So, a peer reviewed journal article stating...

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Actually IT does need to say new information was added to the genome
Otherwise its not evolution but adapting within its own capacity

Nope this is a straw man.

Irrespective, I asked for some evidence, seen none, lost interest

So far I have seen nothing that would suggest evolution.
I have now lost interest
Cheers

a reply to: Raggedyman

seeing evidence would require reading...

I'd get bored too just looking at all the silly links people have given you

a reply to: Raggedyman

You did not read the paper. You have not demonstrated you even read the abstract. QED, you built a strawman

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

seeing evidence would require reading...

I'd get bored too just looking at all the silly links people have given you

Well, there are other threads, please feel free

a reply to: Raggedyman

Please feel free to do what you said you would do, actually read a paper provided. Rather than say the paper is "dumb" or "stupid". Show what is wrong, how it is wrong, and why it is wrong. I still contend you have not read the paper. You can't understand how things that are apparent do not need to be stated.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

seeing evidence would require reading...

I'd get bored too just looking at all the silly links people have given you

Well, there are other threads, please feel free

Why would i venture out to another thread when you put your ignorance on display here for everyone to see?

Other threads offer the same thing... this one is special though because you set out to show everyone just how blatantly ignorant fundies can be... and i appreciate that

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Tomorrow I will start a thread on the scientific differences, with peer reviews on the difference between micro and macro evolution
I hope
I don't know what's out there, havnt researched it , but I am sure I can do a better job with scientific peer reviewed journal articles than have been offered her to me

Let's see

What happened???

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Technically, each codon is one of four bases, abbreviated A, C, G & T (not A, B, C & D) and the duplication would functionally consist of a multiple of three bases (codon bias), i.e: it is the minimum unit for amino acid expression or a 'stop' code (TAA, TAG or TGA).

Perhaps I'm being far too pedantic, though.

You definitely are, because I clearly said in the beginning I was over simplifying. I made the ABCD code up to make it easier for him to understand how a duplication mutation does indeed add information to the genome. If you aren't disputing that point, you are definition being pedantic and missed the point.

Yes I am pedantic but we were, I believed, discussing science. A subject where specificity is important.

Was your abstraction any easier to understand because you misrepresented the DNA bases and omitted codon bias?

Yes, but that is an irrelevant red herring, because you stated that European Pepper Moths have 1 generation per year and that's not always the case. I was specifically referring to that claim, not any other type of moth/butterfly. European Pepper Moths can have multiple generations per year and it's proven, so to say 1 year = 1 generation was wrong.

We were talking about studies, done in England, in the 1800's and the evolutionary processes observed there. Just about every textbook on evolution mentions the example of the European Peppered Moth!

What the (Non-European) Peppered Moth does on its holidays in Californian greenhouses is irrelevant and a red-herring to the specific conversation.



Please read the first sentence in the section on 'Ecology and Life Cycle' of the article Peppered moth From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to ascertain the situational inappropriateness of talking about something (possibly) occurring in Californian greenhouses.

You are just pedantically holding on to an invalid and unscientific opinion with a red-herring distraction.

Micro/macro refers to time. Macro is just the accumulation of micro changes. There isn't a different mechanism, so separating micro evolution and saying it doesn't include speciation is dishonest.

I'm not dishonest, as evidenced by the following link, Evolution at different scales: micro to macro by the Understanding Evolution team Berkley University. It would appear that your redefinition is the one that has missed the actual point of the controversy. You can't just 'make stuff up' and expect pedants (such as myself) to 'let it slide'. We will call you on it, as you would do to us if we 'stuffed up' so monumentally.

Evolution DOES include it and that's the topic. Obviously 1 small change is not speciation. Nobody ever claimed that, so why even bring up something so irrelevant and pointless?

Different species cannot produce fertile offspring, so, how many genes are required to cause an incompatibility between offspring and parent (infertility by another name)?

Well, according to The genetic basis of infertility. - NCBI PubMed (in the 5th sentence of the abstract), it speaks of single gene causes of infertility.

But, of course, the species can breed with their own and that means that it isn't 'total' infertility issues.

I can't find data on how many genes are involved in 'cross species infertility' (probably because there are no 'incompatible' offspring, because they would not be viable).

Here's one link that may provide some clarity: Why are hybrids infertile? - Stack Exchange Biology

However, consider the minimum number of different genes between similar species. The number for minimum genes required to cause 'speciation' would, therefore, be most likely to be between 1 gene (as previously established fertility minimum) and whatever that minimum 'species difference' is.

Currently, the record lowest number of gene differences between two similar species is 12 genes (again order Lepidoptera). So, I would surmise that a valid answer would be; between 1 and 12 gene changes are enough to cause speciation there.

This is why I didn't want to respond to your entire post, you are just playing games again and diluting my points.

I also don't understand your partition argument. What exactly are you trying to say? We haven't directly observed ALL organisms become isolated? Just look up ring species, it's not really that complicated. The species spreads out in 360 degree pattern (usually around a lake or something similar) and by the time they get back to the original place, the final species is different from the original and they can't breed together. You don't need absolute 100% isolation all of the time, but it can help in causing species to change enough to be classified as a new species.

We weren't talking about ring species. We were talking about motile species where both species occupied the same physical location at different times and, in the case of the European Peppered Moth in 1800's England, both species were found at the same time on the same tree - there was no partition or separation between the moths.They occupied the same environment (with varying success).

What I was saying was not that we need to observe all species in all situations. I was suggesting that we have a number of individual situations where speciation appears to have occurred and where evolutionary theory is unable to explain it.

To simplify;
We have observed speciation in situations where evolutionary processes apply - Yes.
We have observed speciation in situations where all the necessary evolutionary processes apply - Not in every case observed.
We have observed speciation in situations where some necessary evolutionary processes are missing - Yes.

I'm not canning evolution. Merely pointing out evolution's shortcomings as a complete and rationally sequenced process, as evidenced by existing observational data.

a reply to: chr0naut

Do you have a more complete theory to propose? Criticizing established science is one thing, improving on it and showing that your methods are more effective is a different matter.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman
Actually IT does need to say new information was added to the genome
Otherwise its not evolution but adapting within its own capacity

Nope this is a straw man.

Irrespective, I asked for some evidence, seen none, lost interest

So far I have seen nothing that would suggest evolution.
I have now lost interest
Cheers

You lost interest like 3 years ago. You have never ever been interested in scientific data. I don't care what you have seen. I care what scientists who actually do the experiments have seen. You ask for evidence, then don't read it when posted. Don't blame us for your blatant failure to argue a point. All you do is preach.

a reply to: chr0naut

I did not misrepresent anything, once again you are nit picking. The response WASN'T TO YOU. It was to somebody that knows virtually nothing about science. I simplified the code to help the guy understand. The letters are just representations of compounds, and it doesn't matter how I symbolically represent the code. It doesn't change my point. I even considered that before I posted, but didn't think anyone would be THAT anal about it, and didn't want to waste any additional time on that guy.

It's a code, it doesn't matter what the letters represent. I even said in the beginning that I was over simplifying it, and you still decided to nitpick it instead of understanding the point I made, which was that new information can be created via genetic mutation. I shouldn't even have to explain this. If you disagree with that point, then argue against it instead of nitpicking an irrelevant detail that has nothing to do with what was articulated.

We were talking about studies, done in England, in the 1800's and the evolutionary processes observed there. Just about every textbook on evolution mentions the example of the European Peppered Moth!

I never saw a scientific research paper posted about them by you. Please post the study. You are claiming that 1 generation = 1 year, and that's flat out false. Are you suggesting that none of them over that 200 year period ever reproduced more than once a year? If so, what do you base that on?

What the (Non-European) Peppered Moth does on its holidays in Californian greenhouses is irrelevant and a red-herring to the specific conversation.

It's the same species. What are you talking about? Are you saying that in Europe it's impossible for it to be 68 degrees more than twice a year leading to higher rates of reproduction?

Please read the first sentence in the section on 'Ecology and Life Cycle' of the article Peppered moth From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to ascertain the situational inappropriateness of talking about something (possibly) occurring in Californian greenhouses.

It doesn't make a lick of difference. If it can reproduce at a higher rate as a result of temperature, than that same thing could happen in Europe or anywhere else. It's not "possibly" either. It's been directly observed by dozens of people who own greenhouses. If the species can reproduce more than once a year, it can reproduce more than once a year, so it's extremely presumptive to assume that 1 generation = 1 year, when it's been PROVED that they can reproduce multiple times a year in the right conditions. Are you saying there are no greenhouses in the UK or that the temperature can't reach 68 degrees more than once a year leading to reproduction? Anyways, post that scientific research paper for your study, so I can get a better idea.

I'm not dishonest, as evidenced by the following link, Evolution at different scales: micro to macro by the Understanding Evolution team Berkley University. It would appear that your redefinition is the one that has missed the actual point of the controversy. You can't just 'make stuff up' and expect pedants (such as myself) to 'let it slide'. We will call you on it, as you would do to us if we 'stuffed up' so monumentally.

Gee, thanks for the super detailed link. It totally broke every thing down. You are being dishonest. Micro/Macro evolution are EXACTLY the same in mechanism. Funny how you keep disregarding the mechanism part to promote your false dichotomy. It's exactly like I said above. It's just an explanation of time. Micro is the process of small changes happening, while macro is the accumulation of many of these changes over long time periods. Both are evolution (changes in frequency of alleles, usually from genetic mutation and natural selection). You are intentionally misrepresenting science here and turning macro evolution into a separate thing. It's not.

Different species cannot produce fertile offspring, so, how many genes are required to cause an incompatibility between offspring and parent (infertility by another name)?

Well, according to The genetic basis of infertility. - NCBI PubMed (in the 5th sentence of the abstract), it speaks of single gene causes of infertility.

Are you kidding me? You posted a study on humans being unable to conceive. This has nothing to do with speciation it's about infertility and they cite numerous factors. It's just red herring after red herring with you. I'm also not talking about hybrids, that's a COMPLETELY different subject once again. Infertility is not always caused by speciation. You are looking at things rather black and white here. Infertility is pretty rare, and even still speciation is about populations, not one individual couple that can't have offspring. They aren't a different species.

I brought up ring species because you were inventing imaginary partitions in nature, when it can simply be that the organisms slowly spread out over an area over time and don't reproduce with each other because of the distance between the original organism and the latest in the chain. Then, the original and the latest meet back up in the original location. Organisms migrate. Humans did it too, when some spread over Europe and some stayed in Africa. My point was that genetic isolation isn't the ONLY factor involved in speciation. Finding them at the same tree doesn't change anything, and ring species/migrations are the exact reasons why this can happen. No wonder you don't want to discuss ring species, it throws your pepper moth claims right out the door.

I was suggesting that we have a number of individual situations where speciation appears to have occurred and where evolutionary theory is unable to explain it.

And that's why I asked for examples. Evolutionary theory is unable to explain ring species? Or genetic drift? It's unable to explain isolation in nature? It's unable to explain the migration of organisms over time and natural selection factors? I really don't get what your point is with this. No, we don't have complete knowledge of every single speciation to ever occur. You seem to think that not knowing this poses a problem for evolution.

We have observed speciation in situations where some necessary evolutionary processes are missing - Yes.

That needs a citation. Evolutionary processes are missing? Like what? Genetic mutations and natural selection are missing? Be specific.

I'm not canning evolution. Merely pointing out evolution's shortcomings as a complete and rationally sequenced process, as evidenced by existing observational data.

I don't see any shortcomings. Not knowing everything isn't a shortcoming. It means we don't know everything.

a reply to: Barcs

It's funny how appealing to ignorance proves the intelligent design hypothesis and yet disproves evolution.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

I did not misrepresent anything, once again you are nit picking. The response WASN'T TO YOU. It was to somebody that knows virtually nothing about science. I simplified the code to help the guy understand. The letters are just representations of compounds, and it doesn't matter how I symbolically represent the code. It doesn't change my point. I even considered that before I posted, but didn't think anyone would be THAT anal about it, and didn't want to waste any additional time on that guy.

When I do it, it is nit picking, why is it different when you do it?

It's a code, it doesn't matter what the letters represent. I even said in the beginning that I was over simplifying it, and you still decided to nitpick it instead of understanding the point I made, which was that new information can be created via genetic mutation. I shouldn't even have to explain this. If you disagree with that point, then argue against it instead of nitpicking an irrelevant detail that has nothing to do with what was articulated.

I never saw a scientific research paper posted about them by you. Please post the study. You are claiming that 1 generation = 1 year, and that's flat out false. Are you suggesting that none of them over that 200 year period ever reproduced more than once a year? If so, what do you base that on?

It's the same species. What are you talking about? Are you saying that in Europe it's impossible for it to be 68 degrees more than twice a year leading to higher rates of reproduction?

Please read the first sentence in the section on 'Ecology and Life Cycle' of the article Peppered moth From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia to ascertain the situational inappropriateness of talking about something (possibly) occurring in Californian greenhouses.

It doesn't make a lick of difference. If it can reproduce at a higher rate as a result of temperature, than that same thing could happen in Europe or anywhere else. It's not "possibly" either. It's been directly observed by dozens of people who own greenhouses. If the species can reproduce more than once a year, it can reproduce more than once a year, so it's extremely presumptive to assume that 1 generation = 1 year, when it's been PROVED that they can reproduce multiple times a year in the right conditions. Are you saying there are no greenhouses in the UK or that the temperature can't reach 68 degrees more than once a year leading to reproduction? Anyways, post that scientific research paper for your study, so I can get a better idea.

Here's the link you requested: The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study. There are 108 other related peer reviewed papers or articles cited in this linked article. I think the weight of scientific evidence is on my side but you have plenty of reading, so go to it.

In summary, however, you will discover that your attempt at rebuttal was factually invalid and the articles do not refer to artificial environments like greenhouses.

Gee, thanks for the super detailed link. It totally broke every thing down.

Its should. It was an article, in a peer reviewed journal, specifically on the topic of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution. It began by defining the terms and was in disagreement to the definitions you proposed.

This suggests either that you actually have no idea of the definitions of those terms, or would try deception in attempt and obfuscate argument that disagrees with your opinion. Didn't work, either way.

You are being dishonest.

That's rich!

Micro/Macro evolution are EXACTLY the same in mechanism. Funny how you keep disregarding the mechanism part to promote your false dichotomy. It's exactly like I said above. It's just an explanation of time. Micro is the process of small changes happening, while macro is the accumulation of many of these changes over long time periods. Both are evolution (changes in frequency of alleles, usually from genetic mutation and natural selection). You are intentionally misrepresenting science here and turning macro evolution into a separate thing. It's not.

I posted links to an article in a peer reviewed scientific publication that disagrees. It's not just me.

Are you kidding me? You posted a study on humans being unable to conceive. This has nothing to do with speciation it's about infertility and they cite numerous factors. It's just red herring after red herring with you. I'm also not talking about hybrids, that's a COMPLETELY different subject once again. Infertility is not always caused by speciation. You are looking at things rather black and white here. Infertility is pretty rare, and even still speciation is about populations, not one individual couple that can't have offspring. They aren't a different species.

Populations consist of individuals. You don't even do 'doublethink' well.

I brought up ring species because you were inventing imaginary partitions in nature, when it can simply be that the organisms slowly spread out over an area over time and don't reproduce with each other because of the distance between the original organism and the latest in the chain. Then, the original and the latest meet back up in the original location. Organisms migrate. Humans did it too, when some spread over Europe and some stayed in Africa. My point was that genetic isolation isn't the ONLY factor involved in speciation. Finding them at the same tree doesn't change anything, and ring species/migrations are the exact reasons why this can happen. No wonder you don't want to discuss ring species, it throws your pepper moth claims right out the door.

What about the new species that aren't ring species and occupy the same location as the 'parent' species and none the less, still arise?

Something is going on that does not conform to the constraints proposed by evolution.

And that's why I asked for examples. Evolutionary theory is unable to explain ring species? Or genetic drift? It's unable to explain isolation in nature? It's unable to explain the migration of organisms over time and natural selection factors? I really don't get what your point is with this. No, we don't have complete knowledge of every single speciation to ever occur. You seem to think that not knowing this poses a problem for evolution.

The inverse of that. Your refusal to accommodate fact is apparent.

That needs a citation. Evolutionary processes are missing? Like what? Genetic mutations and natural selection are missing? Be specific.

I was specific. Several times.

I don't see any shortcomings. Not knowing everything isn't a shortcoming. It means we don't know everything.

Love the way you embrace ignorance. It's such a clever argument.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

It's funny how appealing to ignorance proves the intelligent design hypothesis and yet disproves evolution.

I know, BARCS does keep trying to appeal to ignorance, doesn't he.

When challenged with specific problems with evolutionary process, he either pretends he doesn't comprehend what they are, or perhaps he really doesn't understand.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

It's funny how appealing to ignorance proves the intelligent design hypothesis and yet disproves evolution.

I know, BARCS does keep trying to appeal to ignorance, doesn't he.

When challenged with specific problems with evolutionary process, he either pretends he doesn't comprehend what they are, or perhaps he really doesn't understand.

Barcs actually seems to be putting his best efforts into informing the forum as he always does. I have to admire his patience and attention to detail. If only we all were as dedicated to educating the community. Maybe you should focus less on ironically degrading his comprehension of evolution (his posts suggest he understands it better than you do) and more on demonstrating his research as inaccurate. Or maybe you could try learning something from him.

Then again, if you were open to changing your opinions due to new information and modern studies, you wouldn't be here arguing.

originally posted by: chr0naut
When I do it, it is nit picking, why is it different when you do it?

It was irrelevant to the point I made. That's why.

Here's the link you requested: The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study. There are 108 other related peer reviewed papers or articles cited in this linked article. I think the weight of scientific evidence is on my side but you have plenty of reading, so go to it.

I didn't see anything in the study that confirms your claim about 1 year always being 1 generation OR that poses an issue for different species being found on the same tree after 200 years. It even mentions more frequent migratory patterns, which is exactly what I mentioned above when referencing ring species and migration. Remember, you were using it as an argument against genetic isolation and speciation. What scientific evidence is on your side? I didn't see a problem with anything in the study or any problem for evolution within. You just like to think in absolutes. You think that since it's been confirmed that genetic isolation can lead to speciation, that this means that must be the case in every single situation or it poses a problem.

In summary, however, you will discover that your attempt at rebuttal was factually invalid and the articles do not refer to artificial environments like greenhouses.

Again, just because it happens in a greenhouses, doesn't mean it can't happen anywhere else, and it doesn't invalidate what I said. Just because it's a man made environment, does not negate the FACT that they can indeed have more than 1 generation per year, and such conditions CAN exist in nature, depending on the location, just not all year round in most cases. It's based completely on temperature. If it can happen, it can happen. Stop denying it.

Its should. It was an article, in a peer reviewed journal, specifically on the topic of micro-evolution vs. macro-evolution. It began by defining the terms and was in disagreement to the definitions you proposed. This suggests either that you actually have no idea of the definitions of those terms, or would try deception in attempt and obfuscate argument that disagrees with your opinion. Didn't work, either way.

Sorry, but it didn't disagree with what I said. I clearly explained that micro / macro is completely about the amount of time and accumulated changes over longer periods. Nothing you posted disagreed with that. You are trying to pretend that macro evolution is a different process or mechanism, but it's not and that was my point. But once again you completely disregard the mechanism part. No surprise there. Your arguments are always based mostly on semantics. The Berkley link agreed with me.

Populations consist of individuals. You don't even do 'doublethink' well.

Nope. You are once again trying to exploit semantics. One couple being unable to conceive is not speciation or even remotely relevant to the conversation. The paper you posted was a complete red herring, and it mentioned numerous factors with people being unable to breed, it's not exclusively genetic incompatibility. You ALWAYS need to look at the whole population when talking about speciation / evolution. It really gets tiresome listening to you constantly move the goal posts and argue pure semantics.

What about the new species that aren't ring species and occupy the same location as the 'parent' species and none the less, still arise?

What about them? I already addressed this multiple times, the key word is migration. Simply being found in the same area down the road doesn't negate this. You seem to be very confused about what that study says.

Something is going on that does not conform to the constraints proposed by evolution.

No it's not. You are ASSUMING that, simply because we don't have the full story of the history of the species.

The inverse of that. Your refusal to accommodate fact is apparent.

For example?

Love the way you embrace ignorance. It's such a clever argument.

I embraced ignorance by admitting we don't have all the information? Yeah, totally, bro. I'm not the one jumping to conclusions about things we don't fully know. I just admit we don't fully know it yet. That doesn't mean there is no explanation or that it defies evolutionary mechanisms.

When challenged with specific problems with evolutionary process, he either pretends he doesn't comprehend what they are, or perhaps he really doesn't understand.

Nothing you said was problematic. Your exact argument is that you don't understand how 2 different species could have been seen on the same tree after just 200 years and I explained it perfectly with migration. You are just assuming there is a problem because we don't have the full information. For all we know that species already existed prior to the study, and humans can't watch every single moth species at all times. You are the one appealing to ignorance here. Not knowing an answer doesn't automatically mean there is a problem.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
When I do it, it is nit picking, why is it different when you do it?

It was irrelevant to the point I made. That's why.

Here's the link you requested: The peppered moth and industrial melanism: evolution of a natural selection case study. There are 108 other related peer reviewed papers or articles cited in this linked article. I think the weight of scientific evidence is on my side but you have plenty of reading, so go to it.

I didn't see anything in the study that confirms your claim about 1 year always being 1 generation OR that poses an issue for different species being found on the same tree after 200 years.

Then you didn't read the articles and papers. Nearly all of them mention those things specifically.

In Great Britain and Ireland, the peppered moth is univoltine (i.e., it has one generation per year). The eggs are laid between May and August. They go through transformation from late April to August and the moth copulates on the first or second night after leaving the chrysalis, lays eggs almost immediately, and dies after four or five days. The female usually lives its entire life around the tree from which it was hatched and this severely limits its migratory spread (although the males do migrate and mate promiscuously). This goes a long way to explain why the changed melanism moths were found on the same trees during the time periods of the many studies.

Talking about life cycle in greenhouses, in California, has nothing to do with any of the evolutionary studies.

It even mentions more frequent migratory patterns, which is exactly what I mentioned above when referencing ring species and migration. Remember, you were using it as an argument against genetic isolation and speciation. What scientific evidence is on your side? I didn't see a problem with anything in the study or any problem for evolution within. You just like to think in absolutes. You think that since it's been confirmed that genetic isolation can lead to speciation, that this means that must be the case in every single situation or it poses a problem.

You need both genetic isolation and gradualism to explain speciation according to the theory. They are often absent in situations where we have observed apparent speciation.

Ring species, genetic isolation, gradualism and etc are not relevant if they cannot have happened in the specific situations. Therefore, something else, outside of the MES framework, must have happened in those cases.

Again, just because it happens in a greenhouses, doesn't mean it can't happen anywhere else, and it doesn't invalidate what I said. Just because it's a man made environment, does not negate the FACT that they can indeed have more than 1 generation per year, and such conditions CAN exist in nature, depending on the location, just not all year round in most cases. It's based completely on temperature. If it can happen, it can happen. Stop denying it.

I am not denying that it can happen.

Just because it can happen, it doesn't imply that it did happen!

In the case of the European Peppered Moth, in the wild, in England, during the 1800's, the life cycle was annual.

Sorry, but it didn't disagree with what I said. I clearly explained that micro / macro is completely about the amount of time and accumulated changes over longer periods. Nothing you posted disagreed with that. You are trying to pretend that macro evolution is a different process or mechanism, but it's not and that was my point. But once again you completely disregard the mechanism part. No surprise there. Your arguments are always based mostly on semantics. The Berkley link agreed with me.

From the Berkley page: "Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species."

Nothing to do with elapsed time, see, your definition was just plain wrong.

Nope. You are once again trying to exploit semantics. One couple being unable to conceive is not speciation or even remotely relevant to the conversation. The paper you posted was a complete red herring, and it mentioned numerous factors with people being unable to breed, it's not exclusively genetic incompatibility. You ALWAYS need to look at the whole population when talking about speciation / evolution. It really gets tiresome listening to you constantly move the goal posts and argue pure semantics.

I was referring to the mechanisms of genetic bio-incomatibilities that, taken together, we would describe as speciating factors. The fact that you conceive of speciation as something separate to the underlying genetic and biologic mechanisms shows a limitation to your understanding and flawed reasoning.

What about them? I already addressed this multiple times, the key word is migration. Simply being found in the same area down the road doesn't negate this. You seem to be very confused about what that study says.

Migation is not the key word. Female European Peppered Moths usually stay located around the tree of their birth for their whole life. You'd know that if you actually read the studies.

No it's not. You are ASSUMING that, simply because we don't have the full story of the history of the species.

For example?

I embraced ignorance by admitting we don't have all the information? Yeah, totally, bro. I'm not the one jumping to conclusions about things we don't fully know.

No, I am referring to the specific valid data, that we do know, and pointing out how it doesn't fit the theory.

You are the one countering with invalid generalizations.

I just admit we don't fully know it yet. That doesn't mean there is no explanation or that it defies evolutionary mechanisms.

It actually does.

The specific examples defy explanation by evolutionary mechanisms. We don't need to know the favored color of East German VW owners to see that the expected evolutionary mechanisms were notably absent in the many studies.

It is irrelevant 'noise' to suggest that we don't know everything and is a cop-out from having to face the fact that biodiversity provably doesn't always happen to work the way you propose.

Nothing you said was problematic. Your exact argument is that you don't understand how 2 different species could have been seen on the same tree after just 200 years and I explained it perfectly with migration.

That was not my "exact argument" (do you think I need to have my "exact argument" described to me? WTF!) and migration does not explain the observations.

You are just assuming there is a problem because we don't have the full information. For all we know that species already existed prior to the study, and humans can't watch every single moth species at all times. You are the one appealing to ignorance here. Not knowing an answer doesn't automatically mean there is a problem.

It is quite clear that the mechanisms required for evolution to achieve speciation were notably absent.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Barcs

It's funny how appealing to ignorance proves the intelligent design hypothesis and yet disproves evolution.

I know, BARCS does keep trying to appeal to ignorance, doesn't he.

When challenged with specific problems with evolutionary process, he either pretends he doesn't comprehend what they are, or perhaps he really doesn't understand.

Barcs actually seems to be putting his best efforts into informing the forum as he always does. I have to admire his patience and attention to detail. If only we all were as dedicated to educating the community. Maybe you should focus less on ironically degrading his comprehension of evolution (his posts suggest he understands it better than you do) and more on demonstrating his research as inaccurate. Or maybe you could try learning something from him.

Then again, if you were open to changing your opinions due to new information and modern studies, you wouldn't be here arguing.

Sure, it's possible that BARCS is a really beautiful person.



He occasionally has a valid scientific point but that isn't as frequent. He seems to be more interested in winning the argument than the actual science, to the point where he puts his foot in his mouth and then can't simply drop it as a bad idea, instead having to justify things with dumber and dumber nonsense.

I several times have posted links to peer reviewed academic papers and journals that rebut what he says. His responses have been largely invalid generalizations that have nothing to do with the specific studies, papers and articles.

So, lets just keep to the science and not continue with the ad hominem route, which, as you can see, I am just as capable of, as either you or BARCS.

a reply to: chr0naut

Your pissing contest doesnt really interest me. I am more curious to see if mr raggedy will come back and actually refute a single piece of published data supporting evolution. Because this entire thread has been nothing but anti-evolution bluster. Not a single fact or coherent counter argument posted in rebuttal to demonstrate MES is in error. Just chasing moths in circles because discrediting the theory itself is too challenging.

Have fun with this exercise in futility, Barcs.

a reply to: chr0naut

I will concede the claim about 1 generation per year. It's irrelevant and isn't getting us anywhere in the conversation. I still don't agree that 200 generations is too fast for evolution.

From the Berkley page: "Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species."

Nothing to do with elapsed time, see, your definition was just plain wrong.

This is pure deception. Do you even know what is being said there? Macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundries of a single species.. That precisely means that it is the accumulation of numerous small changes. THAT'S what it is. You keep suggesting that macro evolution is a separate mechanism, when it's the same mechanism over more time. This is now the 3rd time you've completely ignored the mechanism part of it, and it seems you are doing it on purpose because that is the primary factor in my argument and that's the only way you can continue to exploit semantics. Evolution is evolution. Macro is just the description of the accumulation of tons of small changes. It's pretty simple.

I was referring to the mechanisms of genetic bio-incomatibilities that, taken together, we would describe as speciating factors. The fact that you conceive of speciation as something separate to the underlying genetic and biologic mechanisms shows a limitation to your understanding and flawed reasoning.

Again. One couple not being able to conceive is not speciation. If a couple can't reproduce, their genetic line dies, so they are irrelevant to speciation of the POPULATION. Please stop using this completely flawed and illogical argument. Speciation is about changes spreading to an entire population group, not just one couple or one individual having genetic defects. It's apples to oranges. Yes single genetic changes can cause defects like that because no particular gene is off limits to mutation. That's not speciation.