No Evidence for Speciation?

[Valjean]

Yes, so can camels and llamas. What point are you making, though?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

the line is drawn at the reproductive stage. You cannot successfully cross a horse and cow, or a dog and cat, or a chicken and squirrel

This is because each 'kind' can only reproduce with those of the same 'kind' as God gave them the directive:

Genesis 1:21 And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind. And God got to see that [it was] good. 22 With that God blessed them, saying: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth.”

These animals were able to multiply with other like 'kinds'... this is why a lion can reproduce with a tiger and a horse can reproduce with a donkey for example.



basic kinds of living things are found to be remarkably stable, fish produce fish and lizards produce lizards. The most intensive breeding experiments cannot push them beyond a certain point. When they go too far, they reach the boundary of sterility.
The only real evidence of change is the evidence of genetic variation WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of animals, or WITHIN limits of kinds or forms of plants.

No one ever witnessed a fish become a lizard, or a population of fish change into a different kind of animal as is suggested by evolution. So its is merely speculation that it happened because that is what the theory of evolution predicts will happen.

Why are the jungles not full of Ligers?

Why are the wolves and chihuahuas not breeding?

If they see each others as foes, and never ever seek each other out to breed, how does that keep them the same 'kind'? Not able to breed = not able to breed.

'Kind' is just a non-useful arbitrary idea which fails in the face of nature.

 

[lunakilo]

Many creation beleive not there is no evidence for the speciation of animals, that someone one species of animal cannot in anyway become another species.

But I would like to explain to me how the the mighty fearsome wolf is the same species as the lowly and annoying chihuahua?

There is no way that those two animals are the same specie, just look at them. They are obviously so different that we have to construe them as totally different species and that the chihuahua is evidence that speciation is true.

Just look at these, how can they possible be tha same species? : Sexual_dimorphism

What I am saying is that your argument is silly.
1) Two individuals from the same species can look very different, so the argument that a dog and a wolf look different does not prove speciation.
2) Dogs and wolfs can produce fertile offspring, so technically dogs and wolfs ARE the same species.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Just look at these, how can they possible be tha same species? : Sexual_dimorphism

What I am saying is that your argument is silly.
1) Two individuals from the same species can look very different, so the argument that a dog and a wolf look different does not prove speciation.
2) Dogs and wolfs can produce fertile offspring, so technically dogs and wolfs ARE the same species.

Obviously sexual dimorphism doesn't apply here since dogs vary a huge amount regardless of gender but as for the rest...

Quite right. Wolves are "Canis lupus", a species in their own right. Domestic dogs are "Canis lupus familiaris" which are a subspecies. That doesn't mean they've undergone speciation, but certain groups of dog are likely in the process of doing so. I'm sure you can imagine if they don't generally interbreed with wolves eventually they won't be able to any more.

 

[Arctic_Guy]

I have never heard a cross breed between Wolves and Chihuahua (not that it was implied), but there are certainly documented and living cases of Wolf (Canis lupus)/domestic dog (Canis Lupus Familiaris) breeds:

dogbreedinfo(dot)com/wolfhybred(dot)htm

Wolf Hybrid
(Wolf Hybred) (Wolf Dogs)
Wolf / Domestic Dog cross

The Wolf Hybrid is not a purebred dog. It is a cross between a Domestic Dog and a Wolf. The best way to determine the temperament of a mixed breed is to look up all breeds in the cross and know you can get any combination of any of the characteristics found in either breed. Anyone owning a Wolf Hybrid should read these two pages Top Dog and Establishing and Keeping Alpha Position and MUST understand dog/wolf psychology and willing to follow it. This hybrid is not recommended for most people.

And then, there's also the different kinds of Zebroids aka Zorses, those being crossbreads between Zebras and horses or donkeys.

en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Zorse

Also. ligers and tiglons are not the only cross breeds:

en(dotwikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Panthera_hybrid

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Dude, the wolf is a mighty apex predator, king of his domain and majestic in his beauty. The chihuahua is a mutant, annoying, homely parasite akin to vermin. It even looks like a rat.

Dudette, you obviously have not seen "Beverly Hills Chihuahua."

 

[crystalonyx]

Yes, so can camels and llamas. What point are you making, though?

I think point I am trying to make is that the determation of a "species" is very subjective, especially when doing it from the fossil record. The real determination of a species is supposed to be whether organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. We can use DNA analysis now to help determine similar characteritics, but the fossil record does not allow this luxury.

 

[idav]

I think point I am trying to make is that the determation of a "species" is very subjective, especially when doing it from the fossil record. The real determination of a species is supposed to be whether organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. We can use DNA analysis now to help determine similar characteritics, but the fossil record does not allow this luxury.

No matter what defines a species, speciation does occur. Being able to mate is the most important distinction because without being able to mate, that is when a more serious divergence becomes inevitable. If llama-camels, or wolf-chihuahuas can still mate successfully matters little because in the long run that may not be the case, especially if chihuahas and wolves don't mate for another several million years.

The fossil record does say a lot though but of course dna analysis is much more precise. What the fossil record does show is the divergences between all the animals. Whether they could mate is always a good question just like when people were wondering if neanderthals mated with homo-sapians which DNA analysis was able to help solve.

 

[Skwim]

I think point I am trying to make is that the determation of a "species" is very subjective, especially when doing it from the fossil record. The real determination of a species is supposed to be whether organisms can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

This is the elementary school definition, which holds true for almost all organisms. That it doesn't cover all of them means that it isn't a definitive definition. Moreover, it must be remembered that species, like class, family, genus, etc., is a taxonomic device for ranking organisms, and doesn't demand an absolute definition. However, some very good attempts have been made to define species. Probably the most widely used definitions are those akin to that of Ernst Mayr, who said a species is a"reproductively isolated aggregate of populations which can interbreed with one another because they share the same isolating mechanisms."

We can use DNA analysis now to help determine similar characteritics, but the fossil record does not allow this luxury.

No it doesn't, but DNA isn't necessary to rank an organism. Sometimes the form, structure, and presumed function are all we have to go on. In these cases the tentative nature of species classification must be remembered. And, revisions do occur, as was the recent case with the domestic dog, which went from being classified as Canis familiaris to Canis lupus familiaris. Making it the same species as the the wolf.

 

[Pegg]

Why are the jungles not full of Ligers?

Why are the wolves and chihuahuas not breeding?

If they see each others as foes, and never ever seek each other out to breed, how does that keep them the same 'kind'? Not able to breed = not able to breed.

'Kind' is just a non-useful arbitrary idea which fails in the face of nature.

I would say that 'species' is also a non-useful idea that fails in the face of nature too

biologists have said that tigers and Lions are different species...yet they can interbreed. So how can they really be a different species?

Are you a different species to a person of a different race?

 

[shawn001]

Pegg, the reason people get goosebumps is because we use to have hair all over our bodies.

Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory

"One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.

As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.

These animals sound wild, but the fossil record — which is far from complete — is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."

At least hundreds, possibly thousands, of transitional fossils have been found so far by researchers. The exact count is unclear because some lineages of organisms are continuously evolving.

Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | LiveScience

 

[Carpenter Rabbi]

I would say that 'species' is also a non-useful idea that fails in the face of nature too

Maybe, but it helps biologists classify organisms, which helps them to keep track of the many organisms.

biologists have said that tigers and Lions are different species...yet they can interbreed. So how can they really be a different species?

The tigon and liger (tiger x lion offspring) are both infertile. This disqualifies Lions and Tigers from being the same species, as if they were, their offspring would be able to reproduce. (The "offspring able to reproduce" thing is commonly missed in questions on species definition.)

Are you a different species to a person of a different race?

Can the offspring of my race and their race reproduce? If yes, then we are the same species. I have never heard of a mixed-race offspring type (White x Black, White x Hispanic, White x Asian, White x Aboriginal [Native American, Australian, etc], Black x Asian, Black x Hispanic, Black x Aboriginal, Asian x Hispanic, Asian x Aboriginal, among others) that has consistently, across every pairing, been unable to reproduce.

 

[Pegg]

Pegg, the reason people get goosebumps is because we use to have hair all over our bodies.

we still do have hair all over our bodies. Whats to say that the hair we have right now is the hair humans always had?

"One frequently cited "hole" in the theory: Creationists claim there are no transitional fossils, aka missing links. Biologists and paleontologists, among others, know this claim is false.

As key evidence for evolution and species' gradual change over time, transitional creatures should resemble intermediate species, having skeletal and other body features in common with two distinct groups of animals, such as reptiles and mammals, or fish and amphibians.

These animals sound wild, but the fossil record — which is far from complete — is full of them nonetheless, as documented by Occidental College geologist Donald Prothero in his book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" (Columbia University Press, 2007). Prothero discussed those fossils last month at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, along with transitional fossils that were announced since the book was published, including the "fishibian" and the "frogamander."

let me ask you, what is the transitional fossil for the long-necked giraffe? Going by what is stated above, it is reasonable to expect to find a short-necked giraffe first and watch a gradual development of the neck length.

Is that what the fossil record shows?

 

[Pegg]

The tigon and liger (tiger x lion offspring) are both infertile. This disqualifies Lions and Tigers from being the same species, as if they were, their offspring would be able to reproduce. (The "offspring able to reproduce" thing is commonly missed in questions on species definition.)

the reproduction between the tiger and lion is what proves they are the same species...the hybrid proves that the limits of the reproductive boundary has been reached

Can the offspring of my race and their race reproduce? If yes, then we are the same species. I have never heard of a mixed-race offspring type (White x Black, White x Hispanic, White x Asian, White x Aboriginal [Native American, Australian, etc], Black x Asian, Black x Hispanic, Black x Aboriginal, Asian x Hispanic, Asian x Aboriginal, among others) that has consistently, across every pairing, been unable to reproduce.

perhaps you've just identified the very large difference between humans and animals

There is only one type of human and we are all one family...the animals who have existed long before mankind have been here for millions of years and have been breeding and evolving in that time to produce a wide variety of types. So within the cat kind, a large number of very distinct types of cats such as jaguars, lions, tigers, cheetahs, panthas etc have been produced. And it is when two very different types breed together that hybrids occur. Yet among human populations, very different humans can reproduce together and there is no hybridization occurring because we are all very closely related.

However, if human evolution were true, and we have evolved in the same way the animals do, then why do we not hybridize the way they do???

 

[shawn001]

we still do have hair all over our bodies. Whats to say that the hair we have right now is the hair humans always had?





let me ask you, what is the transitional fossil for the long-necked giraffe? Going by what is stated above, it is reasonable to expect to find a short-necked giraffe first and watch a gradual development of the neck length.

Is that what the fossil record shows?

"we still do have hair all over our bodies. Whats to say that the hair we have right now is the hair humans always had? "


Because were mammals and always had hair all over our bodies, we just evolved less, because it was a better way to disapate heat and we could move faster then our ancestors. As in running!

Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man

"Humans get goose bumps when they are cold, frightened, angry, or in awe. Many other creatures get goose bumps for the same reason, for example this is why a cat or dog’s hair stands on end and the cause behind a porcupine’s quills raising. In cold situations, the rising hair traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. In response to fear, goose bumps make an animal appear larger – hopefully scaring away the enemy. Humans no longer benefit from goose bumps and they are simply left over from our past when we were not clothed and needed to scare our own natural enemies. Natural selection removed the thick hair but left behind the mechanism for controlling it."

Top 10 Signs Of Evolution In Modern Man

You might want to look at some of those other ten items.


"let me ask you, what is the transitional fossil for the long-necked giraffe? Going by what is stated above, it is reasonable to expect to find a short-necked giraffe first and watch a gradual development of the neck length."

Creationists and the giraffe? LOL

A giraffe is a mammal and we know how mammals evolved for one. Like the Pelycosaurs, Archosaurs and Therapsids, which lived millions of years before the dinosaurs and went entint before the dinosaurs, and some were part mammal and reptile.

Giraffes – Necks for food or necks for sex?


"According to the known swath of fossil giraffes, significant neck elongation began around 14 million years ago during the Late Miocene – after the lineage to which the relatively short-necked okapi split off – and by about 5 million years ago giraffes of modern proportions had evolved. As bracketed between known fossil types, the transition between the early, short-necked forms and the first long-necked giraffes probably occurred between 14 and 12 million years ago, and if further discoveries bear this out then it appears that the elongation of giraffe necks occurred during a global pattern of aridification in which grasslands replaced forests. Again, this correlation does not by itself imply causation, but by investigating the tooth wear of giraffes before, during, and after this shift it could be detected whether their feeding habits changed and could have been part of the reason for neck elongation. This, in turn, might provide some insight into the tempo of giraffe evolution – did their neck vertebrae slowly become elongated at a near-constant rate, or did the altered activity of regulatory genes cause faster, large-scale shifts which turned out to be advantageous in the altered habitat?"

Giraffes - Necks for food or necks for sex? | Wired Science | Wired.com

 

[idav]

However, if human evolution were true, and we have evolved in the same way the animals do, then why do we not hybridize the way they do???

We are of the ape kind. Our closest competition didn't make out of the ice age for some reason.

 

[Skwim]

the reproduction between the tiger and lion is what proves they are the same species...the hybrid proves that the limits of the reproductive boundary has been reached

Interesting. Most people don't feel qualified to create their own definitions of scientific terms, to say nothing of expecting to be taken seriously.
I tip my hat to your chutzpa.

 

[Pegg]

We are of the ape kind. Our closest competition didn't make out of the ice age for some reason.

if we are of the ape kind, then surely we should be able to reproduce with any one of the current other ape species. There would be no easier way to prove the evolution of humans.

 

[Pegg]

Interesting. Most people don't feel qualified to create their own definitions of scientific terms, to say nothing of expecting to be taken seriously.
I tip my hat to your chutzpa.

Why thank you

 

[shawn001]

Pegg, be honest with the facts. I posted above we have hundreds to 1000 of transional fossils. Look at those.

On Humans start here.

Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Not that long ago there were other "humans" on the planet and modern humans or homo sapiens sapiens lived along with other hominids.

Like homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which homo sapiens had sex with for one and some people today still have neanderthal DNA . You can be DNA tested for it.

Or homo erectus

or homo floresiensis

or homo habilis

or homo ergaster

Why is homo in front of all these speicies of hominids?