I thought this would be the calibre of the replies to my post. In other words you have no clue about punctuated equilibrium, how it applies to the fossil record and how that informs the topic of speciation. So you Auto have no basis to anything you speak to. Parroting what other researchers say without understanding its implications and application to evidence is expected and not a robust discussion base.
Re butterfly link. I certainly maintain that species varies hence a wolf and a fox being the same kind, various butterflies and moths being the same kind. You call this variation, be it driven by drift, environmental factors or whatever. You call this speciation. What you cannot show is what kind of animal that does not resemble a dog or butterfly kind in any way, the wolf or butterfly/moth evolved from.
DNA studies have provided a wider range of possible divergence dates, from 15,000 to 40,000 years ago,[6] to as much as 100,000 to 140,000 years ago.[33] This evidence depends on a number of assumptions that may be violated.[21] Genetic studies are based on comparisons of genetic diversity between species, and depend on a calibration date. Some estimates of divergence dates from DNA evidence use an estimated wolf-coyote divergence date of roughly 700,000 years ago as a calibration.[34] If this estimate is incorrect, and the actual wolf-coyote divergence is closer to one or two million years ago, or more,[35] then the DNA evidence that supports specific dog-wolf divergence dates would be interpreted very differently.
Dog - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
With all these dates above how on earth can you make any sense of the fossil record? Your calibrartion is scewed to give the picture you need and has absolutely no basis in reality.
Re butterfly hybridization link....No one cares about a butterfly hybridizing and remaining a butterfly. No one carers if it changes colour or gets bigger or smaller, no one cares if its proboscis is coilable or not. No one cares if one colour is better than another colour and is selected to give an advantage. What you need to provide is evidence of when a butterfly or moth did not look like a kind of butterfly or moth. I can't even find what your researchers think they were before they were butterflies and moths, and it is likely they have no idea.
Archaeolepis mane is the most primitive, 190myo, and it is of the same kind.
Lepidoptera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So the upshot of your butterfly link and butterflies in general is that butterflies were found to have lived 190myo, at least. They have been found fully formed, with no evidence to date of intermediates linking them to another kind that does not resemble them. Hence this is supportive of a creation ideology, not an evolutionary one...and the same goes for any phyla you care to name.
I am sure Rusra and I am sick to death of this nonsense some post as evidence, ie that a butterfly evolved from something unlike a butterfly has not been demonstrated. You call just about any variation a new species. Fine. However this does not show how a flightless organism became a butterfly or moth. It is like saying humans are different species because of different skin colour, eye shapes and build. It is a nonsense. You give the variety in humans the name 'race' because if you apply your nonsense to mankind, we are different species just like the variety of butterflies, fruitflys and dogs. So if a Chinese and African mate do they give rise to a different species because you have hybridized some traits like a Chinican. RUBBISH! So you hybridized some butterflies..sure that explains how a butterfly evolved from something unlike it. Again I state this is rthe best you have and it demonstrates kinds have some limited ability to adapt or are lucky enough to have drifted into an advantageous trait, yet remain a butterfly that was always this kind and no matter how many species names you give the variations it remains the same kind...and you cannot demonstrate otherwise.
When God created this kind he may have made one breeding pair or a plethora. They may have been identical or varied. I likewise would like to know if God created one pair that adapted or drifted into butterfies and moths or if God created them individually as varieties of the same kind. What I am sure of is that your researchers will never answer that question, because they are looking for the wrong connections.
You can cross butterflies and show how they adapt or change colour but you need to show what they evolved from that was flightless. That would be evidence worth debating if you had it. Which you do not. The best you can do is present this kind of lame attempt to illustrate how a butterfly evolved into a butterfly rather than from something that was totally unlike a butterfly.
Lunakilo..I am surprised you cannot see the connection between speciation and punctuated equilibrium. Indeed the theory is testimony to your credentailed researchers stating the fossil evidence shows stasis for between 1-4 million years and more. There are many speciation events between Ardi and mankind, also between some aquatic common ancestor that diverged into a whale and hippo. What you call a speciation event that occurs after a period of stasis relates to a microevolutionary event. How many of these events after huge periods of stasis does it take to get Ardi human or some creature to evolve the necessary aparatus to evolve into both a whale and hippo, given the small gradual changes the science behind mutations allows?
I suggest that none of the defenders of TOE that purport these ridiculous examples of speciation as evidence of assumptive macroevolution are able to define the fossil record in light of PE with robust discussion. Hence I will agree due to the flavour of responses that no one here is able to debate from a holistic stance, and parrotting research findings that are not understood is all I will get here unless I start another thread.
What is the point of the thread given creationists and evolutionists alike have no problems with a butterfly varying within kind, nor a fruitfly, dog, bird or bacteria? It appears some are going to shy away from the real debate which for me is "All your evidence that relates to speciation has not one glimmer of support for accumulating into macroevolution nor connecting unlike kinds to ancestry". PE suppports my assertion.
