Evolutionist don't understand what macro-evolution/micro-evolution is.

[Gothmog]

Geographic barriers are one good method, however even without that a 'duck' could not breed with a chicken... or whatever.

Methods of reproduction, especially sexual ones, are very detailed and specific. It really doesn't take much change for reproduction to become impossible. Experiments in fruit flies have shown that simply changing the temperature, or certain other aspects of the physical environment, at which the flies breed for a couple hundred generations can result in two groups that can no longer breed together.

The point is that even if we call two forms of life a 'species' in the fossil record (say separated by a few million years), there is no guarentee that these lifeforms would be able to interbreed if somehow brought together today. The change in genomes is continuous, mutations are always being introduced and others eliminated.

The only way it allows for speciation is if many members of the same population experience the same critical genetic mutation, at the same time, which is a contradition of evolution.

This is silly and shows a basic lack of understanding about the nature of genetic change. There is no real difference between micro and macro evolution, they are semantic lables used primariliy in cladistics and held over from when the fossil record was our best evidence for evolution. In terms of genetics there is no difference. If a 'micro' change can spread through a population, which you accept, why can you not accept that a large number of 'micro' changes over a long period of time (or a period of shifting environmental variables, whether due to climate change or migration) can result in a group that can no longer breed with the previous group? All it takes is for some of those 'micro' changes to be involved in the reproductive process. Easy cheesy, new species (assuming we define species by reproductive success, actually it is hard to define exactly what constitutes a new species - it is somewhat arbitrary).

Here's a quote I found on the shifting nature of the term 'species':

By Darwin's time, a species was a group of animals that looked similar down to a more specific level. So a group of bluebirds in the eastern US might be considered a different species if they all looked slightly different from a group of bluebirds in the western US.

In the 1940s and 50s, as people learned more and more about genetics and breeding, a species became a group of animals that could breed with each other. Cats were one species, and dogs were another. They both have fur, they both have tails and ears, but they can't breed with another. Note that all dogs are ONE SPECIES even though they can look vastly different from each other. That's because - even while a great dane looks quite different from a dalmation - the two are genetically able to breed and have puppies.

Nowadays, the breeding line is the one most biologists draw. This line can be drawn for two reasons. One, the creatures simply cannot create a viable new baby organism. That would be the case between for examples cats and dogs. Even if you did convince them to mate, their sperm and egg could not join properly. The second situation is *situational* non-viability - where the two groups of creatures never interact properly to mate. This would be the case where one group of black monkeys lives in Africa and another brouwn group lives in Asia. Maybe they COULD mate and make babies if they ever met, but they simply don't.

 

[stormbind]

I know Lake Tanganaika which has uniquely hard fresh-water and fish which most likely evolved from marine species.

---

The inconsistency is this... A dog and a bear cannot breed. There cannot be such as thing as a dog-bear. It is biologically impossible. (This is related to a later bit..)

---

When species evolve, through mutations which are passed down through generations, their physical characteristics change.

Microevolution has been observed in science. That being where a population has changed by the above method ... but ... in the cases observed, and regardless of how much the populations have diverged, specimens of the new population can always breed with specimens of the former population!

Speciation has never been observed by science (emphasis). Macroevolution (large-scale evolution) specifically targets the issue of speciation.

If a single mutation was responsible for speciation, then the first to mutate would be unable to reproduce, and speciation would never occur... and I remind you, science has never observed speciation.

What is that fundamental difference in the development of a new species (macroevolution), and a subspecies (microevolution)?

 

[Gothmog]

Microevolution has been observed in science. That being where a population has changed by the above method ... but ... in the cases observed, and regardless of how much the populations have diverged, specimens of the new population can always breed with specimens of the former population!

Speciation has never been observed by science (emphasis). Macroevolution (large-scale evolution) specifically targets the issue of speciation.

Again this is simply wrong, if you define speciation as I do in my post above, and as you seem to agree with (e.g. ability to interbreed). It has been observed many times, as I note in reference to fruit flies above but it happens all the time in agricultural science as well.

 

[stormbind]

But I don't define speciation as creating two different races which can interbreed... i define it as creating two independent species which cannot interbreed.

 

[betazed]

@stormbind: We have not observed black hole formation. So do you deny that too, although we have mathematical evidence for it and observation of current black holes (the exact same type of evidence for macroevolution)? We have not seen the himalayas rise from the oceans (once again the exact same type of evidence)? Do you deny that too.

As for observational evidence, there are numerous if only you would wish to see them. I will name a few only (I am sure others can give you scores of examples)

• the developing resistance of pathogens to antibiotics. These pathogens for all practical purposes are new species with new characteristics.
• the developing resistance of pests to pesticides
• the change of coloration of moths owing to pollution

These are actual examples of speciation seen over human lifetimes.

 

[Gothmog]

OK, so you play the semantic card... typical.

just to be clear I never said anything about two different races that can interbreed. I specifically said they cannot interbreed, as you defined species in this quote:

That being where a population has changed by the above method ... but ... in the cases observed, and regardless of how much the populations have diverged, specimens of the new population can always breed with specimens of the former population!

This is simply wrong, false, not true, either the product of ignorance or a bald faced lie.

 

[embitteredpoet]

I was taught that the definition of two animals being in the same species, was that they could breed together to produce offspring which are fertile (as opposed to sterile offspring such as mules) This is again a point of semantics, two animals from different species can interbreed, but can't produce fertile offspring.
Personally, the concept of two groups of the same species being separated over a long period time becoming different and adapting to their different environments so much that they become so dissimilar that they can't interbreed, is one that I find to be prefectly intuitive. Both groups are going to adapt to their new environments and when they can't interbreed mutations in one group can't be passed to the other, over a sufficient time scale, the groups will have changed so much that they will no longer be able to breed together. I'm a chemist, not a biologist so I can't really back up my hand-waving with hard facts, but this seems (to me at least) to make complete sense. I suppose you could cite Darwin's finches...

 

[stormbind]

@stormbind: We have not observed black hole formation. So do you deny that too, although we have mathematical evidence for it and observation of current black holes

Stop! You are ranting and making little sense.

I do not question the theory that black holes exist. We can see them, and that's good enough for me.

I do not question the theory that many species exist. We can see them, and that's good enough for me.

I have to question the merits on any theory claiming to explain the formation of black holes, because we have not seen them form.

I have to question the merits of any theory claiming to explain the development of many species, because we have not seen new species form.

• the developing resistance of pathogens to antibiotics. These pathogens for all practical purposes are new species with new characteristics.
• the developing resistance of pests to pesticides
• the change of coloration of moths owing to pollution

Those are not new species! They are examples of microevolution resulting in varients of already existing species.

Microevolution and Macroevolution are completely different issues. All you have done is given lots of evidence to support Microevolution, which nobody questions.

 

[stormbind]

The pathogens you mention don't count. Virus aren't considered living organisms.

 

[embitteredpoet]

But we have seen new species form! The aforementioned fruitfly experiments!

 

[betazed]

Stop! You are ranting and making little sense.

Right. Anything that you do not understand is a rant. Sigh!

I do not question the theory that black holes exist. We can see them, and that's good enough for me.

We have seen a black hole! That is news to me. Care to show that pic or point me to that info? I have read many books on GR, but seen no observational evidence of black holes. Just many (too many to ignore) circumstantial evidence.

I guess I should stop this because I can see where this is going. It is going the same way where the n number of evolution threads have gone. :shakehead

 

[The Last Conformist]

So what do you mean, if you loose money you will gain money? You need gain to get from a simpler thing to a greator thing.

I mean that the guy who wrote that article should not be trusted, on account on making wildly false claims about what he claims to disporve.

I won't even try and understand what your money analogy is supposed to mean.

You know what he ment though? He ment dinos.

What do I care what he meant? It was asked whether dinos were reptiles, so I answered.

 

[stormbind]

We have seen a black hole! That is news to me.

Humn. No I cannot give a URL but I thought it was fairly commonly seen now...

Because I saw a part of Sky at Night (BBC show) yesterday and it had images (from microwave telescope?) of blackholes, there's one at the centre of our own galaxy.

It's hardly my fault if you lack data, and chose to ignore the established rules of scientific method.

 

[stormbind]

But we have seen new species form! The aforementioned fruitfly experiments!

Show me evidence that it's a new species.

Afaik, it's not a new species, just a variation of already existing fruitflies.

 

[stormbind]

This is simply wrong, false, not true, either the product of ignorance or a bald faced lie.

No it isn't. It's the plain difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

I suggest you read something on these subjects before joining a discussion on them. If you have evidence of macroevolution then please share it instead of flaming!

 

[The Last Conformist]

@betazed: He's probably refering to observations of accretion discs around objects too small of heavy to be anything else in our theoretical models. Such have been hailed in the press as "first photos of a black hole".

What would you accept as "seeing" a black hole? Observing the Hawking radiation directly?

My avatar seems particularly fitting right now ...

 

[betazed]

Humn. No I cannot but I thought it was fairly commonly seen now, because I saw a part of Sky at Night (BBC show) yesterday and it had images (from microwave telescope?) of blackholes, there's one at the centre of our own galaxy.

No we have not seen a black hole (despite what you thought you saw in any BBC show). Nor do we expect to see one soon unless one happens to pass by our solar system (in which case seeing it will be the least of our problems).

But we have a lot of facts that can be explained by the theory that black holes exist. That theory makes testable predictions like plasma jets from galactic centers, Xray signatures, binary systems etc that have been observationally validated. Along with this evidence and added to the fact that the theory has no internal inconsistencies that anyone can think of we are reasonably sure that black holes exist.

It is much the same of evolution (and macroevolution). We have tons of circumstantial evidence, lots of tested testable predictions.

Hence if someone believes in black holes but not in evolution then either they do not understand either, or both or worse still has some other agenda.

 

[Gothmog]

If we take the criteria stormbind gave for species - being able to breed (or produce offspring as expounded by embitteredpoet - a better definition), there are countless examples of species formation. FL2 used the old 'nothing new under the sun' feint to get out of this problem... like a duck hatching a chicken. Seems that stormbind is just going to ignore it.

Just to keep harping on stormbind - the pathogens betazed mentioned are not viruses. Viruses are not affected by antibiotics. The pathogens are bacteria... our ancestors and certainly living organisms by any definition I know.

Of course those changes listed by betazed would only be 'macroevolution' if they produced groups of organisms unable to produce offspring with their predecesors according to current definitions of 'species'.

 

[stormbind]

@betazed: He's probably refering to observations of accretion discs around objects too small of heavy to be anything else in our theoretical models. Such have been hailed in the press as "first photos of a black hole".

A theoretical model that possesses all the same physical characterists, is the same thing

What I saw (on the television, via a load of technologies for gazing at galaxies) was actually giving out fast amounts of energy.

 

[The Last Conformist]

This might be interesting, re: speciation:

http://www.sciforums.com/archive/index.php/t-18457