Observed instances of speciation...

reply to post by MrXYZ

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

Lol. That was a good one. I am sure there is an objective. But it lacks evidence to be sure. Alas, I disagree.

reply to post by Conclusion1
I understand, speciation is a tough thing to comprehend. How could an organism resembling a tiny shrew 50 million years ago eventually become a human?

Today, we have solid examples of relationships between organisms of the same apparent type that resolve a continuum of breeding, yet are composed of separate species in the "process" of diverging. The California Salamanders are one example, and the North American Chorus Frogs are another.

I'll simplify some of the research done on the latter.

Around 12,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age, a species of North American frogs was free to move south after the melting of glaciers. After some time, they made it all the way from Canada to Georgia, with small groups stopping at various locations along the way.

Essentially, now we have frog of type A, residing in Canada, and type X residing in Georgia, where the types range from type A, type B, type C...type X. Type A and its closest neighbors can not interbreed with type X and its closest neighbors. But all along the continuum from type A to type X, there is interbreeding amongst the closest types (type A with type B/C....type U with type V/W/X). In other words, its a continuum of sexual compatibility and hybrid viability. At some point the two genomes meet in the middle, and in fact there are genes in type A that can find themselves in type X through this continuum.

Not only is there a continuum of mating, but there is some continuum of morphological similarities, though not as marked. Types A-C are distinguishable from types V-X. Though again, the morphologies converge at type K/L/M (Type L looks similar to type X and type A). And morphologies in this respect concerns all kinds of phenotype behavior (mating calls, croaks,etc...)

That's a perfect example of how things work. You could line up our entire lineage back to the single-celled LUCA, and all along the continuum "like begets like" all the way to Homo Sapien. Almost apropos to language or the boiling of water.

Originally posted by Conclusion1
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

Lol. That was a good one. I am sure there is an objective. But it lacks evidence to be sure. Alas, I disagree.

Well, speciation is backed up by objective evidence like DNA, the fossil record, as well as migratory trends. You might not wanna accept that because it goes against your faith, just like some people don't eat pork or shrimp for no logical reason, but it doesn't change the fact that it's supported by objective evidence...and pork/shrimp is good

Originally posted by Conclusion1
And this relates to 8-12 changes in 120 million base pair how? This is talking about seeds that r produced. This has nothing to do with what I said. So....seriously these attempts to thwart a mathematical fact, not statistics, is about as effective as saying something came from nothing. Which is to say, not at all. If that is what you are saying.

Sorry, but you keep not-citing the same research in every thread in which you post about it. Until you do, I get to pretend I found the right paper. Post yours or deal with it.

Mathematical fact? Really? Your argument amounts to saying that small changes observed over thirty generations couldn't possibly add up to speciation over millions or billions of years. This is a statistical argument based on data from a small population in a lab and your own personal misunderstanding and incredulity. What kind of environmental pressures were placed on the plants in your study to select for various random mutations? How many plants were included in your study and how does that number compare to a normal population of those plants found in the outside world? Do you understand that not every individual plant would show changes in the same base pairs? Do you understand what happens when you multiply a small deviation in a single organism out to the same degree of deviation in an entire population of organisms?

reply to post by uva3021


Allow me to analyze this.

Around 12,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age, a species of North American frogs was free to move south after the melting of glaciers. After some time, they made it all the way from Canada to Georgia, with small groups stopping at various locations along the way.

Questions.
How do we know this?
How did the frogs survive the glaciers in the first place to move south?
From Canada to Georgia? Wouldn't it be the other way around if the glaciers melted?

There is quiet a bit that I do not understand. You see I do not doubt the science of biology. I doubt the evolutionary speculation of why.

I'll respond the moment after I macro-evolve.

Honestly, I don't understand the OP. Is this a strawman? To claim that creationists do not believe in any form of speciation despite the vast amount of creationist literature that acknowledges it?

The topic of micro vs macro evolution has come up and I understand the talking point memo which has been dutifully consumed and regurgitated, as well as the recently amended Wiki. The tactic is to ridicule and deny that any such delineation exists; however, even in the video that was posted earlier it admits there is such a delineation.

If anything this argument supports creation. Nice work.

Originally posted by ararisq
I'll respond the moment after I macro-evolve.

Honestly, I don't understand the OP. Is this a strawman? To claim that creationists do not believe in any form of speciation despite the vast amount of creationist literature that acknowledges it?

The topic of micro vs macro evolution has come up and I understand the talking point memo which has been dutifully consumed and regurgitated, as well as the recently amended Wiki. The tactic is to ridicule and deny that any such delineation exists; however, even in the video that was posted earlier it admits there is such a delineation.

If anything this argument supports creation. Nice work.

You should watch this:


It shows nicely why the whole creationist macro vs micro evolution arguments are utter nonsense

reply to post by iterationzero



Don't get your panties in a bunch. Just do some math and you will see. Why such hostility?

I am stating my own calculations which I believe to be true. Do your own. Or not. I don't really care. I will state my perception of it also no matter how you feel about it. That is my right. You are acting like some propaganda machine trying to silence free speech. lol Just calm down and discuss this rationally.

reply to post by Conclusion1


No one's stopping you from posting whatever you want within ATS rules...we're just highlighting what a bunch of nonsense your posts are. And we're doing it by backing up our claims with objective evidence, not like you who posts random figures not even bothering to back them up with facts

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You should watch this:

Mr. XYZ you should try reading posts before responding - I referenced the video you posted on page 1 in the post.

Originally posted by ararisq

Originally posted by MrXYZ
You should watch this:

Mr. XYZ you should try reading posts before responding - I referenced the video you posted on page 1 in the post.

Ahhhh...well, I guess you then understand why the creationists' macro vs micro evolution arguments are nonsense

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Ahhhh...well, I guess you then understand why the creationists' macro vs micro evolution arguments are nonsense

I understand that the more you guys argue the point on speciation (apart from misrepresenting the argument) the more you end up proving the creationist point of view and no amount of ridicule or deflection will change that.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Conclusion1

 

No one's stopping you from posting whatever you want within ATS rules...we're just highlighting what a bunch of nonsense your posts are. And we're doing it by backing up our claims with objective evidence, not like you who posts random figures not even bothering to back them up with facts

l


Nothings to back it up? Listen man if you can't do simple calculations thats cool. It doesn't bother me. It's not like Calc. The figures if you remember I took from the Institute. So yeah. It is objective with back up.

reply to post by Conclusion1
The frogs survived the glaciers because they are here. Some no doubt went extinct, some migrated south. We can trace lineages through molecular and fossil evidence. The "how do we know this" question is a loaded question implying you have doubts of the basic exercises of scientific methodology.

A little over 13,000 years ago, extensive ice sheets about 2 miles thick enveloped most of the northern regions of north america. The temperatures required to sustain such glacial capacity were not enough to combat the natural melting with rising temperatures. Its not as easy as "in the south things melt, in the north, not so much."

From there the chorus frogs were free to radiate south and diverge, forming a continuum of interbreeding chorus frogs spanning the eastern half of north america.

This account is trivial and I was merely attempting to emphasize the notion of continuity between species. There is no barrier between micro and macro evolution. I should say, however, direct observation of macro evolution in organisms with longer life cycles will never happen, unless you can tell us what "animal" a rabbit will eventually change into.

reply to post by ararisq


...how so? I'm sorry, but claiming that the fact that we've provided evidence that speciation occurs somehow proves the creationist position doesn't do anything on its own. Support your claim.

reply to post by Conclusion1

Originally posted by Conclusion1
This is by no means speciation. It could very well be a mutated alleles. And then the word "IF" the offspring are unfit hybrids. That would fall into the category of not meant to be.

Mutated alleles would be an example of speciation. Granted, I find it funny that you're calling something that's backed in the scientific literature not something that the scientific establishment has determined is speciation.

Now we have the word "Indicating" which is speculating. And still no proof of speciation. Actually This doesn't have anything to do with speciation.

...no, indicating is not a speculative word. It is a word of pointing out that something shows that there is something else.

Hmm. This is just one scientists who failed to realize that the molecular models are most useful if the scientist agree with each other. lol. She just didn't see the environmental effect on genes. Still this is not proof of speciation.

...so you're just going to dismiss it off hand...even though you're asserting an environmental effect on genes that is unsupported? I mean, aside from radiation, I don't see what can cause an effect on genes in an environment. What is the mechanism by which such an effect occurs?

This is not showing one species changing into another. They are trying to "quantify the genetic differences. What makes them different? The hybridization can be explained because we all live on the same planet so our genetic makeup is similar so we can survive. No proof here.

...except that it is proof. Reproductive isolation and drift between populations.

This is still no change. It is about the consequences for speciation.

...and those predictions are confirmed in later tests.

Speciation in the Hawaiian drosophila: sexual selection appears to play an important role.

Hmm. Another speculative word. "Appears" to play an important role, but still no proof.

...okay, this explains so much about your later posts. You don't understand science. Definitively. Scientists won't use words like "THIS PROVES MY THEORY!", they leave that to the science news headline writers. Appears to play an important role...and that relates to the mechanism of speciation, not to speciation on its own.

Now am I saying that we do not change. Oh no. We change not just physically but mentally.

...and 'mentally' is a productive of physical change.

The Max Plank Institute did a study on the rate of evolution.
They bred a plant (the article did not specify type) for 30 generations.
The plants had 120 million base pair DNA.
The difference from first gen and last gen was 8 to 12 base pair.
So change is proven.

I've heard this so many times before...and nobody has actually provided the paper for me to review. I'd like to see external citation of it so I can see exactly what is being misrepresented when this is given. Oh wait, iterationzero already did that.

Now the time it would take to change, at that rate (.0000001% - .00000006%), from a single cell organism to a full fledged diversity of the life we see around us is astronomical. You do the math.

....so you're saying that this supposed experiment gives the universal mutation rate for all organisms? You do realize that there is a different rate of mutation and reproduction for each species, right? Humans reproduce 1-8 times in a lifetime...and their lifetime is a lot longer. Mice, on the other hand, reproduce at a rate that is astronomical by comparison.

Originally posted by Conclusion1

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Conclusion1

 

No one's stopping you from posting whatever you want within ATS rules...we're just highlighting what a bunch of nonsense your posts are. And we're doing it by backing up our claims with objective evidence, not like you who posts random figures not even bothering to back them up with facts

l


Nothings to back it up? Listen man if you can't do simple calculations thats cool. It doesn't bother me. It's not like Calc. The figures if you remember I took from the Institute. So yeah. It is objective with back up.

Not objective evidence against evolution...so what's your point? All you're doing is preaching, but you certainly don't back up any of your claims

i don't understand why evolution would contradict the existence of an intelligence capable of creating things.


if a creator exists, i'd figure he'd be smart enough to allow things to evolve and grow. anything different and i'd think our god wasn't smart at all

Originally posted by BastianCain
i don't understand why evolution would contradict the existence of an intelligence capable of creating things.


if a creator exists, i'd figure he'd be smart enough to allow things to evolve and grow. anything different and i'd think our god wasn't smart at all

Clearly they believe the creator's too dumb for that

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.