A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation

reply to post by itsthetooth

Stop kidding yourself, you have offered nothing close to a valid argument. It only seems valid to you because you don't seem to understand what your talking about. The source you posted even explained it but you were too busy cherry picking notice.

If you don't read or don't understand what you are offering as proof, why should anyone even waste their time discussing this with you?

See you around.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
Allopatric speciation is dead, or it at least died when it comes to humans. There is simply to much proof that says its false.

I know talking with you is a waste of time, but below is the introduction of Wikipedia's allopatric speciation article:

Allopatric speciation (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patra, "fatherland") or geographic speciation is speciation that occurs when biological populations of the same species become vicariant — isolated from each other to an extent that prevents or interferes with genetic interchange. This can be the result of population dispersal leading to emigration, or by geographical changes such as mountain formation, island formation, or large scale human activities (for example agricultural and civil engineering developments). The vicariant populations then undergo genotypic or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to different selective pressures, (b) they independently undergo genetic drift, and (c) different mutations arise in the populations' gene pools.

The separate populations over time may evolve distinctly different characteristics. If the geographical barriers are later removed, members of the two populations may be unable to successfully mate with each other, at which point, the genetically isolated groups have emerged as different species. Allopatric isolation is a key factor in speciation and a common process by which new species arise. Adaptive radiation, as observed by Charles Darwin in Galapagos finches, is a consequence of allopatric speciation among island populations.

Think about that. Now wonder why Africans, Caucasians, and Asians all look so different (..undergo genotypic or phenotypic divergence..). In the modern world, pretty much all humans are connected, so there's no barrier that could split our species, but then, what are a few thousand years to evolution (like a microsecond). If humans are the same 100 million years from now we can revisit this idea of yours that we are somehow exempt from this phenomenon..

reply to post by itsthetooth

I can see that people are......................................... Drivel ........................

You just repeated the same nonsense as above. My answer stands but it appears you don’t understand it.

So now whats your excuse why Allopatric speciation doesn't apply to humans I have to see this.

Who ever told you it does not apply to humans. The point is you don’t understand the term and that is not my problem as I have explained this to you before as have many others. I suggest you learn its meaning or give up using it.

And for the second time now you have avoided explaining why Allopatric speciation doesn't apply to humans, or wait, is it because you don't have a reason

I suggest you learn its meaning or give up using it.

There is nothing false about the statement, NO doctor has ever made the claim that allopatric speciation is the reason why they can't produce offspring.

Well of course they don’t they understand its meaning but you alas do not. I suggest you learn its meaning or give up using it.

Allopatric speciation is dead, or it at least died when it comes to humans. There is simply to much proof that says its false.

Apart from the fact you have only just discovered how it is spelt, that you demonstrate repeatedly you do not understand what it is. Please show proof that you claim to have.

Notice my signature MULES two species able to breed, so how is Allopatric speciation going to claim evolution has occured when its obviously proven false.

I suggest you change it to Ass

reply to post by itsthetooth

Doctors never telling a patient that they have speciated, is not an opinion, its a fact.

Of course it is a fact. No one have ever speciated but it does showcase that after around 1000 pages you still do not have the first clue about evolution. Tragic really

I have provided a valid argument based on the fact that there are species able to breed in and both out of species, proves that relationship isolation is false.

I see no signs of any valid argument. can you link or quote it?

To support this fact I even gave the example of how no doctor has ever used it as an excuse, with good reason too.

That is how you support this fictitious valid argument. I dont hold out much hope for the valid argument then

reply to post by daskakik

Stop kidding yourself, you have offered nothing close to a valid argument. It only seems valid to you because you don't seem to understand what your talking about. The source you posted even explained it but you were too busy cherry picking notice.

If you don't read or don't understand what you are offering as proof, why should anyone even waste their time discussing this with you?

See you around.

Not much is needed to understand. It's clear from the sentence I quoted that an assumption is made of speciation because the species stopped producing offspring with the original group.

That has been proven false based on the fact that we we have non same species that are also able to breed, like the donkey and the horse, or the wolf and the dog.

I understand clearly, an assumption was made based on a false finding.

Besides if I was wrong, we would actually have doctors telling patients from time to time that they can't produce offspring because they have speciated, which we don't.

Sorry but your obvously very wrong.

reply to post by rhinoceros


I'm well aware of the claims, I was the first one to post this section regarding this topic.

They are making an assumption that seperation and exposure to certain differences from the original group will produce speciation. Of course there is no proof of this, and this is the whole argument I'm speaking about.

The false claim is made that because offspring is no longer produced, they must have speciated. What a crock, how do they not know that its cancer, or chemical exposure causing these problems, or any other number of things it could be.

No they just make an assumption that speciation has occured, with no actuall proof, when in reality whats really happened is they stopped producing offspring. Sorry thats not proof of speciation, its a guess, and its obviously false as I have pointed out based on the fact that we even have different species that are able to produce offspring.

reply to post by colin42

I can see that people are......................................... Drivel ........................

You just repeated the same nonsense as above. My answer stands but it appears you don’t understand it.

I'm sorry but your quote unquote answer as you claim, doesn't stand. It doesn't stand for anything. The only thing you do is avoid answering any of the questions to get to the bottom of the debate, and reflect everthing back at me claiming that I'm simply wrong. Why don't you prove something for once, anything.

So now whats your excuse why Allopatric speciation doesn't apply to humans I have to see this.

Who ever told you it does not apply to humans. The point is you don’t understand the term and that is not my problem as I have explained this to you before as have many others. I suggest you learn its meaning or give up using it.

I understand it just fine. Allopatric speciation is a joke and offers no proof of speciation.

And for the second time now you have avoided explaining why Allopatric speciation doesn't apply to humans, or wait, is it because you don't have a reason

I suggest you learn its meaning or give up using it.

It's not to difficult to understand, there isn't much to it. A false assumption is made that species no longer producing offspring appear to have evolved. Of course they even worded it as though they are even unsure, but you evolutionists take everything to the degree that you do because it supports your fantasy.

There is nothing false about the statement, NO doctor has ever made the claim that allopatric speciation is the reason why they can't produce offspring.

Well of course they don’t they understand its meaning but you alas do not. I suggest you learn its meaning or give up using it.

And you avoided the same question for 3 times now because you don't have an honest answer. Why don't you give it up instead of just reflecting all of the questions back on me like you always do. You seem to have no excuse why doctors have never used the excuse with humans that they must have speciated.

Allopatric speciation is dead, or it at least died when it comes to humans. There is simply to much proof that says its false.

Apart from the fact you have only just discovered how it is spelt, that you demonstrate repeatedly you do not understand what it is. Please show proof that you claim to have.

Well for starters the author of the article is even admitting that it appears they have speciated, in other words hes not sure, and hes not sure because he is using the false idea that they stopped producing so they must have changed. No proof.

Notice my signature MULES two species able to breed, so how is Allopatric speciation going to claim evolution has occured when its obviously proven false.

I suggest you change it to Ass

I'm not interested in what YOUR signature should be.

reply to post by colin42

Doctors never telling a patient that they have speciated, is not an opinion, its a fact.

Of course it is a fact. No one have ever speciated but it does showcase that after around 1000 pages you still do not have the first clue about evolution. Tragic really

And for the 4th time now you have managed to deflect my question and pose the problem back on me. My understanding is not the problem here, the false claims made about Allopatric speciation are. Now are you going to be serious and address that, or are you going to chicken out again and deflect the question?

I have provided a valid argument based on the fact that there are species able to breed in and both out of species, proves that relationship isolation is false.

I see no signs of any valid argument. can you link or quote it?

According to Allopatric speciation a rule is made that if a species stops producing offspring, its because it has changed enough that its now a different species. I'm proving that false as we have non matching species, the horse and the donkey that are able to produce offspring.

To support this fact I even gave the example of how no doctor has ever used it as an excuse, with good reason too.

That is how you support this fictitious valid argument. I dont hold out much hope for the valid argument then

And what is your basis, is it because speciation doesn't apply to humans, and why.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Ya and I'm the first to fall for it right...

Probably not the first, but almost certainly the oldest—I suppose you are older than eight or nine years?

reply to post by itsthetooth

And again for the third time, you made the assumption that just because I posed that, that I believed in that. I guess your just no getting this.

So now you are admitting that you are a liar?

You posted a statement and then supported that statement in more posts and now you just state that you posted lies.

As I have stated you are not trustable. You admit that.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Well sure it does. The false claim is made that reproductive isolation is proof that a species has evolved. But how can that be when we have non matching species that are able to mate, as well as matching species that are unable to produce offspring.

Let me put it to you this way so that it makes more sense. My neighbor down the way is unable to produce children. Now her and her husband already have children so we know they should be functioning as normal. Doctors check out both the husband and wife and are unable to come up with any reason as to why they are no longer able to produce children. He has a viable sperm count and she is in order as well.

Doctors NEVER give her the excuse that she has evolved, which has caused her to no longer be able to produce children with her husband.

Once again we have to tell the person that admits to posting lies that species evolve, not individuals.

The post where tooth admits to posting lies.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by itsthetooth

Ya and I'm the first to fall for it right, I mean after all I'm even the person that coined the term cabbit.

That is a lie. You are not the one that coined that term.

reply to post by itsthetooth

A doctor doesn't ever tell a patient that evolution has caused relationship isolation with them because IT CANT.

Evolution happens to species, not individuals.

You rely on lies. You admit to telling lies. You in essence admit to posting hoaxes at ATS.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So now whats your excuse why Allopatric speciation doesn't apply to humans

It does apply to the human species, not human individuals.

There is nothing false about the statement, NO doctor has ever made the claim that allopatric speciation is the reason why they can't produce offspring.

That's because these issues apply to species not individuals.

Allopatric speciation is dead, or it at least died when it comes to humans. There is simply to much proof that says its false.

This opinion of yours is based on an argument from personal ignorance. You do not understand the issue and have demonstrated that quite well. On the other hand it could be that this is just another case in which you are purposely posting falsehoods. You've admitted to doing that in this very thread.

reply to post by itsthetooth

Doctors never telling a patient that they have speciated, is not an opinion, its a fact. I have provided a valid argument based on the fact that there are species able to breed in and both out of species, proves that relationship isolation is false. To support this fact I even gave the example of how no doctor has ever used it as an excuse, with good reason too.

There is no forrest, and no trees, this is not a thick conversation that is to difficult for you to understand, Allopatric speciation is obviously false.

Individuals do not "speciate."

You argument is wrong as it is based on an argument from personal ignorance. It is also possible that you have purposely misrepresented the situation as you have claimed to have done before.

All you have shown so far is that your argument has nothing at all to do with allopatric speciation.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And you avoided the same question for 3 times now because you don't have an honest answer.

Nope. I answered your question 4 times but you don’t understand the answer obviously. I will give it to you again

I suggest you learn its meaning or give up using it.

reply to post by itsthetooth

And for the 4th time now you have managed to deflect my question and pose the problem back on me. My understanding is not the problem here, the false claims made about Allopatric speciation are.

And that false claim is yours because you have no idea what you are talking about.

As for me telling you where you are wrong. Been there, done that, you are just as ignorant. I suggest you learn its meaning or give up using it.

Now are you going to be serious and address that, or are you going to chicken out again and deflect the question?

I am serious. I suggest you learn its meaning or give up using it.

According to Allopatric speciation a rule is made that if a species stops producing offspring, its because it has changed enough that its now a different species.

You have no idea do you? I've changed my answer to better suit your level of understanding. I suggest you give up using it.

I'm proving that false as we have non matching species, the horse and the donkey that are able to produce offspring.

Also been there, done that and you don’t understand it. Your ignorance is not my responsibility, it is yours and yours to correct.

To support this fact I even gave the example of how no doctor has ever used it as an excuse, with good reason too.

That is how you support this fictitious valid argument. I don’t hold out much hope for the valid argument then

And what is your basis, is it because speciation doesn't apply to humans, and why.

The very fact you do not understand I have given you my answer already showcases you have no idea what you are talking about and have not got the knowledge to allow you to understand what others are telling you.

Again Your ignorance is not my responsibility, it is yours and yours to correct.

Now you answer something. What has any of this to do with the OP 'A blow to evolution - Gene Regulation' you are supposed to post on topic you know.

Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
They are making an assumption that seperation and exposure to certain differences from the original group will produce speciation. Of course there is no proof of this, and this is the whole argument I'm speaking about.

Of course there is proof. There's so much proof that it's an undeniable fact. You really need not look further than genes. If you want something more concrete look at ring species. Only reality refusalists and brain washed fundies deny facts such as these. Which one are you?

reply to post by Astyanax

Probably not the first, but almost certainly the oldest—I suppose you are older than eight or nine years?

I wouldn't know, I don't hang out with that age group, but it sounds like you might.

reply to post by stereologist

And again for the third time, you made the assumption that just because I posed that, that I believed in that. I guess your just no getting this.

So now you are admitting that you are a liar?

You posted a statement and then supported that statement in more posts and now you just state that you posted lies.

As I have stated you are not trustable. You admit that.

It was a rhetorical question, but I guess you wouldnt understand that. I have never posted that I stated lies. Your just reading into things that aren't there which if very common amongst evolutionists.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
If we were designed by a creator I'd still like to know who designed the creator.

as the creator would move beyond space and time there would be no "creation" of the creator, HE would just BE, alpha and omega