Observed instances of speciation...

Originally posted by infojunkie2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Oh yeah that is clear as mud, I see one type of insect evolving into another type of insect, both are still insects, and I see a bird evolving into a different type of bird, both are still birds, but show me a insect evolving into a bird, then i will believe you.

Well, we know reptiles evolved to birds...that good enough for you? Or reptiles evolving into mammals......

But who cares about facts if they go against one's irrational belief, right?

reply to post by MrXYZ


The quotes that madness posted as evidence or proof did not did not state what you just said here,which was what I was replying to.

BTW how do you know that reptiles grew wings, and turned into birds? was it because you read it somewhere or somebody told you, or did you see it happen your self ? because unless you saw it happen, you are no different than me for believing in what I read. .

But remember if you mention fossil records,where there was a reptile like creature that had wings, that still does not prove that reptiles evolved into birds, all that proves is, that there was a reptile with wings at one time.

Looking forward to your knowledge

reply to post by infojunkie2

or did you see it happen your self ? because unless you saw it happen, you are no different than me for believing in what I read.

That's a ridiculous statement given that evolution takes thousands or even millions of years. So if you didn't see something, you don't believe in it? So I guess WW2 didn't happen, and Churchill never gave that speech, right?

It just goes to show you don't really know how evolution works. We know of speciation not only because we've observed it, but also because of fossils, DNA evidence, and migratory trends.

By the way, do you believe in the bible? You obviously never saw the stuff that's claimed to be true in the bible...so my guess is "no, you don't believe in it".

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by infojunkie2

 

or did you see it happen your self ? because unless you saw it happen, you are no different than me for believing in what I read.

That's a ridiculous statement given that evolution takes thousands or even millions of years. So if you didn't see something, you don't believe in it? So I guess WW2 didn't happen, and Churchill never gave that speech, right?

It just goes to show you don't really know how evolution works. We know of speciation not only because we've observed it, but also because of fossils, DNA evidence, and migratory trends.

By the way, do you believe in the bible? You obviously never saw the stuff that's claimed to be true in the bible...so my guess is "no, you don't believe in it".

I know that evolution would have to take thousands of years,I just trying to prove a point,that you too believe in things that you cannot or have not seen. That's why I said you were no different than me, but you don't understand how I can believe in something I can't see.

Also Since, you didn't address my first reply to you regarding your first post about reptiles evolving into birds,and the use of fossil records to back it up, could you please do so?, as for dna, if reptiles and birds share some of the same dna, that is still not proof that reptiles evolved into birds and migratory trends have nothing to do with reptiles evolving into birds.

reply to post by infojunkie2

The link between dinosaurs and birds is well established.

reply to post by infojunkie2


No, your point is silly because it implies the only evidence is what you can see. And the funny thing is, when it comes to evolution there's plenty of evidence we can see...DNA evidence, fossils, etc. All can be seen

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by infojunkie2

 

No, your point is silly because it implies the only evidence is what you can see. And the funny thing is, when it comes to evolution there's plenty of evidence we can see...DNA evidence, fossils, etc. All can be seen

If species changed according to evolutionary theory, there should be evidence of more gradual change and obvious intermediate fossils should be found more often.

reply to post by Conclusion1


Intermediate fossils are found all the time...I even have this thread, this one, and yet another that specifically dealt with newly discovered transitions. And your problem is with how damn rare the process of fossilization is, not with evolution.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I looked at your thread. So a fossil of a snake with what they think are legs is considered to be transitional?

I know you believe that evolution explains life, and it does to a certain extent, but all the problem area's that come along with the theory are numerous.

Originally posted by Conclusion1

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by infojunkie2

 

No, your point is silly because it implies the only evidence is what you can see. And the funny thing is, when it comes to evolution there's plenty of evidence we can see...DNA evidence, fossils, etc. All can be seen

If species changed according to evolutionary theory, there should be evidence of more gradual change and obvious intermediate fossils should be found more often.

Here . . . if you choose to except the evidence, are transitional fossils of the dino to bird migration.

Caudipteryx had uncinate processes on the ribs, birdlike teeth, a first toe which may or may not be partially reversed and overall body proportions that are comparable to those of modern flightless birds

Caudipteryx

Despite its feathers, most palaeontologists do not consider Sinosauropteryx to be a bird. Phylogenetically, it is only distantly related to the clade Aves, usually defined as Archaeopteryx plus modern birds. The scientists who described Sinosauropteryx, however, used a character-based, or apomorphic, definition of the Class Aves, in which any animal with feathers is considered to be a bird. They argued that the filamentous plumes of Sinosauropteryx represent true feathers with a rachis and barbs, and thus that Sinosauropteryx should be considered a true bird.[10] They classified it as belonging to a new biological order, Sinosauropterygiformes, family Sinosauropterygidae, within the subclass Sauriurae

Sinosauropteryx

One clearly mostly bird . . . one clearly mostly dino. You could also add Archeopteryrx and the other oviraptors, squarely, in between these two specimens.

Whether you will except this as evidence depends on your understanding of paleontology, zoology, taxonomy, anatomy, and whatever philosophical bias you project onto theory of evolution.

However . . . the evidence is there and as was mentioned earlier . . . We are luck to even have what we have, due to the rare occurance of fossilization.

reply to post by Conclusion1

Originally posted by Conclusion1
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

I looked at your thread. So a fossil of a snake with what they think are legs is considered to be transitional?

...considering that it fits into the timeline of snake evolution and it was predicted that a sort of snake with sort of legs would be found at that point...yes. It's one of many transitions.

I know you believe that evolution explains life, and it does to a certain extent, but all the problem area's that come along with the theory are numerous.

Evolution explains the diversity of life. It doesn't explain anything else. And if you can give me some of those supposed problem areas, I'll be happy to show you where you're mistaken.

I don't think I've ever heard a creationist say this. Not only that, I'm not quite sure that even when you PROVE (which you can and have) that one species can turn into another it gives CLEAR evidence of evolution. Not even evolutionists take evolution seriously anymore.

Evolution happens. We all know this. But not to the degree that Darwinists say.

Originally posted by Hivethink
Evolution happens. We all know this. But not to the degree that Darwinists say.

Within the field there are disagreements over just how incremental and gradual the evolution of traits predominantly evolved, but a "Darwinian" view of evolution is the only view of evolution there is.

A radical would assert "Gouldian" as a more apt term to explain biodiversity, though Gould himself would say the people who study evolution could be referred to as Darwinists.

reply to post by Hivethink


"Darwinism" is an outmoded view on evolution, the modern evolutionary consensus merely builds upon what Darwin first founded and includes the works of Gould and others.

...and in what way does it not work to the extent that so-called "Darwinists" claim it does? And it's not like speciation is the only evidence we have, it's merely predicted experimental and observed evidence. We have genetics (which would be enough on its own), the fossil record, phylogeny, etc.

reply to post by Hivethink

Evolution happens. We all know this. But not to the degree that Darwinists say.

Actually, every single claim made by the theory is backed up by objective evidence...but who cares about facts, right?

As for scientists not believing in evolution...there's more scientists called Steve (not Stephen, Steven, etc.) that believe evolution than there are scientists who don't believe in evolution

And most of those guys disbelieving the theory don't even have a degree that would allow them to make an informed decision

Well, it looks like people keep ignoring that we've observed speciation, so this old...well, not so old...thread is going to get bumped because I'd like the evidence to be kept in the light.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Myollinir

 

So is this like saying that a species similar to a human mated with an ape and created humanity

That's not how evolution works...

Evolution isn't 2 different species mating. To give you an example: The crocodile from a few hundred thousand years ago looked almost like today's crocodile, but those 2 couldn't create offspring if they mated.

You might wanna read up on the theory: LINK

So, what you're saying is that Canis Lupus Lupus cannot have offspring with Canis Lupus Familiaris?

In the fly experiment, how does that show speciation? I know the author was giving examples of speciation, but how does that experiment show how speciation occurs through natural selection?

I mean using a tube to isolate flies isn't exactly natural selection.
Also, just because the four groups reproduced independently from each other, doesn't mean this would be constant. They also didn't show these to be new species. You have to make the leap, because they seperated in the experiment, they wouldn't reproduce ever, or couldn't reproduce ever. They didn't show that

This experiment was intelligently designed to try and show something that happens naturally.


We don't see speciation from one kind to another, like a dog into cat.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Myollinir

 

The crocodile from a few hundred thousand years ago looked almost like today's crocodile, but those 2 couldn't create offspring if they mated.

You might wanna read up on the theory: LINK

That's where you make a huge religious leap, there. What would stop them from creating offspring? What you assume is a fanatical, unscientific deep rooted belief in your position. You my friend are religious.

reply to post by addygrace


Define what a kind is.

If a "dog" is a kind, then "kind" is defined as a subspecies, as Canis Lupus Familiaris is a subspecies of Canis Lupus...wolves.

Cats? That's a whole family.

Creationists have no reason to use the word 'kind' until they can get it straight. Nobody has even provided anything but a shifting definition that suits the argument.

Speciation under controlled circumstances shows that it's possible. They are new species because they are reproductively isolate. That's as close to a biological definition of speciation for gendered animals as you'll get.