Speciation

[Autodidact]

Your question is a good one. In fact, speciation is a theory without substance. Despite intensive scientific efforts to induce speciation through mutations in laboratories, and some widely publicized 'examples', later debunked, ToE advocates are still groping for evidence. Darwin's finches are a good example. The national academy of sciences pointed to these finches in 1999 as "a particularly compelling example of speciation". The studies of Peter and Rose Mary Grant of these finches debunked this 'example', a fact the NAS failed to mention in it's 1999 brochure.
And the embarassing fact is these finches remain..finches. If scientists, working feverishly for decades, cannot induce speciation, then how can it occur 'naturally' and be responsible for the millions of species we know today? The simple answer is: It can't and it didn't.

So rusra, do you deny that speciation, as defined in the OP, happens?

 

[rusra02]

How many decades are in 1 million years? 60? 3 billion? You have no understanding of time.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Life in it's myriad forms occurred relatively recently in the past, as scientists have confirmed. Appealing to vast amounts of time is no proof something occurred or is occurring, when the evidence says otherwise.

 

[rusra02]

So rusra, do you deny that speciation, as defined in the OP, happens?

I thought that's what I just did.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Your question is a good one. In fact, speciation is a theory without substance. Despite intensive scientific efforts to induce speciation through mutations in laboratories, and some widely publicized 'examples', later debunked, ToE advocates are still groping for evidence. Darwin's finches are a good example. The national academy of sciences pointed to these finches in 1999 as "a particularly compelling example of speciation". The studies of Peter and Rose Mary Grant of these finches debunked this 'example', a fact the NAS failed to mention in it's 1999 brochure.
And the embarassing fact is these finches remain..finches. If scientists, working feverishly for decades, cannot induce speciation, then how can it occur 'naturally' and be responsible for the millions of species we know today? The simple answer is: It can't and it didn't.

You could be right or you could just be completely wrong...


case in point.....

This little gem CAN NOT MATE....




With this ehhh ummm "little gem...????"



While they are both Salamanders they are completely separate species....

Go ahead Dr. Frankenstein.... try and get them to mate.....

 

[meogi]

Life in it's myriad forms occurred relatively recently in the past, as scientists have confirmed.

By relatively recently, you mean the past 60 million years? Like I said, you have no understanding of time.

[edit] Premature reply-ation!

Appealing to vast amounts of time is no proof something occurred or is occurring,

I'm not appealing and I'm not proving anything. I'm asking you to try and understand that the entirety of human civilization (let alone scientific progress) is nothing but a blip on a monumental time scale. You appear to have no understanding of time.

when the evidence says otherwise.

The evidence suggests vast amounts of time, why do you ignore it? I'd guess because you don't understand it.

 

[newhope101]

Couple of thoughts on this. One is that most creationists don't actually know what a species is. So when you give them examples of speciation, they say something like, "But it's still a mosquito," thus effectively moving the goalposts. Or they start arguing that the scientific definition of species is wrong. That, of course, is another sort of cheating, since you started by defining species, and it's supposed to be a scientific discussion.
Absolutely..and it doesn't matter how many thousand of years you give it it will remain a mosquito and always was a mosquito becuase it was created as such. Well done. Ardi will remain Ardi also. And yes your species problem remains.
But at the end of the day, the creationists who even pay attention to science, such as AIG, finally yielded, admitted that speciation happens, and retreated to something called a "kind," which is of course a meaningless term. So the more modern and up-to-date creationist will admit that speciation happens, but stops at an imaginary line called a "kind." I think John Sanford understands but he reject the idea like many other well credentialed scientists. To say creationists are ignorant idiots is outdated Auto..get with the program for 2011..that will be a refreshing change.

I predict all of these things will happen in this thread.

I did once have a Muslim creationist, Fatihah, just take the position that the scientists who claim to have observed speciation were lying. That was refreshing.

Microevolution does not bring about macroevolution and you have never demonstrated that it has. You assume it does. Your excuse, not enough time to demonstrate. However, the fact remains that you haven't. To give a variation a new species name and then say.."Look this proves macroevolution" is rubbish.

Physiological climatic limits in Drosophila: patterns and implications -- Hoffmann 213 (6): 870 -- Journal of Experimental Biology

[email protected]: Re: Limits to variation

Darwinism Refuted.com

Physiological climatic limits in Drosophila: patterns and implications -- Hoffmann 213 (6): 870 -- Journal of Experimental Biology

Let me make a prediction...You will produce debated and theoretical nonsense to support any refute. I can do the same. The fact you are unable to grasp is when it comes to evidence you have none. It is theorised that enough microevolution in time will produce a species totally different eg Ardi to human. Regardless of your excuses you cannot show evidence that it will. You have managed to grow legs off drosophila. Too bad they died.

What you have found is limits to variation.

Molecular limits natural variation

Genetic Entropy and Genetic Debris

 

[AfterGlow]

newhope, can I ask why you believe trilobites are found only in specific layers of rock, dinosaurs are found only in specific layers of rock, and humans are found only in specific layers of rock?
What do you think caused these species of animal to only leave remains in defined layers, not occurring below or above a certain point?

 

[Autodidact]

I thought that's what I just did.

O.K. if I provide you cites to peer-reviewed scientific articles describing just that, will you change your position?

 

[Autodidact]

Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Life in it's myriad forms occurred relatively recently in the past, as scientists have confirmed. Appealing to vast amounts of time is no proof something occurred or is occurring, when the evidence says otherwise.

What scientists have confirmed that? Would you cite your sources please? Are they Biologists, or chiropractors?

 

[painted wolf]

If "a mosquito will always be a mosquito" so what? That doesn't invalidate the species concept.

"Mosquito" isn't a species.

wa:do

ps. macroevolution = speciation.

 

[Autodidact]

Interestingly, newhope's position is closer to mine than it is to rusra's. Lacking the scientific method, creationists have no way of reaching consensus on their position.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your question is a good one. In fact, speciation is a theory without substance. Despite intensive scientific efforts to induce speciation through mutations in laboratories, and some widely publicized 'examples', later debunked, ToE advocates are still groping for evidence.

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic... [J Hered. 1990 Jan-Feb] - PubMed result

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization... [BMC Evol Biol. 2003] - PubMed result

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors -- Pires et al. 91 (7): 1022 -- American Journal of Botany

Darwin's finches are a good example. The national academy of sciences pointed to these finches in 1999 as "a particularly compelling example of speciation". The studies of Peter and Rose Mary Grant of these finches debunked this 'example', a fact the NAS failed to mention in it's 1999 brochure.
And the embarassing fact is these finches remain..finches. If scientists, working feverishly for decades, cannot induce speciation, then how can it occur 'naturally' and be responsible for the millions of species we know today? The simple answer is: It can't and it didn't.

Or, the "simple fact" is that you're completely and utterly wrong....

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

 

[newhope101]

Evolution of the mojavensis cluster of cactophilic... [J Hered. 1990 Jan-Feb] - PubMed result

Evolutionary experimentation through hybridization... [BMC Evol Biol. 2003] - PubMed result

Molecular cytogenetic analysis of recently evolved Tragopogon (Asteraceae) allopolyploids reveal a karyotype that is additive of the diploid progenitors -- Pires et al. 91 (7): 1022 -- American Journal of Botany


Or, the "simple fact" is that you're completely and utterly wrong....

The secondary contact phase of allopatric speciation in Darwin's finches

Here is one of your attemps to show speciation brings about macroevolution...

The mojavensis cluster of the repleta species group of Drosophila (Drosophilidae: Diptera) consists of three species. One is newly described as D. navojoa. A second species, described here as D. arizonae, replaces D. arizonensis, which has become a junior subjective synonym for D. mojavensis, the third species in the cluster. A phylogeny of the three species is presented, based on chromosomal inversions, morphology, and the ability to produce hybrids. Breakage points are assigned for all inversions, and male genitalia are figured; 186 crosses were made from 225 possible combinations among 15 geographic strains from the southwestern United States, Mexico, and Guatemala. It is confirmed that D. mojavensis and D. arizonae are very closely related and shown that D. navojoa is more distantly related in regard to all criteria. This relationship is supported by the geographical positions of the ancestral gene sequences in each species, which show a sequential northwest movement (D. navojoa----D. arizonae----D. mojavensis) from southern Mexico to southern California and northern Arizona. The relationship is also supported by the fact that D. navojoa breeds in Opuntia cactus, an ancestral behavior, whereas the other two species breed chiefly in Stenocereus cacti, a derived behavior. The possible role of this host plant shift in speciation is discussed.

It is just as I said. You use this crap to try to illustrate that Ardi will someday will become Human. Rubbish. All you can demonstrate it the wonderfull ability God instilled in creation to adapt and nothing more. It is a stretch of the imagination to believe that adaptation will led to fins instead of arms, my dear. All your liknks do is illustrate you have nothing more than assumptions to base your war cry on.

Wernher von Braun, who has been called the father of the American
space program, for his thoughts on the origin of the universe, life and
the human race. Here’s how he responded:
“For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking
the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order
of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose
behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious
manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design . . .
“And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic
scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and
ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The
better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors,
the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon
which it is based . . .
“To be forced to believe only one conclusion—that everything in
the universe happened by chance—would violate the very objectivity
of science itself. Certainly there are those who argue that the universe
evolved out of a random process, but what random process could
produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?
“Some people say that science has been unable to prove the existence
of a Designer. They admit that many of the miracles in the world around
us are hard to understand, and they do not deny that the universe, as
modern science sees it, is indeed a far more wondrous thing than the
creation medieval man could perceive. But they still maintain that since
science has provided us with so many answers the day will soon arrive
when we will be able to understand even the fundamental laws of nature
without a Divine intent. They challenge science to prove the existence
of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? . . .
“What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable
electron as real while refusing to accept the reality of a
Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him?” (quoted
by Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution, 1997, pp. 159-160).
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/EV/creation-evolution.pdf


Again it is just as I said, all you have are theories that microevolution and somatic changes will one day turn something into a hippo and a whale. Unfortunately you have nothing more that desperate assumptions to offer as evidence.

 

[Jose Fly]

It is just as I said. You use this crap to try to illustrate that Ardi will someday will become Human.

Thank you for once again demonstrating my earlier point about your seemingly perpetual dishonesty. No where did I post those examples of observed speciation and use them to say "Thus, Ardipithecus is an ancestor to H. sapiens".

That you have to lie so blatantly and so often speaks volumes about you and your position.

 

[painted wolf]

Macroevolution = speciation

No one proposes somatic changes as a serious/major mechanism for evolution... gametic changes are plentiful, powerful and well documented.

ps... Newhope, do you have anything useful to add to the OP? This thread is about speciation, are you suggesting that new species don't evolve?

wa:do

 

[Krok]

Maybe I just dont know what stratigraphy is, but isn't that about dating fossils?

I am not sure I follow you

It's about the lowest and oldest rocks at the bottom and the youngest rocks at the top.

Thus, the strata normally get older the deeper you go down. This is very relevant in sedimentary rocks, where we find the fossils. This sequence has also been confirmed by a myriad of different dating methods.

 

[Krok]

Your question is a good one. In fact, speciation is a theory without substance. Despite intensive scientific efforts to induce speciation through mutations in laboratories, and some widely publicized 'examples', later debunked, ToE advocates are still groping for evidence. ........

It keeps on astonishing me that creationists all think that keeping on lying about something will turn their lies into the truth. They just can't understand the fact that lies can never "micro-evolve" into the truth.

 

[Krok]

Here is one of your attemps to show speciation brings about macroevolution...

Speciation is defined as macro-evolution. Your usual word-salads won't change scientific definitions.

It is just as I said. You use this crap to try to illustrate that Ardi will someday will become Human. Rubbish.

Stop writing untruths. Jose Fly never said that. Everyone can see when you are lying.

All you can demonstrate it the wonderfull ability God instilled in creation to adapt and nothing more.

You can't even demonstrate that your particular god exists. Now you want to accredit your particular god, who you can't even demonstrate to exist, with doing something. It is called an appeal to consequences. It is a logical fallacy.

It is a stretch of the imagination to believe that adaptation will led to fins instead of arms, my dear.

Why do you keep on lying? Nobody has ever said that.

All your liknks do is illustrate you have nothing more than assumptions to base your war cry on.

Now he calls physical phenomena “assumptions”! You can go and look at the physical evidence. No assumptions involved. No matter how many times you call physical evidence assumptions, it will never become assumptions.

Wernher von Braun…..

Are you referring to that one-time member of the Nazi Party and commissioned SS officer? I hope not, as his sense of judgement is sometimes very suspect.

…. , who has been called the father of the American space program,…

Oh, you are referring to him. The old creationist quote-mines again, I see. Luckily science doesn’t work like religion: science doesn’t use “verses”. I also don’t understand why you would quote a rocket scientist as an authority on astronomy, cosmology, physics, biology,and geology. He wouldn’t know much about these subjects.

From your quote I can see that he really didn’t know much about Biology:

….Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye? ...

No biologist has ever suggested a random process produced the brain of a man or the system of the human eye. His quote just illustrates that he was a complete idiot when it comes to biology.

Again it is just as I said, all you have are theories that microevolution and somatic changes will one day turn something into a hippo and a whale.

Why do you have to keep on placing untruths everywhere you go? Nobody has ever suggested that.

Unfortunately you have nothing more that desperate assumptions to offer as evidence.

You call Pakicetus an assumption? We’ve got the bones, you know.

 

[lunakilo]

Not dating, just that older rock is below younger rock.

That is what I ment by dating. Wrong term to use here I guess.

I ment placement tin time reletive to each other.

Assume you find 3 fossils a, b and c. a younger than b, and b and c more or less the same age.
You can't see just from this if a is a predecessor to b AND c or to just one of them (or none of them)
A creationist could claim that b and c are different kinds and a is a predecessor to one of them.
Or that b and c are the same kind and a is a predecessor to both b and c.

The data could still be fit into the creationists model.

Radiometric dating supports this general idea.

Stratigraphy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] As such, finding a human (or generally any mammal) fossil in a layer below the K-T Extinction Event (it's a layer placed after an asteroid hit ~60 million years ago), would falsify the idea of speciation.

True, but I am assuming that the creationist I am pretending to be accepts change does happen within a kind, so I don't care about falsifying speciation.

 

[lunakilo]

Your question is a good one. In fact, speciation is a theory without substance. Despite intensive scientific efforts to induce speciation through mutations in laboratories, and some widely publicized 'examples', later debunked, ToE advocates are still groping for evidence. Darwin's finches are a good example. The national academy of sciences pointed to these finches in 1999 as "a particularly compelling example of speciation". The studies of Peter and Rose Mary Grant of these finches debunked this 'example', a fact the NAS failed to mention in it's 1999 brochure.
And the embarassing fact is these finches remain..finches. If scientists, working feverishly for decades, cannot induce speciation, then how can it occur 'naturally' and be responsible for the millions of species we know today? The simple answer is: It can't and it didn't.

Actually I misread the text of the article I linked to. It does show speciation ...