Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[First Baseman]

This is something you factually cannot demonstrate at all! or provide any examples of,because they do not exist.

I follow the credible academic road here, and it seems your just making things up as you go which all amount to unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You are welcome to provide credible sources to substantiate your point.

Your credible sources are not credible to me. I see doubt all over the place in evolutionary theory, you don't?

 

[First Baseman]

And every time I ask any of you to prove something I get no proof. Because there isn't any proof. You believe what you have been told to believe. That's faith, gentlemen, not hard facts.

 

[outhouse]

I'm not the one stating facts

Your factually proselytizing ONLY faith. Its against the rules here.


You will get banned if you don't start providing credible sources

 

[First Baseman]

Send me some proof in a PM and I'll come back to this thread. Until then I will safely assume that you can prove nothing.

Have a good day, gentlemen.

 

[First Baseman]

Your factually proselytizing ONLY faith. Its against the rules here.


You will get banned if you don't start providing credible sources

How about the entire Bible? Oh, you don't accept that. Tobad.

 

[outhouse]

Your credible sources are not credible to me

Have you even started grade school biology yet?

 

[First Baseman]

Have you even started grade school biology yet?

Send me your proof. Have a good day.

 

[dust1n]

God has been tested since creation and found to be righteous and holy, therefore His word is absolutely correct.

No, I'm curious in what tests you did to confirm these hard facts. You don't present any hard facts, so far, because as you say, God has already presented all the hard facts you need.

So please, enumerate these hard facts, and explain how you went about testing them.

I'm not the one stating facts that aren't facts, you guys are.

You have responded to any of the facts I've presented so far, even when a Christian explains quite simply. You yourself haven't present any facts "that are facts." You won't even share what hard facts you need from God and how you tested them.

 

[First Baseman]

No, I'm curious in what tests you did to confirm these hard facts. You don't present any hard facts, so far, because as you say, God has already presented all the hard facts you need.

So please, enumerate these hard facts, and explain how you went about testing them.



You have responded to any of the facts I've presented so far, even when a Christian explains quite simply.

Send me your proof. Have a good day.

 

[outhouse]

How about the entire Bible?

But it seems you don't know the first thing about the book.


Education is knowledge, please dont debate unarmed.

 

[dust1n]

No, I said "like" cats turning into dogs, not that you think that's what happened. So what animal have you seen change into a completely different animal?

If cats can't turn into dogs, then why would you expect something like a cat turning into a dog?

That's like me asking you to show one example where God does something like slaps a baby to death in the Bible. That's why I said "like."

Anyways, animal to animal?

"The apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, Rhagoletis pomonella began the long journey of speciation.

Species can split without such clear boundaries, too. When species diverge like the apple maggot flies - without a complete, physical barrier - it's called Sympatric Speciation. Sympatric speciation can occur for all kinds of reasons. All it takes is something that makes one group have less sex with another.

For one species of Monarch flycatchers (Monarcha castaneiventris), it was all about looks. These little insectivores live on Solomon Islands, east of Papua New Guinea. At some point, a small group of them developed a single amino acid mutation in the gene for a protein called melanin, which dictates the bird's color pattern. Some flycatchers are all black, while others have chestnut colored bellies. Even though the two groups are perfectly capable of producing viable offspring, they don't mix in the wild. Researchers found that the birds already see the other group as a different species. The males, which are fiercely territorial, don't react when a differently colored male enters their turf. Like the apple maggot flies, the flycatchers are no longer interbreeding, and have thus taken the first step towards becoming two different species.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

As far as changes that require more time than genetics has even been around, there is nothing about genetics that contradicts this. In fact, genetics only support this and show in basically in detail how this done and how the changes came about.

Oh yeah, and the "tests" for my "facts"

1. Soltis, D., & Soltis, P. (1989). Allopolyploid Speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from Chloroplast DNAAmerican Journal of Botany, 76 (8) DOI: 10.2307/2444824
   
2. McPheron, B., Smith, D., & Berlocher, S. (1988). Genetic differences between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella Nature, 336 (6194), 64-66 DOI: 10.1038/336064a0
   
3. Uy, J., Moyle, R., Filardi, C., & Cheviron, Z. (2009). Difference in Plumage Color Used in Species Recognition between Incipient Species Is Linked to a Single Amino Acid Substitution in the Melanocortin?1 Receptor The American Naturalist, 174 (2), 244-254 DOI: 10.1086/600084
   
4. Phillip A Morin1, Frederick I Archer, Andrew D Foote, Julie Vilstrup, Eric E Allen, Paul Wade, John Durban, Kim Parsons, Robert Pitman, Lewyn Li, Pascal Bouffard, Sandra C Abel Nielsen, Morten Rasmussen, Eske Willerslev, M. Thomas P Gilbert, & Timothy Harkins (2010). Complete mitochondrial genome phylogeographic analysis of killer whales (Orcinus orca) indicates multiple species Genome Research

 

[First Baseman]

But it seems you don't know the first thing about the book.


Education is knowledge, please dont debate unarmed.

I'm still waiting on a PM that shows proof... I guess I'm never going to get it. Oh well.

 

[First Baseman]

If cats can't turn into dogs, then why would you expect something like a cat turning into a dog?

That's like me asking you to show one example where God does something like slaps a baby to death in the Bible. That's why I said "like."

Anyways, animal to animal?

"The apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, Rhagoletis pomonella began the long journey of speciation.

Species can split without such clear boundaries, too. When species diverge like the apple maggot flies - without a complete, physical barrier - it's called Sympatric Speciation. Sympatric speciation can occur for all kinds of reasons. All it takes is something that makes one group have less sex with another.

For one species of Monarch flycatchers (Monarcha castaneiventris), it was all about looks. These little insectivores live on Solomon Islands, east of Papua New Guinea. At some point, a small group of them developed a single amino acid mutation in the gene for a protein called melanin, which dictates the bird's color pattern. Some flycatchers are all black, while others have chestnut colored bellies. Even though the two groups are perfectly capable of producing viable offspring, they don't mix in the wild. Researchers found that the birds already see the other group as a different species. The males, which are fiercely territorial, don't react when a differently colored male enters their turf. Like the apple maggot flies, the flycatchers are no longer interbreeding, and have thus taken the first step towards becoming two different species.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

As far as changes that require more time than genetics has even been around, there is nothing about genetics that contradicts this. In fact, genetics only support this and show in basically in detail how this done and how the changes came about.

Oh yeah, and the "tests" for my "facts"

1. Soltis, D., & Soltis, P. (1989). Allopolyploid Speciation in Tragopogon: Insights from Chloroplast DNAAmerican Journal of Botany, 76 (8) DOI: 10.2307/2444824
   
2. McPheron, B., Smith, D., & Berlocher, S. (1988). Genetic differences between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella Nature, 336 (6194), 64-66 DOI: 10.1038/336064a0
   
3. Uy, J., Moyle, R., Filardi, C., & Cheviron, Z. (2009). Difference in Plumage Color Used in Species Recognition between Incipient Species Is Linked to a Single Amino Acid Substitution in the Melanocortin?1 Receptor The American Naturalist, 174 (2), 244-254 DOI: 10.1086/600084
   
4. Phillip A Morin1, Frederick I Archer, Andrew D Foote, Julie Vilstrup, Eric E Allen, Paul Wade, John Durban, Kim Parsons, Robert Pitman, Lewyn Li, Pascal Bouffard, Sandra C Abel Nielsen, Morten Rasmussen, Eske Willerslev, M. Thomas P Gilbert, & Timothy Harkins (2010). Complete mitochondrial genome phylogeographic analysis of killer whales (Orcinus orca) indicates multiple species Genome Research

Great. So because these flies have different allele frequencies the author speculates that one must have evolved from the other. More assumption, no proof.

"At some point, a small group of them developed a single amino acid mutation in the gene for a protein called melanin, which dictates the bird's color pattern."

1. This could be explained in several ways. First, it could be an entire new species not yet discovered but assumed to have mutated.
2. Show how the single amino acid mutated to create an entirely different kind of insectivore and prove it happened.

Anyway, neither of these two examples is an example of one kind of animal changing entirely into a new kind of animal. Rather, you've just shown, if you've shown anything, is how Noah got all the animals on the ark. He only needed two of each kind.

Fail. Try again?

 

[First Baseman]

But it seems you don't know the first thing about the book.


Education is knowledge, please dont debate unarmed.

Two assumptions in the same post. I'm not surprised.

 

[leibowde84]

You accept theories as fact without testing them first? Is that what science has come to these days?

I never claimed that evolution was "fact". It's pretty close, but not quite there yet. It is a scientific theory supported by repeated observation and experimentation. And, it has been verified as it has been used to make accurate predictions time and time again.

1. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. (wiki)

 

[Yorutenchi]

I would argue that macro-evolution is unsubstantiated. Finding fossils that appear to be intermediate forms proves nothing. Faulty dating methods prove nothing.

DNA is evidence alone even without the incredible fossil evidence. Faulty dating methods are not used. Several different dating methods are used multiple times to confirm a match. It is never from a single dating method done a single time. That would breed inconsistencies and errors.

Really, you have observed one kind of creature like a cat evolve into a dog recently? Wow.

I have watched the processes of evolution happen yes. But cats evolving into dogs is not evolution. If they did that it would prove evolution wrong.

 

[First Baseman]

I never claimed that evolution was "fact". It's pretty close, but not quite there yet. It is a scientific theory supported by repeated observation and experimentation. And, it has been verified as it has been used to make accurate predictions time and time again.

1. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. (wiki)

Very good post. Microevolution, evolution among like kinds, has been observed. Macroevolution, evolution among different kinds, has not been observed.

 

[leibowde84]

Very good post. Microevolution, evolution among like kinds, has been observed. Macroevolution, evolution among different kinds, has not been observed.

"Kinds" is not a scientific term, so it really doesn't have any meaning here. Do you mean "species"?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I never claimed that evolution was "fact". It's pretty close, but not quite there yet. It is a scientific theory supported by repeated observation and experimentation.

This has been referenced before times on RF: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

 

[First Baseman]

DNA is evidence alone even without the incredible fossil evidence. Faulty dating methods are not used. Several different dating methods are used multiple times to confirm a match. It is never from a single dating method done a single time. That would breed inconsistencies and errors.

I have watched the processes of evolution happen yes. But cats evolving into dogs is not evolution. If they did that it would prove evolution wrong.

You need to research about your dating methods. The reason why different ones are used is to obtain the closest to the desired/expected results. If something is dated and it reveals a highly unexpected result it is thrown out. Of course the scientists don't tell you about that.

Microevolution among like kinds is just what happens as a result of creation. Macroevolution does not happen and you cannot prove it does because it doesn't. DNA evidence proves macroevolution most likely did not happen as a matter of fact. Of course your scientists don't tell you about that, either.