonambi.
There are numerous debates in the systematics within the group. For instance, many sources classify Boidae and Pythonidae as one family, while some keep the Elapidae and Hydrophiidae (sea snakes) separate for practical reasons despite their extremely close relation.
Recent molecular studies support the monophyly of the clades of modern snakes, scolecophidians, typhlopids + anomalepidids, alethinophidians, core alethinophidians, uropeltids (Cylindrophis, Anomochilus, uropeltines), macrostomatans, booids, boids, pythonids and caenophidians.[6]


Monophyly
In common cladistic usage, monophyletic describes a group of organisms that form a clade, consisting of a last common ancestor and all of its descendants.

 

[McBell]

I think evolutionists are bold in criticising and not accepting the concept of 'kind' with the mess the term species is in, as previously posted. The snake is no exception. Was this example supposed to clarify the mess your own concept of species is in? It doesn't you know.

Are you honestly that big an idiot or are you just being dishonest again?

Which concept of kind do you mean?
Hells bells, you cannot even define the term in a manner that makes the term useful.
Though I suspect that that is being done intentionally.
I mean, you yourself cannot decide what the term "kind" means, yet you want to whine about the term species, which does have a workable, despite the problems, definition?

What a hypocrite.

 

[Skwim]

Are you honestly that big an idiot or are you just being dishonest again?

Which concept of kind do you mean?
Hells bells, you cannot even define the term in a manner that makes the term useful.
Though I suspect that that is being done intentionally.
I mean, you yourself cannot decide what the term "kind" means, yet you want to whine about the term species, which does have a workable, despite the problems, definition?

What a hypocrite.