Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:

Neo may be able to help you with that.

Meanwhile, why don't you address the subject honestly?

If a critter is born as 'the first of a new species' , he will (by definition) NOT be able to breed with members of other species, correct?

So the 'new species' is toast.

This applies whether he is part of a group that has been geographically isolated from others, or not.

If he is still able to breed with members of the 'old species' (including those he is 'isolated' with), then he is also still a member of that species, is he not?

Thus, no 'new species' has actually been formed, has it?

We addressed this just 4-5 pages ago. I'll give you a LINK, hence the need to bang my head against the wall.

STOP being so dishonest.

In your example, the group A and group B apes are exactly the same genetically at the outset.

So as the group B produces variations within the group, the variant is still able to breed with other members of group B, WHO ARE ALL STILL MEMBERS of the same species as group A.

Thus the variants, since they can interbreed with group B, are ALSO still members of that species.

Even if group B were to produce a member which could no longer breed with group A, he would still be a member of the same species if he were still able to breed with group B, since it is still the same species.

You either don't realize this , or willfully ignore it while pretending that geography solves your dilemma. It doesn't.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

In your example, the group A and group B apes are exactly the same genetically at the outset.

So as the group B produces variations within the group, the variant is still able to breed with other members of group B, WHO ARE ALL STILL MEMBERS of the same species as group A.

Thus the variants, since they can interbreed with group B, are ALSO still members of that species.

Even if group B were to produce a member which could no longer breed with group A, he would still be a member of the same species if he were still able to breed with group B, since it is still the same species.

You either don't realize this , or willfully ignore it while pretending that geography solves your dilemma. It doesn't.

Again, you're being dishonest; you cannot be this dense.

If groups A and B did stayed together they would evolve together. They'd all be able to interbreed forever.

In the example, where A and B are seperated, A evolves along a different path as B, but along the same path as A so the A's can breed with A's forever, however after 50,000 generations the A's would not be the same A's as the 1st generation (you understand that previous generations would die off right?). These A+50,000 would not be able to mate with the B+50,000 groups.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

real life wrote:

In your example, the group A and group B apes are exactly the same genetically at the outset.

So as the group B produces variations within the group, the variant is still able to breed with other members of group B, WHO ARE ALL STILL MEMBERS of the same species as group A.

Thus the variants, since they can interbreed with group B, are ALSO still members of that species.

Even if group B were to produce a member which could no longer breed with group A, he would still be a member of the same species if he were still able to breed with group B, since it is still the same species.

You either don't realize this , or willfully ignore it while pretending that geography solves your dilemma. It doesn't.

Again, you're being dishonest; you cannot be this dense.

If groups A and B did stayed together they would evolve together. They'd all be able to interbreed forever.

In the example, where A and B are seperated, A evolves along a different path as B, but along the same path as A so the A's can breed with A's forever, however after 50,000 generations the A's would not be the same A's as the 1st generation (you understand that previous generations would die off right?). These A+50,000 would not be able to mate with the B+50,000 groups.

Start at the beginning. All the members in both location A and location B are all the same species. correct?

And any critter born in either group will be able to interbreed among the members of the species where he is, correct?

So then, any critter born in either group is still a member of the same species as all A's and B's since he can interbreed in that species.

No 'new species' has been started.

0 Replies

real life

Quote:

(Speaking of geographic isolation mechanisms) They have to be long term , thousands (or millions) of years. And they have to be numerous, hundreds of millions of instances to account for the number of species alive today plus the many more that are extinct.

The fanciful mountain range and river examples that have been offered so far just exhibit wishful thinking.

I gave you an example that is presently an isolation mechanism for a number of species. Over thousands and millions of generations of differential adaptation, many isolation mechanisms include (but are not limited to), , tectonics. Youve no doubt heard of continental drift or plate collision (ARE YOU DENYING THAT PLATE TECTONICS DOESNT HAPPEN ALSO?) The neat thing about evolution theory is that all the data and evidence fits so nicely when youre just open minded and not guided by trying to push some Biblical snake oil.

For example, Sexual Isolation can merely be the organism moving away freom its founder population (like the rufous hummingbirds are now doing by establishing two separate migration routes that diverge in Western Canada,) or in a "ring species " as PAULIGIRL ALLUDED TO. aN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE END MEMBER SPECIES OF two non interbreeding species of salamanders that originated throughout the central valley of California.The end members, sharing much ,(like 99.999% of their genetic material, are unable to interbreed because of niche specialization (one sleeps when the other clocks in).

Quote:

Where are these millions of examples?

Why is youre fake determinant that "because it can happen rapidly, we should be covered in new evolving species". Remember, much of speciation is adaptation. For example, a Latemeria had over 20 species in the Devonian, It had 5 in the Cretaceous and , today, after an "apparent absence in the fossil record for 65 million years) we only have 2 species, for a net decline of 18 species in what. , 375 million years. YEt we can have new species appear in 50 years or less. Perhaps extinction plays a role also? Ya think?
Darwin devoted an entire chapter to "The Imperfections of the Fossil Record". He had an idea but only fragments of data from his fossils of the Pampas. Today, weve shown , by consistent exploration and careful geological mapping, that , not only was he right, his rather simple sounding idea is right on the money. The falsifiability concept can help us pinpoint where a specific species of fossil shouldnt be found, and guess what, its right. We then can flip it over and use the predictability modes and state that"If a specific species , say Realosaurus Lifae is found in the Frasnian of the upper Devonian, then the later " evolved" Realosaurus Juniorii should be found in the next higher formations, guess what, This is exactly what happens. We dont find later fossils in earlier formations (except when the Creationists or fossil bunko artists attempt their fraudulent " gluing and salting"), and those are.always found out by some skeptical scientist who cant buy the story..

We dont find wooly mammoths in the PreCambrian or anywhere up to the Pleistocene. I know, you say that they were all being hidden away for a big rollout by a deity. But every species known?
Ya got a hard row to hoe there sport. Ill let you get back to finding some evidence for a contemporaneous worldwide flood.

0 Replies

farmerman,

I asked for more realistic examples of geographical isolation than:

-- a mountain range suddenly being found in between two groups of critters who had previously lived side by side

-- a river that is uncrossable for thousands (or millions) of years

and the example you come up with is

Quote:

well , how 'bout plate tectonics?

And you were the one who earlier objected 'not all isolation has to be cataclysmic'

Laughing

Talk about an Atlantis-type isolation event ( 'and they never saw each other again')!

Since there are hundreds of millions (probably billions) of species living and previously living, you're going to need hundreds of millions of isolation events that could credibly separate populations for tens of thousands (or millions) of years.

So far, you're not making much headway.

A critter just wandering away from home isn't likely to cause a separation of this kind either, unless one has a vivid imagination.

You have to have a large enough number of critters to sustain a new population.

The 'bear went over the mountain' is cute, but unlikely to become the progenitor of a new species.

And we haven't even talked about geographic isolation of critters for which barriers like mountains or uncrossable rivers wouldn't be a factor (i.e. birds, flying bugs, water dwelling critters both in saltwater and fresh).

Even if you manage to separate populations, any offspring are still members of the same species as their parent, are they not?

If a critter is born that is NOT the same species as it's parent (and therefore can't interbreed with the other critters of his parent's species), THAT family line is going nowhere fast. Laughing

0 Replies

RL, your continued deliberate misrepresentation of the facts of evolution is completely pathetic. Geographical isolation happens over very extended periods, includes migration over long periods as well as catastrophic events that instantly separate groups. The only thing it doesn't do is the instantaneous magic 'poof' that your pathetic magical imaginary fairy does. The saddest part of this whole discussion is that smart people like fm continue to try to educate a pathetic moron. Are you ever going to stop blowing smoke up everyone's arse? Are you ever going to provide a single shred of evidence to prove the existence of your imaginary friend? You are a ******* loser.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:

Well, if the contention is that species Y[/i][/u] evolved from species X[/i][/u], then:

before there can be 1000 members of species Y[/i][/u], there must be 100

and before there can be 100 , there must be 10

and before there can be 10 , there must be 1.

If the first member of species Y[/i][/u] cannot interbreed with any members of species X[/i][/u], then the 'new species' is toast.

If no critter ever 'crosses the line' to the point where they cannot interbreed with members of their 'parent species', then how are 'new species' begun?

That's the RL theory of evolution, and as we might expect, it doesn't work.

Here's how the actual theory of evolution works...

A population of species "X" begins to have a variation in it called "Y". First there is only one "Y", but eventually there are thousands of "Y's", but they can all still interbreed with "X". Because they are still the same species.

Then the population of "Y" begins to produce a variation called "Z". First there are few and then there are many, you get the picture...

"Z" can breed with "Y", but it can't breed with "X" because "X" and "Z" are now different species.

Then "Y" gets hit by a car while crossing the road and suddenly creationists can't figure out how "X" gave rise to "Z" (even though it's pretty friggin obvious).

If X and Y are the same species, and you said they are........

and if Y and Z can interbreed , then they are considered the same species as well, right?.......

.......then how is it that X and Z are not the same species?

You're basing your logic on linear math when it should be based on set theory.

In linear mathematics X=Y=Z therefor X=Z.

But in biology X is similar to Y is similar to Z therefor X is distantly similar to Z (X ~ Y ~ Z therefor X ~~ Y)

But over time, when X ~~~~~~~~~~ Z , we call them different species because they can no longer interbreed directly.

0 Replies

BTW, if you want to be educated, then trying opening a book and learning it for your f@cking self, instead of being constantly spoon fed like a baby.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Even if you manage to separate populations, any offspring are still members of the same species as their parent, are they not?

Yes, but they are not necessarily the same species as their ancestors or their distant cousins.

You just refuse to accept the idea of transition.

If we had your way a rainbow would consist of red and violet with nothing in between. Reality isn't just black and white.

0 Replies

Quote:

and the example you come up with is Quote:

Quote:
well , how 'bout plate tectonics?

And you were the one who earlier objected 'not all isolation has to be cataclysmic'

The tectonic plates move 0.66 to 8.5 centimeters per year--that's hardly cataclysmic. Do you even try to understand what Farmerman has said to you, or do you just spout your mouth off at the earliest possible moment?

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

Quote:
and the example you come up with is Quote:

Quote:
well , how 'bout plate tectonics?

And you were the one who earlier objected 'not all isolation has to be cataclysmic'

The tectonic plates move 0.66 to 8.5 centimeters per year--that's hardly cataclysmic. Do you even try to understand what Farmerman has said to you, or do you just spout your mouth off at the earliest possible moment?

No he doesn't try to understand. He's not even arguing against evolution, he apparently doesn't UNDERSTAND what evolution is saying, regardless if he considers it true or false. He's developed an evolution strawman that he's arguing against.

He thinks MAN walked with DINOSAURS.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:

Well, if the contention is that species Y[/i][/u] evolved from species X[/i][/u], then:

before there can be 1000 members of species Y[/i][/u], there must be 100

and before there can be 100 , there must be 10

and before there can be 10 , there must be 1.

If the first member of species Y[/i][/u] cannot interbreed with any members of species X[/i][/u], then the 'new species' is toast.

If no critter ever 'crosses the line' to the point where they cannot interbreed with members of their 'parent species', then how are 'new species' begun?

That's the RL theory of evolution, and as we might expect, it doesn't work.

Here's how the actual theory of evolution works...

A population of species "X" begins to have a variation in it called "Y". First there is only one "Y", but eventually there are thousands of "Y's", but they can all still interbreed with "X". Because they are still the same species.

Then the population of "Y" begins to produce a variation called "Z". First there are few and then there are many, you get the picture...

"Z" can breed with "Y", but it can't breed with "X" because "X" and "Z" are now different species.

Then "Y" gets hit by a car while crossing the road and suddenly creationists can't figure out how "X" gave rise to "Z" (even though it's pretty friggin obvious).

If X and Y are the same species, and you said they are........

and if Y and Z can interbreed , then they are considered the same species as well, right?.......

.......then how is it that X and Z are not the same species?

You're basing your logic on linear math when it should be based on set theory.

In linear mathematics X=Y=Z therefor X=Z.

But in biology X is similar to Y is similar to Z therefor X is distantly similar to Z (X ~ Y ~ Z therefor X ~~ Y)

But over time, when X ~~~~~~~~~~ Z , we call them different species because they can no longer interbreed directly.

As long as you hold to a definition of 'species' that draws the line based on whether that organism either can or cannot interbreed with others of X species, then you can't have one that is 'sorta' a member of the species.

He either is......

......or isn't.

No in-betweens , sorry.

If a member of X species gives birth to one who cannot breed with any members of the species, that member's family line is doomed.

If he can interbreed with members of the species, then he IS one of that species.

In your example, X ~~~~~~~~~~ Z, Z doesn't have to be able to breed with the original X to be considered part of the species.

He only needs to be able to breed with living contemporary members of the species, who in turn met the same requirement when they were born, who in turn met the same requirement etc. stepwise back to the original X.

0 Replies

megamanXplosion wrote:

Quote:
and the example you come up with is Quote:

Quote:
well , how 'bout plate tectonics?

And you were the one who earlier objected 'not all isolation has to be cataclysmic'

The tectonic plates move 0.66 to 8.5 centimeters per year--that's hardly cataclysmic. Do you even try to understand what Farmerman has said to you, or do you just spout your mouth off at the earliest possible moment?

The point is that the separation of tectonic plates are hardly the numerous events needed.

What is needed just to produce isolation events enough for one modern species are multiple isolation events , separated down thru history by thousands (or millions) of years, each event lasting thousands (or millions) of years on it's own.

Even then, as we've seen, isolated populations only produce members of the same species (i.e. offspring that can interbreed with contemporaneous members of the species living in their area) .

If they can interbreed, no 'new species' has been produced.

If they can't , that dog's party is over.

0 Replies

RL, I think Ive been perfectly clear that geographic isolation can take on many guises. You, if you dont like "peripatetic' isolation by my bear song, have been fed the "plate tectonics issue, There are many , many , many ways that organisms become separated by geographic isolation. You fail to grasp that its not an "eitjher or" situation. Thats really kind of dim on your part.

CREATURES can live side by side on an existing mountain (I dont know why I get a feeling that theres aparakeet on the other end). One animal walks uphill, the other down. (This is, by the way, the way that the Alleghany cave rat came about. A separate species of rats are evolving on either side of the Spruce Knob Mt in W Va. (Do they interbreed> --you bet they can) They just dont get a chance to very often since one has begun adapting to cave mouths at the tops of ridges and the other is adapting to conditions on the outside. They are both undergoing statistically significant morphological variations. The one that lives outside is markedly larger and has a statistically smaller appendage length(including tail, ears, and legs). The one that lives in the cave mouths is becoming adapted to the low light and is protected because the US Forestry DEpt believes they are a threatened species (Perhaps what were seeing is the extension of evolutionary adaptation)

Did theymagically get created sometime in the past when the Iapetus sea closed and the proto Appalachians formed ? (According to you thats the preferred explanation---if not try to clue me in how the mind of RL works on these things--Id really like to know)

Quote:

a river that is uncrossable for thousands (or millions) of years

I didnt say a river thats uncrossable for thousands or millions of years. I stated that the Blue Nile had changed course and isolated a series of lakes from the blue Nile in a pewriod that varied from 4000 to 40000 years BP. The resultant "spurts" of cichlid eolution was an adaptive response to available niches. left empty by the isolated river

The Colorado plateua in the Grand Canyon is an example of a fairly long lived isolation plateau . and the plants and mammals have responded by evolving into several sexualy distinct species and several new genera. The only differences between the animals is some monor morphological manifestations and they choose not to breed unless done by AI, and with usual sterile offspring.

Quote:

I asked for more realistic examples of geographical isolation than:

-- a mountain range suddenly being found in between two groups of critters who had previously lived side by side

I liked that one because it is so genuinely disengenuously RL. It is "Type section", If you cant ask a question, make up words that the other person "should have" said.

Nowhere did anyone say that a mountain suddenly appered between two side by side critters. As my cave rat example shows, animals HAVE LEGS. THEY WALK AROUND and set off for new territories. I know youve heard "ring species" before.
Im trying with patience to see how far down in obtuseness we can plumb with you. You seem to be repeating yourself so often that we see your rephrasings on the same page.

I know that we will never hear from your sides compelling arguments so we can dance around hearing your rephrased questions that you utter w like some rookie trial lawyer. Why not just move on and dont stand around looking for new answers to same questions.

Once again, about when do you think woolly mammoths were "created", then, how about pygmy mammoths, Imperial mammoths and african elephants?

Also, one kinda burning qustion, In your mind how fast are the continental plates moving? Did they change velocity in the past? , By what mechanism did that happen? and how do we(you) know.? Im fascinated by original answers to rather mundane questions . It gets boring hearing the same old stuff based on facts and evidence.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL, I think Ive been perfectly clear that geographic isolation can take on many guises.

And you NEED many guises to make evolution work.

But you don't have them, that's why you reached for the spectacular (plate tectonics) and the ridiculous (a critter left home and never came back).

Both fall woefully short of what you need to demonstrate:

----Hundreds of millions (probably billions) of credible isolation events that lasted thousands (of millions ) of years, irrevocably separating POPULATIONS (not an individual from the herd)

And then, you need to be able to demonstrate how one member of a new species is able to generate descendants......

OR

......why a critter who can still interbreed with contemporary members of the 'old species' should be considered a 'new species'.

'Cuz ya can't have it both ways no matter how hard you try.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Now I did not say that.

There is evidence that can be interpreted to support evolution.

But (IMHO) it's just not very convincing.

Too many logical fallacies, as we are seeing with this very basic issue of speciation.

Speciation is the heart and soul of evolution.

If new species cannot be formed gradually, evolution is DOA.

The evidence that is used to support evolution is mostly circumstantial and inferential.

New species cannot be formed gradually because as soon as you get the first member of the species, that new species is toast.

No other member to breed with, and you're done. Simple birds and bees stuff that anyone can understand.

WTF?? Species don't suddenly appear!! There is no finite line between species! A bird that is slightly different can still mate with other birds of the species that it belongs to.
If this is what you base your belief on then you are retarded.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

real life wrote:
Now I did not say that.

There is evidence that can be interpreted to support evolution.

But (IMHO) it's just not very convincing.

Too many logical fallacies, as we are seeing with this very basic issue of speciation.

Speciation is the heart and soul of evolution.

If new species cannot be formed gradually, evolution is DOA.

The evidence that is used to support evolution is mostly circumstantial and inferential.

New species cannot be formed gradually because as soon as you get the first member of the species, that new species is toast.

No other member to breed with, and you're done. Simple birds and bees stuff that anyone can understand.

WTF?? Species don't suddenly appear!! There is no finite line between species! A bird that is slightly different can still mate with other birds of the species that it belongs to.
If this is what you base your belief on then you are retarded.

What do you think 'the line' between species is, aperson? Is it not the ability to interbreed?

0 Replies

Real life,
I am saying this without any malice or contempt.

Please go and die in a hole. You are a burden to educated people like rosborne, maporshe and myself.

Oooo we're online at the same time!

0 Replies

Yes it is.

However, a species does not change over one generation, as you are suggesting. Rosborne gave a very good explanation but you chose to warp it.

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Yes it is.

However, a species does not change over one generation, as you are suggesting. Rosborne gave a very good explanation but you chose to warp it.

How is it warped?

A critter either can, or cannot, interbreed with members of the species into which it was born.

If it can, then it is of that same species.

If it cannot, then it will have no descendants and a 'new species' is toast. End of family line.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know