It's called origin of species but I don't get it. How does one species give birth to a different species?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
It's called origin of species but I don't get it. How does one species give birth to a different species?
Each generation is a new species
Species cannot interbreed
cool it with the incest
Untrue
>The hooded crow is so similar in morphology and habits to the carrion crow (Corvus corone) that for many years they were considered by most authorities to be geographical races of one species. Hybridization observed where their ranges overlapped added weight to this view. However, since 2002, the hooded crow has been elevated to full species status after closer observation; the hybridisation was less than expected and hybrids had decreased vigour.
WTF, decreased vigour? But israelites told me racemixing makes us superior!?
is your pic true? why? also, can people not get organ transplants from other races? why
Iissue types. It's the root of the problem of orgn rejection.
with cloned mice you can literally swap them in and out but if you have a few proteins in the wrong place suddenly the body starts getting offended.
Of course from the perspective of a big medical corp it's a real money spinner. maybe one dayy we'll be able to just grow them as we need them.
*tissue types
This is fake
butthurt
We are getting there. Organoids have come a long way in the past decade. We can grow mouse kidney out of inducied pluripotent stem cells made from the same mouses intestinal stem cells via yamanaka factor. The kidney organoid ca funcion as a normal kidney in mouse. nfortunatly we cant do proper vascualrisation yet, so there is an upper size limit. But it's only a matter of time before vascularisation is achieved and we can grow almost any organ from a patient.
>WTF, decreased vigour? But israelites told me racemixing makes us superior!?
That's why they decided to classify them as different rather than different races of the same species.
They don't. Speciation is a make believe concept. The morons who will inevitably disagree with this fact will post dozens of nonsense "examples" that only show pre zygotic barriers and they're too stupid to realize how irrelevant that is.
>Species cannot interbreed
Most life doesn't "breed" thus this is an incomplete criteria. There have been cases of isolated self-pollinating plants that cannot pollinate with their phenotypically identical parents and people cope and call that a "new" species despite the lineage being far worse off. It's not extremely uncommon actually, so if evolutionary origins of species were true we'd expect to find many many 10s of thousands of these instances but we only find a handful. It makes sense when you realize life isn't gormillions of years old and thus life hasn't had too much time for these mutations to accumulate.
Using anything except post zygotic barriers to define "species" is meme tier moronation. Taxonomy is a joke.
>ring species
Braindead concept. A chihuahua and great dane are "ring" "species" ROFL.... they're not, but the stupidity of that concept would require them to be. It's simply evolutiontards desperately looking for evidence to fit their belief system, as always.
>With enough evolutionary adaptive changes, the variants can no longer interbreed, thus producing new species
Never been observed. Only assumed to happen in the past long ago in fantasy land.
How do you think new species are generated?
By some human giving it a name.
>How do you think new species are generated?
Invalid question. Your question relies on a false premise as there is no such thing as a "new" species. You might as well ask how "new" energy is generated.
Wrong.
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php
>Speciation is a make believe concept.
It's been directly observed many times. It's also easily provable via genetic evidence. Why are you lying?
>The morons who will inevitably disagree with this fact will post dozens of nonsense "examples" that only show pre zygotic barriers and they're too stupid to realize how irrelevant that is.
How is it irrelevant? Speciation is speciation.
>Most life doesn't "breed" thus this is an incomplete criteria
Doesn't follow. We're not talking about specific organisms, we're talking about species as a whole.
>There have been cases of isolated self-pollinating plants that cannot pollinate with their phenotypically identical parents and people cope and call that a "new" species despite the lineage being far worse off.
So?
>It's not extremely uncommon actually, so if evolutionary origins of species were true we'd expect to find many many 10s of thousands of these instances but we only find a handful.
Please show your math comparing the predicted rate and observed rate. Thanks.
>Using anything except post zygotic barriers to define "species" is meme tier moronation.
Why?
>A chihuahua and great dane are "ring" "species"
How so?
>Never been observed.
Wrong.
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php
>It's been directly observed many times.
Not even once. These "examples" are just nonsense pre-zygotic barrier cherry picking
>It's also easily provable via genetic evidence
Common design != common ancestor
Don't even get me started on how "ERVs" don't prove common ancestry
>Why are you lying
HAHA please
>How is it irrelevant? Speciation is speciation
Cope is cope. A Great Dane and Chihuahua cannot breed in the wild. They are not separate species but you blissfully pretend that is all the criteria needed to call two organisms "separate species" when it fits your dogma
>Doesn't follow.
does follow
>We're not talking about specific organisms, we're talking about species as a whole
kek so what? What specific organism doesn't breed but is part of a species that as a whole does breed? I guess worker ants? haha are worker ants a different species from the queen because they can't breed? What on earth you were even trying to say here is beyond senseless. This is why "breeding" is an incomplete criteria to define species like I said
>Please show your math comparing the predicted rate and observed rate. Thank.
We've observed it twice in E. peregrinain the past 150 years and those are the only two examples in the genome. Are you big boy enough to understand how to extrapolate that over millions of years or do you need daddy to do it for you?
>Why?
Because a Chihuahua and Great Dane are not separate species. The non post zygotic criteria is so dumb to use it would even imply blacks and S Americans were separate species a few millenia ago since there was no reasonable way to overcome the geographic barriers, yet evolutiontards mindlessly say geographic barriers are enough to distinguish "species"
>How so
Read the def of ring species, not gonna spoon feed you
>Wrong
>posts moron blog
No its true. Point out the ones with post-zygotic barriers in your blog. There will be 1-3 depending on how desperate they twist definitions and I've already addressed on of them.
>These "examples" are just nonsense pre-zygotic barrier cherry picking
How is it nonsense? How does "cherrypicking" even apply when it's just about showing observed examples?
>Common design != common ancestor
I guess genetic testing is useless then. You're just designed to have similar DNA to your "parents," you're not actually their offspring. Anyway, nothing in biology shows signs of design. The inefficiency and unnecessary complexity of many features indicates a genetic algorithm, not an intelligence.
>Don't even get me started on how "ERVs" don't prove common ancestry
What design do the thousands of nonfunctional ERVs serve?
>A Great Dane and Chihuahua cannot breed in the wild.
That doesn't answer my question.
>They are not separate species but you blissfully pretend that is all the criteria needed to call two organisms "separate species"
Where?
>kek so what?
So "most life doesn't breed" is irrelevant to whether species can interbreed.
>What specific organism doesn't breed but is part of a species that as a whole does breed?
Every organism that doesn't breed.
>What on earth you were even trying to say here is beyond senseless.
Projection, you're the one who claimed "most life doesn't breed" and can't explain what you mean or how it's relevant.
>We've observed it twice in E. peregrinain the past 150 years and those are the only two examples in the genome.
And how often does evolutionary theory predict allopolyploidy will occur in the species? What is the probability of observing it when it does occur?
>Are you big boy enough to understand how to extrapolate that over millions of years or do you need daddy to do it for you?
So you don't actually know, you just made up that claim. Thanks for proving my point. You're spouting religiously-motivated dogma and hoping no one will actually ask you for evidence.
Not him, but how is evolutionary dogma any better than religious dogma? There's no direct evidence of evolution. There's plenty of indirect evidence for both creationism and evolutionary theory.
>Not him, but how is evolutionary dogma any better than religious dogma?
I don't know what you mean by evolutionary dogma. Evolution is a scientific theory, not dogma. It has massive amounts of evidence and logic supporting it. Religious dogma does not.
>There's no direct evidence of evolution.
There is, we observe it all the time. Do you even know what evolution means?
>There's plenty of indirect evidence for both creationism and evolutionary theory.
Creationism isn't a theory, so it doesn't really matter what evidence you think supports it, it isn't even comparable to evolution. It's like comparing voodoo to medicine. Which do you prefer?
You sound exactly like a zealot. There's no direct evidence of macroevolution which is the foundation of the evolutionary theory. You just posted an aimless rant because someone attacked your dogma.
there is an enormous amount of evidence for macroevolution, most prominently saltationist evidence in the form of hybridization
see:
Show one piece of *direct* evidence for macroevolution
What does "direct evidence of macroevolution" mean to you? What would it look like?
Direct evidence means observable/empirical evidence.
All scientific evidence is observable/empirical, so that's perfect. Now what do you think "macroevolution" means?
Evolution of new species.
OK, here you go.
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php
There's also plenty of genetic evidence, like ERVs that prove all vertebrates share a common ancestor. So that common ancestor evolved into many new species.
That's just random anecodotes from people. Lots of people saw Jesus being resurrected too. Is that direct evidence?
>That's just random anecodotes from people
No, it's direct observation of speciation.
>Lots of people saw Jesus being resurrected too.
Let me know when you get their observations published in a scientific journal.
>No, it's direct observation of speciation.
Just like the apostles have direct obsevation of resurrection then right?
>Let me know when you get their observations published in a scientific journal.
I thought appeal to authority was against the tenets of your dogma? Sounds like you're acting heretical anon.
>It is accusing to your own definition.
It's not.
>Non sequitur, matching ERVs are.
Because the designer put the same virus in two organisms it means they evolved from each other?
>Judaism according to you is contrary evidence.
What?
> And I don't need to show contrary evidence,
You do if you claim there is contrary evidence. That's strike two for failing to adhere to your dogma: positive claims require evidence.
It sounds like you're very lost anon.
>Just like the apostles have direct obsevation of resurrection then right?
Where's the data? Where is it published?
>I thought appeal to authority was against the tenets of your dogma?
What authority?
>It's not.
It is. You said observation/empirical evidence.
>Because the designer put the same virus in two organisms
Why? How is that a design?
>it means they evolved from each other?
No, it means they share a common ancestor.
>What?
>Religious dogma has plenty of evidence and no contrary evidence.
>You do if you claim there is contrary evidence.
Where did I claim there's contrary evidence?
>There's also plenty of genetic evidence, like ERVs that prove all vertebrates share a common ancestor. So that common ancestor evolved into many new species.
And this is obviously not direct evidence. Genetic similarities are not direct evidence of a common ancestors. It could very well be a common designer. You don't seem to understand basic epistemological concepts, so perhaps that's why you're so confused.
>And this is obviously not direct evidence.
It is accusing to your own definition.
>Genetic similarities are not direct evidence of a common ancestors.
Non sequitur, matching ERVs are.
>>Genetic similarities are not direct evidence of a common ancestors.
>Non sequitur, matching ERVs are
Matching "ERVs" are genetic similarities you mouth breathing moron
I keep putting it in quotes because there is no proof these DNA similarities, shared among viruses and other species, were ever actually viruses. That is just a blind dogmatic assumption.
>Matching "ERVs" are genetic similarities you mouth breathing moron
They are more than mere genetic similarities, they can only arise from a common ancestor. It's almost impossible for the same retrovirus to implant the same code in the exact same place in the genome of two different organisms. Yet this occurred thousands of times if vertebrates don't share a common ancestor. And it occurred such that the most closely related organisms share the most ERVs.
>I keep putting it in quotes because there is no proof these DNA similarities, shared among viruses and other species, were ever actually viruses.
You're delusional.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1617120/
fertile intergeneric hybrids
happens in both animals and plants constantly
>ignores basically all genetic evidence
wrong, and of course he isn't, being a seasoned geneticist with a lot more knowledge in his field than you ever will have
>which shows one species developing into others, not hybridizing
that's not what the evidence is showing at all
the evidence does show a certain level of variability within various species, but there's very little evidence of entirely new species regularly occurring that way (although as stated previously, "species" is not clearly defined in any case)
>"It's dishonest, but true!"
more like dishonest and false
you tried to make it out as if that was a main point in his argument, when in reality it's a small and speculative part of his site
keep being intellectually dishonest, though
>Again, see above.
I had already addressed the part I was replying to there earlier in my reply
you on the other hand are apparently just parroting it for zero good reason
sounds like someone is coping with having some of their cherished dogma upended
>wrong, and of course he isn't, being a seasoned geneticist with a lot more knowledge in his field than you ever will have
He can have all the knowledge in the world, if he ignores it in order to reach his crackpot conclusions then his knowledge is irrelevant. Several experts have pointed out the evidence he ignores and the weakness of the evidence he relies on.
>that's not what the evidence is showing at all
It is, you've already been given several directly observed examples. The fossil record and genetic record show hybridization is not a major driver of evolution.
>more like dishonest and false
You literally admitted I'm right.
>you tried to make it out as if that was a main point in his argument
I said he ignores most evidence and instead relies on really weak stuff like urban legends and two species looking subjectively similar. Thanks for admitting I'm right.
>when in reality it's a small and speculative part of his site
If everything which relies on such weak evidence can be ignored, then his entire theory of evolution can be ignored, and the only relevant sections are just well known information about hybridization.
>I had already addressed the part I was replying to there earlier in my reply
Yes, by admitting I'm right. I had already pointed that out earlier in my reply.
>crackpot
there's nothing "crackpot" about his conclusions at all
no amount of vague hand-waving to "experts" denying the facts of reality changes this
>you've already been given several directly observed examples
again, you seem to struggle to distinguish between the different people you're communicating with
not surprising
and no, the fossil record shows the exact opposite, it shows exactly what McCarthy is saying: only small variability within species, and sudden leaps and stabilization being the major driver of new speciation
this is the core idea behind saltationism, which appears to be the correct model of evolution
plenty of information about that on his page
>You literally admitted I'm right.
with this poor reading comprehension, no wonder you're so wrong about everything
your claim was that he, and I quote you directly, "relies on really weak stuff like urban legends"
I never once admitted to this claim being right, I pointed out how it was wrong from the very beginning, i.e. that he doesn't rely on any of that, that instead it's just a small and speculative part of his site
nice try, though
>If everything which relies on such weak evidence can be ignored, then his entire theory of evolution can be ignored, and the only relevant sections are just well known information about hybridization.
here you hilariously make the exact same error that I point out above and pointed out previously
once again: that's just a small and speculative part of his site, it has nothing to do with the main body of evidence he presents at all
>the only relevant sections are just well known information about hybridization
100% false
not only are the relevant sections filled to the brim with information virtually no one has any idea about when it comes to hybridization and genetics in general, in fact to the point where even many fellow geneticists are often not aware of it, but in addition to all that there's a large body addressing the history and facts of evolution
>there's nothing "crackpot" about his conclusions at all
Except for the reasons I already pointed out.
>I never once admitted to this claim being right
>I even pointed out explicitly that those urban legends only constitute a small and speculative part of his site
Thanks for admitting I'm right. I don't know why you think calling his crackpot theories a small part of the site matters. They're still crackpot theories, ans the rest is just well known information about hybridization.
>not only are the relevant sections filled to the brim with information virtually no one has any idea about
You're projecting your ignorance onto others. Weird how this revolutionary insight was never able to pass peer review. It must be a conspiracy.
You didn't answer my question, do you prefer voodoo to medicine?
>You sound exactly like a zealot
How so? It sounds like you're projecting.
>There's no direct evidence of macroevolution
What do you think "macroevolution" means? How did you determine there's no evidence for it.
>which is the foundation of the evolutionary theory
LOL, no.
>You just posted an aimless rant
Where? I've only directly responded to your posts. You just make shit up.
>You didn't answer my question, do you prefer voodoo to medicine?
I prefer medicine. What does this have to do with anything? I ignore unrelated questions, yes. If you ask me what's the color of my eyes, I'll also ignore it.
You still haven't answered how evolutionary dogma is better than religious dogma.
>What does this have to do with anything?
How is medicine any better than voodoo?
>You still haven't answered how evolutionary dogma is better than religious dogma.
I don't know what you mean by evolutionary dogma. Evolution is a scientific theory, not dogma. It has massive amounts of evidence and logic supporting it. Religious dogma does not. It sounds like you don't even know what evolution means.
>How is medicine any better than voodoo?
Has better results. No more leading questions, state your point or you'll get ignored. I already know what you're getting at, and it's a flawed point, so you're just wasting my time.
>Evolution is a scientific theory, not dogma
The difference only exists in your head.
>Religious dogma does not.
Wrong.
You've made 0 points so far to support any distinction between the two, which is why you're a zealot.
>Has better results.
No it doesnt, all the results of medicine are really the result of voodoo.
>The difference only exists in your head.
LOL, so evidence doesn't exist? If evidence came along falsifying evolution, it would be dropped. Religious dogma persists despite zero evidence or evidence to the contrary. That's the difference.
No direct evidence of macroevolution. Religious dogma has plenty of evidence and no contrary evidence. You're just confused.
>No direct evidence of macroevolution
Wrong. See
>Religious dogma has plenty of evidence and no contrary evidence.
False on its face. There are conflicting religious dogmas, so there can't be both evidence for one without there being contrary evidence for the other.
Provide contrary evidence to Christianity then.
Judaism according to you is contrary evidence. And I don't need to show contrary evidence, you need to show me evidence.
>How does "cherrypicking" even apply
haha are you kidding?? Ive given several examples at how it inconsistently applies for fricks sake and is thus cherry picking
>What design do the thousands of nonfunctional ERVs serve?
Can you not read?
>You're just designed to have similar DNA to your "parents," you're not actually their offspring
Strawman. We are talking about allegedly 100k+ generations apart to "create" new species.
>That doesn't answer my question.
It does. Pretending they aren't separate species using your criteria means you are cherry picking
>Anyway, nothing in biology shows signs of design
You're a fool
>The inefficiency and unnecessary complexity of many features indicates a genetic algorithm, not an intelligence
No such thing
>Where?
Don't this dense. This idiot even gives pic showing "speciation" is simply geographic according to evolutiontards
>Every organism that doesn't breed.
Okay so..... DUR worker ants. Why did you avoid my questions regarding worker ants? Why are you running away?
>So "most life doesn't breed" is irrelevant to whether species can interbreed.
Absolutely not. I explained this. If you decide "species" means different things for different species then I am allowed to do the same, and thus the unbreedable plant example I gave doesn't count as a new species by my definition because it's rational to say breeding is an incomplete criteria
>So you don't actually know, you just made up that claim
Say daddy needs to do the math for you and I'll do it, since you are obviously too braindead to do such a simple extrapolation of 2 examples over 150 years yourself ROFL!!
>You're spouting religiously-motivated dogma and hoping no one will actually ask you for evidence
Your projection is absolutely adorable
>can't explain what you mean or how it's relevant
I easily did, twice now. You are running away from my ant question.
>Ive given several examples at how it inconsistently applies
You've given examples of how the examples I gave are cherrypicking? You're not making any sense. You're just stringing words together with no meaning. Explain how the examples I gave are "cherrypicking." What exactly do you want observations of and why?
>Can you not read?
Yes, I can. Now answer the question. What design do the thousands of nonfunctional ERVs serve?
>We are talking about allegedly 100k+ generations apart to "create" new species.
And? There is no direct evidence you're related to your parents. I say you were merely designed similarly. Because common design =/= common ancestry. Let me know when you want to revise that statement.
>Pretending they aren't separate species using your criteria means you are cherry picking
What criteria? You're terribly confused. By your own criteria they are separate species, not mine.
>You're a fool
Not an argument. Show me one thing in nature that could not have evolved.
>No such thing
As what?
>This idiot
Not me. Try again.
>showing "speciation" is simply geographic according to evolutiontards
That's not even what you claimed. Your nonsense doesn't even make sense internally.
>Okay so..... DUR worker ants.
When you said "most life" you were referring to worker ants? That doesn't sound like "most life."
>Why did you avoid my questions regarding worker ants?
Because they're just nonsensical misrepresentations of what I said. Why did you ask them?
>If you decide "species" means different things for different species
Meaningless.
>the unbreedable plant example I gave doesn't count as a new species by my definition
No one cares about your definition. Speciation is observed regardless of your semantic games.
>Say daddy needs to do the math for you
So you don't actually know, you just made up that claim. Thanks for proving my point. You're spouting religiously-motivated dogma and hoping no one will actually ask you for evidence.
>Explain how the examples I gave are cherrypicking
I already did. The dogs I mentioned are not considered separate species even though google definition says they are, ergo evolutiontards are cherry picking when it applies. Very simple.
>ERVs serve
Can you not read?
>There is no direct evidence you're related to your parents.
Of course there is moron. People observed me being born
There is no observation of what happened allegedly 100k or 1 million generations ago
>Let me know when you want to revise that statement
HAHA why would I need to? Your moronic non example doesn't nullify anything
>By your own criteria they are separate species, not mine.
Hilarious lie. They can't breed naturally in the wild. By many definitions that should make them separate species, but you cherry pick and say they aren't.
>Show me one thing in nature that could not have evolved.
Easy. The Fibrocarilaginaous ring in the eye is irreducibly complex. I know as an evolutionists you dogmatically deny at all costs no matter what that any biological system is IR, so don't bother saying it isn't. I already know you feel that.
>As what?
try reading
>Not me. Try again.
So if species can breed in wild they are not separate species yes or no, thus grizzly and polar bear are same species? Dog/wolf same species? Answer fricking question
>Thats not even what you claimed
Of course it is. My first post itt was how prezygotic barriers are invalid for designating separate species
>misrepresentations
>Why did you ask them
Lies, they are not misrerprsentations They prove ability to breed alone is an incomplete criteria for "speciation" which you deny and why you avoid my questions
>No one cares about your definition
Its more consistent than yours I guarantee it
>Speciation is observed regardless of your semantic
It hasn't even once unlness you play semantic games
>So you don't actually know
So daddy needs to do the math bc you are too stupid to do trivial extrapolations. My number is 650
>They can't breed naturally in the wild.
what would stop a feral chihuahua and a feral great dane from breeding in the wild?
Mechanical reasons. The pic I gave actually uses a chihuahua and great dane to illustrate this here
so it's not an idea I'm pulling out of my ass.
Funny enough I've btfo'd several evolutiontards regarding their myth of speciation before using these two dogs as an example and the pic just coincidentally used these two dogs as well. I didn't get the idea from that pic.
>I already did
Where?
>The dogs I mentioned are not considered separate species even though google definition says they are
That's false since you took that defintion out of context from an article explaiming how it's wrong, and doesn't explain how the examples I gave are "cherrypicking." Making up some other example, which you didn't even do correctly, does not show how my examples are "cherrypicking."
>Can you not read?
I can. Now answer the question. What design do the thousands of nonfunctional ERVs serve?
>Of course there is moron. People observed me being born
Who? Where is their testimony? How do we know they attract lying? You have no evidence.
>There is no observation of what happened allegedly 100k or 1 million generations ago
There is no observation of what hairbrush at your birth, otherwise you would have presented it already. There would be plenty of empirical evidence, but you said common design =/= common ancestry. You were designed to be similar to your "parents." That's it.
>HAHA why would I need to?
You don't need to, you can just accept that you don't have parents.
>They can't breed naturally in the wild.
Of course they can.
>The Fibrocarilaginaous ring in the eye is irreducibly complex.
So are natural stone arches. What does this have to do with not being able to be evolved?
>try reading
Try writing. It's unclear what you're talking about since the sentence you responded to contains several different things. No such thing as inefficiency and unnecessary complexity of many features? No such thing as a genetic algorithm? No such thing as an intelligence?
>So if species can breed in wild they are not separate species
Clearly wrong in the case of hybrids Where did you get this definition from?
>My first post itt was how prezygotic barriers are invalid for designating separate species
You said variants not being able to interbreed and creating new species has never been observed. Now you're saying it has been observed but isn't speciation for some reason you won't explain. LOL.
>Lies, they are not misrerprsentations
They are. Organisms in the population that don't breed are irrelevant to the definition of species.
>Its more consistent than yours I guarantee it
Making all organisms one species is a perfectly consistent definition, but no one cares about that one either.
>It hasn't even once
Lie, you were already given several examples.
>So daddy needs to do the math bc you are too stupid to do trivial extrapolations. My number is 650
So you don't actually know, you just made up that claim. Thanks for proving my point. You're spouting religiously-motivated dogma and hoping no one will actually ask you for evidence.
>I easily did, twice now.
Where?
>Because a Chihuahua and Great Dane are not separate species.
By your own argument they are, since they are capable of breeding but not producing viable offspring naturally. And this doesn't even answer my question. Even if we only used prezygotic barriers as a criteria for speciation, that would make chihuahuas and great Danes the same species. You're terribly confused.
>yet evolutiontards mindlessly say geographic barriers are enough to distinguish "species"
No they don't. You're terribly confused.
>Read the def of ring species, not gonna spoon feed you
I don't think it applies, because there was no continuous ring between them at any point in history. If they were put together in nature with other breeds then perhaps they would form a ring.
>>posts moron blog
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting speciation is observed.
>Point out the ones with post-zygotic barriers in your blog.
Why? That's not even what you claimed hasn't been observed.
I don't usually bother when people have to split up their vomit into two posts since they're cognitively incapable of condensing it to 1 so if you do it again it will be ignored.
>By your own argument they are, since they are capable of breeding but not producing viable offspring naturally
They are not capable of breeding in the wild, producing viable offspring is a strawman and I never mentioned that. Can you not read or do you just prefer lying? It's not "my argument" it's literally a criteria inconsistently used to define "species" First google result
"A species is often defined as a group of organisms that can reproduce naturally with one another and create fertile offspring"
See? By this the two dogs are separate species. It's nonsense criteria and never should be used in exclusivity, but evolutiontards do so when they want to spread their dogma that "duuuur speciation totally happens guys!!!".
>Even if we only used prezygotic barriers as a criteria for speciation, that would make chihuahuas and great Danes the same species. You're terribly confused.
HAHA no, prezygotic barriers would make them separate species if you applied that criteria consistently. Again the geographic prezygotic barrier is enough to define separate bird "species" like I pointed out above. Look at pic related and take bio 101 kid, you are incredibly ignorant.
>I don't think it applies, because . . . history
Show me a definition that mentions history
>Not an argument. Thanks for admitting speciation is observed.
Not an argument. Thanks for admitting Im right.
>Why? That's not even what you claimed hasn't been observed.
HAHA no shit? Do you really project such stupidity on me that I want you to point out the parts that directly prove I'm wrong because I already know they are there?? HAHA
I wanted you to point out the post zygotic barrier examples because they are the only ones that get desperately close to a valid concept of "speciation" but still fall short.
>I don't usually bother when people have to split up their vomit into two posts since they're cognitively incapable of condensing it to 1 so if you do it again it will be ignored.
LOL, so you can't respond to the multiple posts needed to address your voluminous bullshit? I accept your concession of defeat.
>They are not capable of breeding in the wild
They are, a female Chihuahua cannot carry the puppies to viability.
>producing viable offspring is a strawman
LOL, you've been ranting about post-zygotic barriers this entire time and now suddenly it's a strawman. Wow.
>By this the two dogs are separate species.
If by "this" you mean the article you're quoting from, then you're wrong. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/species
You took a quote out of context and completely reversed the message. Thanks for proving my point.
>HAHA no, prezygotic barriers would make them separate species if you applied that criteria consistently.
No. They're capable of breeding in the wild.
>Again the geographic prezygotic barrier is enough to define separate bird "species" like I pointed out above.
And? That doesn't mean that's the definition. You just found one criteria works with some species and then argued as if that's the only criteria. Why don't you just argue against what biologists actually say? You're braindead.
>Show me a definition that mentions history
Are you actually this stupid? I said "at any point in history," which just means "ever." The species never formed a ring so how can they be a ring species? Braindead.
>Not an argument.
No need for an argument when you have none to respond to. Thanks for admitting speciation is observed again.
Haha you truly can't read. These posts are ignored/unread as I pointed out that smearing your mental vomit into 2 (NOW 3 ROFL) posts just means you don't have the cognitive abilities to condense them into 1, which means you are bloviating instead of making valid arguments, like one line 2-3 word responses such as "as what", "where" and "meaningless" are mindless filler text for midwits and your posts are full of them.
LOL, so you can't respond to the multiple posts needed to address your voluminous bullshit? I accept your concession of defeat.
>Do you really project such stupidity on me that I want you to point out the parts that directly prove I'm wrong because I already know they are there?
It's good you finally admitted that you were proven wrong, but that doesn't exlain why you first said
"With enough evolutionary adaptive changes, the variants can no longer interbreed, thus producing new species"
has never been observed, then demanded something else be shown in response to several examples proving you wrong.
>I wanted you to point out the post zygotic barrier examples because they are the only ones that get desperately close to a valid concept of "speciation"
How so?
Mutations + time
Not entirely true, which is why the concept of species, however helpful it may be, isn't something that really exists in real life.
actually, interbreeding is possible across larger differences than just species, hybridization across different geni occurs all the time, and even hybridization across families is reported regularly
you must keep in mind that what constitutes these different categories is rather loosely defined in the first place, and that many common notions about which animals can possibly interbreed are almost always false, such as e.g. needing the same amount of chromosomes to produce fertile offspring
you should peruse this website, it's a treasure trove of information pertaining to hybridization: http://macroevolution.net/
Quack alert
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eugene_M._McCarthy
yeah, a bunch of people don't like what he, through his decades-long career specializing in hybridization and actually observing how things actually happen in nature, has concluded because it's at odds with certain dogmatic tenets of contemporary evolutionary biology
totally deboonked!
>has concluded because it's at odds with certain dogmatic tenets of contemporary evolutionary biology
It's at odds with the evidence. He ignores most of it and instead relies on really weak stuff like urban legends and two species looking subjectively similar. Plus he misrepresents birth defects as hybrid forms. He's definitely a quack, regardless of his experience. Improper methodology is improper regardless of who is doing it. He clearly has a compulsion to claim everything is hybridization. Pathological science.
>It's at odds with the evidence.
not true at all, what he's saying is entirely within the bounds of what we have evidence for
>instead relies on really weak stuff like urban legends
that's an incredibly dishonest misrepresentation of his claims which makes it clear that you are not familiar with his work at all beyond the extent of the RationalWiki article you quickly searched for
I even pointed out explicitly that those urban legends only constitute a small and speculative part of his site apart from the main body of arguments and evidence
>he misrepresents birth defects as hybrid forms
again, see above
what he's primarily doing is pointing to established cases where hybrids thought to necessarily be infertile, and which in the majority of cases are, have turned out to be fertile
that is of course in addition to all the genetic evidence he demonstrates for why this is fully possible from a biological standpoint
>definitely a quack
not a quack at all
>not true at all, what he's saying is entirely within the bounds of what we have evidence for
It's not. He ignores basically all genetic evidence, which shows one species developing into others, not hybridizing.
>that's an incredibly dishonest misrepresentation of his claims
>I even pointed out explicitly that those urban legends only constitute a small and speculative part of his site
"It's dishonest, but true!"
LOL
>again, see above
Again, see above.
Is more of a smooth transition than a define event that you can point at
Simply there's no hard cut off point of where one species become another, just the small changes in each generation of a population that after long periods of time pile up and make individuals genetically and morphological distinct from other populations that piles up different sets of changes and their original ancestral population, to the point they aren't recognizable as the same species or able to interbreed
I don't care about this hand wavy kind of explanation. You are sayig at some point a group can no longer reproduce with other group. But this group could reproduce with their ancestors
What you're saying is that there must be a generation or more at some point who can reproduce with their descendants and with their ancestors but the ancestors and the descendants can't reproduce between each other. Is this correct? If not, explain how else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Thanks that's what I was looking for. Do they actually exist?
>Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely.
myth
Look up haldane's rule
The species concept is an artificial construct that is arbitrarily assigned, but still useful. There is always going to be overlap between where one species ends and where another begins because you're forcing something that has transitional phases from A to B into neat little boxes labeled A and B. If you start labeling everything from A to B as A.3, A.2B.1, A.1B.2, B3, etc that's getting way too into the weeds to be useful as a concept.
If you look at a bunch of rocks made of the same material, you can tell a pebble from a boulder right? But at what point does the pebble turn into a stone, then turn into a rock, then turn into a boulder? That delineation will probably be different based on the observer. Same with a species, which is why there is ample debate over it. And I'm talking here in the general laymen sense, there's some geologist who will "ackchyually" me for the comparison because there's probably a technical definition based on measurements.
We're talking about SPECIES as in they can INTERBREED you pseud moron
I don't know why you're so obsessed about breeding when you're never going to get a chance to do it.
Let me put it this way. To breed, your chromosomes need to match. If it's just a 99% match, thats still fine, but any less then say 90% isn't. (these are not the actual numbers, just an example).
Population one changes 1% every generation. Population two does the same. It's not the same 1% though. So in 5-6 generations there is more than 10% difference between the two populations, even though no single population had a more than 1% difference to the one preceeding it. Hence you have two new species. They can't interbreed.
Imagine that you have a book, a very large book. In each page there's a woman and in the following page it shows their mother, and in the next one their mother's mother, and so on... imagine that this book represents accurately all the females from a lineage from now to the beggining of life. If you flip from page to page or every other page, you won't notice a difference from one generation to the other, but if you skip various pages at a time the difference will be obvious and you can actually say that the lineage is composed of more than a species, even though you can't pinpoint any specific page where the "new" species actually emerged.
Think about it then in terms of incest. You cannot reproduce with for example a cousin without having high risk of genetic issues until you're with a 3rd cousin. This is because with that large genetic separation you two are now sufficiently different for your children to not be homozygous.
Take that same principal, apply hundreds of thousands of year of reproduction, and add genetic mutations in to the mix and eventually you will have animals that are unfamiliar with one another.
Yes, that is correct. If you have three populations you could conceivably have it where population 1 and 3 cannot interbreed despite 1 and 2 interbreeding as well as 2 and 3 interbreeding. The user who responded with the wiki article on ring species provided an example of this though I figured it's worth stating outright. The ring species is an example of this happening across space but if you can understand that the same process has to have happened for every living species throughout time (not necessarily space) then you can get it. So yes, reproductive isolation is a thing that can accumulate gradually, as others have been trying to explain with different analogies.
There's a nice simple genetic model that I wish more people understood to get this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bateson%E2%80%93Dobzhansky%E2%80%93Muller_model
Did you read the book?
Yes, why?
It's explained in there.
It's literally not. You never read it.
Mutation moron, it literally is. It's called naturally selection because nature is selecting for the characteristics which are preserved instead of a farmer or something. Selection was obviously something that has long been observed by humans in the context of farming and breeding (i.e. artificial selection) hence why the theory was so plausible. I'm sorry buddy but you and not the anon you were replying to haven't read the book.
There will never be a human ancestor to another species. No amount of time will ever lead to that. At least not in the materialist way of thinking.
>There will never be a human ancestor to another species.
Why not?
Ofcourse there will. What a weird thing to say. Do our genes work differently somehow? Do our bases not dimerise due to UV? Does our DNA pol I not have exonuclease acivity like those of other species? Do our genes not duplicate via retrotransposon action or homologus recombination? Can our chromosomes not fuse?
Evolution and mutation are not magic. It's all hard chemistry. The electromagnetic force and thermodynamics ensure evolution happenes. And we humans are not exempt from chemistry or physics.
As Albert Szent-Györgyi said "life is just an electron looking for a place to rest"
Most mutations are deleterious. You don't just mutate an entire functioning gene. That's not how it works.
>Most mutations are deleterious
Wrong, most do nothing at all. Remember that most of the genome is noncoding, and even mutations in a coding region will probably not effect the function of the protein, either due to redundancy or similar amino acids.
>You don't just mutate an entire functioning gene. That's not how it works.
Who said that?
One can look at a colour spectrum and easily determine which areas are red and yellow however it is impossible to determine the exact point where red becomes yellow
>BLUE NOT RED HOW CAN RED TURN INTO BLUE IT NO MAKE SENSE IT HURT MY HEAD
They fart on each other then eat the poo poo and farty poopy fart fart fart crap poop
1 species of bird migrates all across the islands. Each island has different environmental affects on different families of the same species. Over time, the birds on each island adapt to the conditions more and more producing unique variants of the original species. With enough evolutionary adaptive changes, the variants can no longer interbreed, thus producing new species
>the birds on each island adapt to the conditions more and more producing unique variants of the original species
That's selection of already existing attributes. Where are the mutations, and where are the remnants of the failed ones?
>That's selection of already existing attributes.
Of course, an attribute has to exist to be selected. Mutations exist before they are selected.
>Where are the mutations
In every organism...
>and where are the remnants of the failed ones?
What do you mean by failed? Do you mean the mutation was not passed on? Then where would you find them? In dead tissue? You seem very confused about basic biology.
>What do you mean by failed? Do you mean the mutation was not passed on? Then where would you find them? In dead tissue? You seem very confused about basic biology
Show me positive mutations, I only see cripples. Further if it's made by a blind process there must be endless failures. The whole planet must be covered with them just because of the complexity to get a new one.
>Show me positive mutations
Do you mean beneficial mutations? OK, here's plenty: https://biologywise.com/beneficial-mutation
Why do you think mutations cannot be beneficial?
>I only see cripples
You haven't even looked. And it seemed you just contradicted yourself since before you claimed there was no evidence of failed mutations. Now you're saying all mutations fail? Your religious dogma doesn't even make internal sense.
>Further if it's made by a blind process there must be endless failures.
There are, they're the endless extinct species and the endless organisms that didn't pass on their genes within each existent species. You've never seen either? You're blind.
>The whole planet must be covered with them just because of the complexity to get a new one.
It would be covered with them, if bodies didn't decompose. Is this really the extent of your intellect?
>Why do you think mutations cannot be beneficial?
But as an first glance of a few seconds the almond thing is not a mutation. It's a variation and the claim that it never existed results in circular Argumentation
.
I am not religious but if you say that all the bad mutations are gone, eaten up and were fouling away methink this a lame argument too. There must be endless if half perfect less perfect or even malfunctioned varieties in the world when pure blind coincidence is at work. Just because selection isn't perfect, blind to all future developments and so there must be cripples that barely survive but survives.
>But as an first glance of a few seconds the almond thing is not a mutation.
How so?
>It's a variation and the claim that it never existed results in circular Argumentation
No, it's just an observation. The mutation results in a deactivated transcription factor. Why would this protein and the genes it normally transcribes be included in the genome but not work? God must be an idiot.
>I am not religious but if you say that all the bad mutations are gone
You still haven't explained what a "bad mutation" is, so how can I say they're gone? All I can say is that mutations that were not passed on to the current generations are by definition gone. Do you disagree? Or do you have some other definition of bad mutation?
>There must be endless if half perfect less perfect or even malfunctioned varieties in the world when pure blind coincidence is at work.
Again, i don't know what you mean by perfect in this context, but have you ever heard of genetic diseases and defects? Lots of people have them.
>What do you mean by failed? Do you mean the mutation was not passed on? Then where would you find them? In dead tissue? You seem very confused about basic biology.
This is incorrect, non harmfull but non advantageous mutations remain in the genome. Only 2-3% of the human genome codes for proteins. Around 50% are transposons, maybe 20% code dsRNA like miRNA. The rest is junk. "Failed mutations." Evolutionary trash.
>Show me positive mutations, I only see cripples. Further if it's made by a blind process there must be endless failures. The whole planet must be covered with them just because of the complexity to get a new one.
Well, no. Most mutations are harmless, and happen in non codeing areas. Of those that happen in codeing areas around 60% are harmless because of the redundant nature of the genetic code (all amino acids are coded for by multiple riplets). Of the mutations that do happen in protein codeing areas and aren't fixed by DNA repair mechanims, most happen in the hidrophobic amino acids, as 14 out of 20 are hidrophobic and mostly interchangeable. This is the reason for gene polymorphism which can be seen in all species. Any gene codeing a larger protein i have will be a few amino acids different in you and in almost any other person.
As for the actually harmfull mutations, most are selected against. Not many of us want to frick criples.
As for positive mutations, see the SELEX experiments, bacterial antibiotic resistance experiments or the presistance of the lactase enzyme in humans.
>This is incorrect, non harmfull but non advantageous mutations remain in the genome.
I specificallu said mutations that were not passed on.
let's say you have a perfectly straight metal rod, and every hour it bends slightly, about 0.0000001 degrees. this bend is completely negligible within a human lifetime, but after 102,739 and roughly one quarter years, the perfectly straight metal rod will now be bent at a 90 degree angle.
the rod started straight, and became a 90 degree angle, but the rate of change was so slow that the bending is virtually impossible to perceive within a human lifetime.
that is evolution, but instead of 102,709 years, you're looking at 2+ BILLION.
Over thousands iterations individuals get more different from their common ancestor, the evolutionary model was confirmed by computer genetic algorithms. It just works.
>Bad handwavy and superficial answers
There was no concept of genetics in Darwin's time and ring species was a concept that came after him. OP was asking a question about Darwin's conception of evolution based on his book The Origin, etc. specifically. Darwin was just making an observation and creating a theory to explain what he saw, and then finding evidence to support it; he has since been vindicated by science but of course his writing does not explain everything—it to explains, remarkably, a lot but not everything—so of course it's handwavy.
>How does one species give birth to a different species?
It doesn't.
>How does one species give birth to a different species?
Mutations. You might want to read a book or two sometime.
>How does one species give birth to a different species?
< this
Evolution is related to "natural selection" for a reason, Anon.
Go on, continue your explanation
You are now a separate species.
Here, I have given you another new species.
You incestously only think in human concepts.
This book and theory is dog shit anyone using Charles Darwin as a fact for evolution is a illiterate imbecile. What Darwin observed was nothing more than a species adapting. We see it in every species. Humans in certain parts of the world are fatter due to colder climates and African are thinner and black due to hot climates. Find better evidence use a change of kinds. Not adaptation before you get laughed out of a room.
Why do certain adfrican tribes have lower fertility rates when they intermarry?
>What Darwin observed was nothing more than a species adapting
Two populations of the same species become separated and adapt to different environments. They change so much that they are no longer the same species. Darwin found a lot of evidence for this in the Galapogos.
darwin is atheistic religious dogma, anyone who disagrees with darwinism is excommunicated from the atheistic "scientific belief" religion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwick_Collins
>Collins studied biology at The University of Sussex, where his tutor was the leading theoretical biologist John Maynard Smith. In 1975 Collins voiced to Maynard Smith the view that natural selection could not drive evolution because it always acted to reduce variation in favour of an optimum type for any environment, whereas the central story of evolution was that of increasing variation and complexity. Collins quoted Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species ("... unless profitable variations do occur, natural selection can do nothing."),[3] and argued that if variation must always occur before natural selection can act, then variation, and not natural selection, drives evolution. He asked Maynard Smith whether he could search for a "strong" theory of variation. Maynard Smith warned Collins that he could not support his efforts to pursue a rival theory to the theory that natural selection drives evolution. Collins replied that he thought the object of science was to question and examine everything, including hallowed theories such as the theory of natural selection. Maynard Smith asserted that, on the contrary, the strength of science was its capacity to agree on certain principles, and act collectively to pursue agreed aims. This difference of view with his tutor made Collins give up his scientific career and pursue other interests instead.
>natural selection could not drive evolution because it always acted to reduce variation
LOL, this is nonsense. Natural selection can increase or decrease mutation rate. Mutation doesn't change a population, it changes an organism. Some mechanism such as natural selection is needed for that mutation to spread through the population, which is evolution.
Maynard Smith took it seriously enough and was unable to refute it other than by using economic sanctions to prevent it being researched or getting published. If it were nonsensical then such lengths would've been unnecessary, it could've been refuted on this spot. Warwick Collins was a big brain, after he got excommunicated from academia for blaspheming Darwin, Collins was highly successful in everything else he did, successful popular fiction author, revolutionized hull design for mid sized sailing vessels. He would have no doubt made a big contribution to the sciences if he hadn't been excommunicated from blasphemy.
You are the one who should be laughed at mockingly, not him. Your cringing phycological insecurity is telegraphed by your ill informed, fake derisive laughter.
>Maynard Smith took it seriously enough and was unable to refute it other than by using economic sanctions to prevent it being researched or getting published.
More nonsense that doesn't even respond to what I said.
>If it were nonsensical then such lengths would've been unnecessary, it could've been refuted on this spot.
The lengths you described were unnecessary and never occurred. Not funding your crackpot theory is not "economic sanctions." No one owes you funding. And I already refuted it. You have no response.
Certain types of changes or many changes over time turn one species into another.
My favorite is the case of bats, who have a very narow range of hearing. They also have a very specific pitch which is specific to prefered pray size. Since their voice is instrumental to mateing, bats can only mate with bats who have the same pitch and hearing which is a resault of what size bug they hunt. So whenever a different size bug is encountered, speciation happenes in only a few generations. Which is why there are so many fricking species of bat.
anoles are similar when it comes to dewlap color and niche
I've got a paper somewhere arguing about inbreeding and speciation
Did you read it? One species doesn't give birth to another. There will be variation between the individuals of the species. Just the kind you see all around you in humans for instance. But if two populations of the same species can't interbreed because of for instance a geographical barrier, the variations between the two populations will go in different directions untill they can no longer breed. Other times there will be no barrier, but variation will interfere with breeding, leading to a slow separation.
A good exaple would be beetles. They have very specific sized and shaped holes and rods for mateing. Kind of like a lock and key, but with sex. Some will have large rods and holes, others will have small ones. Eventually the large hole/rod ones and the small rod/hole ones can't breed with eachother, though both can breed with intermediate ones. Different sexua selection preassures can apply at this point and the intermediate poplation will be inadequate in the eyes of the small and the large and it simply dies out. In the end you have two new species, who are almost identical but can no longer interbreed. Given enough time more variational differences will arise, and you get two separate, different, but related species.
Darwin had some good foundational ideas, but that was a long time ago. Evolution is not just what darwin said, there have been several breakthroughs in the almost 200 years since. The current model is 'modern synthesis theory of evolution'. You can read up on the molecular mechanisms of mutation, their effects on developmental biology (a single point mutation can have an animal grow new legs...), you can read up on evolutionary enzymology, the SELEX experiments, the Lensky experiments, mathematics of population dynamics, the long tearm maze experiments, and just so, so much more. I'm a geneticist, not an evolutionary biologist, this is not my field of experties, but it is a fun and interesting field.
the answer is: there's no clear definition of what a species actually is, it's just based on various observations of how different the phenotypes and genotypes are
as small changes accumulate within individuals of one species, at a certain point we decide that two subgroups of the species are now different enough to be called different species
>How does one species give birth to a different species?
Gradually.
>rationalwiki.org
Not an argument, try again.
do not reply to soijaks
do not bump soijaks
>Not an argument, try again.
See
I wasn't trying to make any argument in the first place. It just boggles my mind that you hired israelite shills are too dumb to learn that posting rationalwiki links, corporate news articles and """factchecks""" on IQfy immediately removes you from any discussion.
>I wasn't trying to make any argument in the first place.
Thanks for admitting you have no argument. McCarthy is a quack.
Thanks for admitting your israeli heritage, shill.
>McCarthy is a quack.
McFrickingWho? I don't care. I'm just saying you stick out like a red kippa in a klan gathering.
>bla bla bla
You're just shitposting.
>oy vey kvetch kvetch kvetch
You're just noseposting.
you're responding to two completely different people here
I'm the only one who has mentioned the website of McCarthy in this entire thread
these are my posts for reference:
he's definitely not a quack, and the criticisms on that RationalWiki page are insubstantial, he still remains an erudite scholar in the fields of genetics and hybridization, and most of what he writes on his website is backed up by a wide array of evidence
the only "speculative" parts are the small sub-sites where he describes folk reports of various hybrids throughout history, but he never really claims otherwise
in the sections where he describes actual hybridization that is known and well-documented, including intergeneric and interfamilial hybridization, he's not relying on that at all
A body is like a ball filled with cells. Actions of this ball decide the environment inside it. The conditions the cells need to adapt to. As its cells adapt and change, the ball itself changes too.
How does a straifght couple give birth to a homosexual?
How does one language give birth to multiple different languages?
At what point of a rainbow does red become orange?
Just admit you're a brainlet, we already know this but you seem to be in hard denial
That's like the easiest shit I can imagine. It multiplies, one will go here, the other one will go there... different enviroments = different species. Of course it did not happen instantly.
this book explains it