Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
586 online now:
dwise1, EWolf, kjsimons, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 578 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,257 Year: 4,369/6,534 Month: 583/900 Week: 107/182 Day: 14/27 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Light Time Problem
candle2
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 136 of 254 (893999)
04-28-2022 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by ringo
04-24-2022 2:32 PM


Evolution is neither a logical nor a consistent theory.
The theory (which is a a stretch of the imagination to
even call it a theory) is not based on empirical science.
For the sake of being honest, let's call it a hypothesis;
albeit, a weak one.

There is only one type of evolution that has even a tiny
hint of science behind it. And that is microevolution.

Even microevolution isn't true evolution. It is nothing
more than changes in gene frequencies within a species.

No new information is acquired.

All finches in the Galapagos are still finches. All the
different breeds of dogs are still just dogs. One can
say that minute changes over eons of time can lead
to the creation of new species/kind, but that belief
is based on faith, not science. Faith is a religion.
And religion has no place in the classroom.

Isolation can lead to speciation, which might lead to
some animals of the same kind no longer being
capable of reproducing, but this is a loss of
information. It is not evolution in any form of the
Word.

Humans have not observed one species of animal
evolving into another species of animal (organism).

Humans have no transitional fossils, when we should
have tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions.

Imagine that; perhaps over 8,000,000 different types
of organisms, and not even one intermediate fossil.

Some say that complex chemicals created life. And, I
say prove it. Replicate the process. Guess work isn't
science.

The facts are all on my side. It comes down to science
and creation vs. evolutionary hypothesis.

Evolution is nothing more than iron pyrite.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by ringo, posted 04-24-2022 2:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by jar, posted 04-28-2022 11:27 AM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 139 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-28-2022 11:50 AM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 140 by ringo, posted 04-28-2022 12:09 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 141 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2022 12:56 PM candle2 has replied
 Message 142 by Percy, posted 04-28-2022 3:53 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33904
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 137 of 254 (894000)
04-28-2022 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by candle2
04-28-2022 11:24 AM


Basics candle, learn the basics.
Are you capable of reading the title of this topic?

Have you read Message 1?

Do you have answers for the questions raised in Message 1 and the actual topic of this thread?


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by candle2, posted 04-28-2022 11:24 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 138 of 254 (894001)
04-28-2022 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by dwise1
04-28-2022 11:06 AM


Re: Questions for candle2
So candle2 must present that evidence for creation! No creationist has ever done so, nor has ever even attempted it.

It is painfully obvious that there is absolutely NO evidence for creation, so they will never be able to present anything. And it is also obvious that everyone who believes the creationist crap do not have the intellect to even come up with imaginary evidence that would convince a 9 year old (I use 9 year old, because by that time almost all kids realize Santa Claus is imaginary) that divine creation is really a thing.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2022 11:06 AM dwise1 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 139 of 254 (894002)
04-28-2022 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by candle2
04-28-2022 11:24 AM


candy2 writes:

Humans have not observed one species of animal
evolving into another species of animal (organism).

Humans have no transitional fossils, when we should
have tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions.

Imagine that; perhaps over 8,000,000 different types
of organisms, and not even one intermediate fossil.

Repeating your lies has not made any of the millions of transitional fossils in museums around the planet disappear. It just makes you look like an incredibly stupid liar.

Evolution is the crown jewel of biology!

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by candle2, posted 04-28-2022 11:24 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19530
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 140 of 254 (894003)
04-28-2022 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by candle2
04-28-2022 11:24 AM


candle2 writes:

Evolution is neither a logical nor a consistent theory.


Wrong. And wrong.

candle2 writes:

The theory (which is a a stretch of the imagination to
even call it a theory) is not based on empirical science.


Wrong again. And wrong again.

Do you know what a theory is? Please tell us what you think it is.

candle2 writes:

For the sake of being honest, let's call it a hypothesis;
albeit, a weak one.


No. Let's not. Let's call you an ignorant liar instead.

candle2 writes:

There is only one type of evolution that has even a tiny
hint of science behind it. And that is microevolution.


The standard response to that silly statement is that you might as well distinguish micro-walking from macro-walking. You might as well say that you can walk to the corner store but you can't walk to New York. That's nonsense, of course. Macro is just made up of a whole lot of micro added together.

candle2 writes:

Even microevolution isn't true evolution. It is nothing
more than changes in gene frequencies within a species.


What do you think "true evolution" is? You think it's something stupid like dogs turning into cats, don't you. That's what those stupid lying creationists have told you, isn't it?

candle2 writes:

No new information is acquired.


Every mutaion produces new information, just like every sentence that somebody types produces new information.

candle2 writes:

All finches in the Galapagos are still finches.


And they are different species because they have adapted to different situations.

candle2 writes:

All the
different breeds of dogs are still just dogs.


What did you expect them to be?

candle2 writes:

One can
say that minute changes over eons of time can lead
to the creation of new species/kind, but that belief
is based on faith, not science.


Liar.

candle2 writes:

Isolation can lead to speciation, which might lead to
some animals of the same kind no longer being
capable of reproducing, but this is a loss of
information.


Who said evolution required an increase in information? A different species of finch has different information but not necessarily "more" information.

candle2 writes:

It is not evolution in any form of the
Word.


Again, tell us what you think evolution is. You seem to be thoroughly ignorant on the subject - but tell us what you think it is.

candle2 writes:

Humans have not observed one species of animal
evolving into another species of animal (organism).


Liar. Google "Has one species evolved into another species?"

candle2 writes:

Humans have no transitional fossils, when we should
have tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions.


Liar. Google "What is a transitional fossil example?"

candle2 writes:

Some say that complex chemicals created life. And, I
say prove it.


They're working on it. Be prepared to lie about it when they succeed.

candle2 writes:

Replicate the process. Guess work isn't
science.


Neither is your lying.

candle2 writes:

The facts are all on my side.


There is nothing but lies on your side. Do you think lying for Jersus is a good thing?

candle2 writes:

It comes down to science
and creation vs. evolutionary hypothesis.


Creationism has nothing to do with science. The THEORY of Evolution wins by a landslide.

You didn't respond to anything I said in Message 133. And I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that you lied about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in Message 66.


"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"
-- Lucky Ned Pepper

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by candle2, posted 04-28-2022 11:24 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 141 of 254 (894004)
04-28-2022 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by candle2
04-28-2022 11:24 AM


We were going to go easy on you because of your eye surgeries, but here you are still pulling the same old crap, so damn your eyes!

 

Even microevolution isn't true evolution.

OK, So tell us what "true evolution" is! We have asked you before and you have ignored all our requests for enlightenment. So tell us already!

It is obvious that you have absolutely no clue what you are blathering about. You don't know what evolution is, which you repeatedly make obvious by the abjectly ignorant nonsense that you keep posting despite our repeated efforts to inform you.

Humans have not observed one species of animal
evolving into another species of animal (organism).

Demonstrably false! Though of course we would need to apply the actual definitions of "evolving" and "species" (and "speciation") instead of your strawman disinformational misdefinitions. Which returns us to the need for you to tell us your definition of "evolution".

From Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations:

quote:
Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.

...

But just because we can't see all speciation events from start to finish doesn't mean we can't see species splitting. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find species in various stages of separation all over the globe. There would be ones that have just begun to split, showing reproductive isolation, and those that might still look like one species but haven't interbred for thousands of years. Indeed, that is exactly what we find.

The apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella is a prime example of a species just beginning to diverge. These flies are native to the United States, and up until the discovery of the Americas by Europeans, fed solely on hawthorns. But with the arrival of new people came a new potential food source to its habitat: apples. At first, the flies ignored the tasty treats. But over time, some flies realized they could eat the apples, too, and began switching trees. While alone this doesn't explain why the flies would speciate, a curious quirk of their biology does: apple maggot flies mate on the tree they're born on. As a few flies jumped trees, they cut themselves off from the rest of their species, even though they were but a few feet away. When geneticists took a closer look in the late 20th century, they found that the two types - those that feed on apples and those that feed on hawthorns - have different allele frequencies. Indeed, right under our noses, Rhagoletis pomonella began the long journey of speciation.

As we would expect, other animals are much further along in the process - although we don't always realize it until we look at their genes.

Orcas (Orcinus orca), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They're big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn't be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more.

Now, geneticists have done what the behavioral researchers could not. They looked at how the whales breed. When they looked at the entire mitochondrial genome from 139 different whales throughout the globe, they found dramatic differences. These data suggested there are indeed at least three different species of killer whale. Phylogenetic analysis indicated that the different species of orca have been separated for 150,000 to 700,000 years.

Why did the orcas split? The truth is, we don't know. Perhaps it was a side effect of modifications for hunting different prey sources, or perhaps there was some kind of physical barrier between populations that has since disappeared. All we know is that while we were busy painting cave walls, something caused groups of orcas to split, creating multiple species.

There are many different reasons why species diverge. The easiest, and most obvious, is some kind of physical barrier - a phenomenon called Allopatric Speciation. If you look at fish species in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of California, you'll find there are a lot of similarities between them. Indeed, some of the species look almost identical. Scientists have looked at their genes, and species on either side of that thin land bridge are more closely related to each other than they are to other species, even ones in their area. What happened is that a long time ago, the continents of North and South America were separated, and the oceans were connected. When the two land masses merged, populations of species were isolated on either side. Over time, these fish have diverged enough to be separate species.

Species can split without such clear boundaries, too. When species diverge like the apple maggot flies - without a complete, physical barrier - it's called Sympatric Speciation. Sympatric speciation can occur for all kinds of reasons. All it takes is something that makes one group have less sex with another.

For one species of Monarch flycatchers (Monarcha castaneiventris), it was all about looks. These little insectivores live on Solomon Islands, east of Papua New Guinea. At some point, a small group of them developed a single amino acid mutation in the gene for a protein called melanin, which dictates the bird's color pattern. Some flycatchers are all black, while others have chestnut colored bellies. Even though the two groups are perfectly capable of producing viable offspring, they don't mix in the wild. Researchers found that the birds already see the other group as a different species. The males, which are fiercely territorial, don't react when a differently colored male enters their turf. Like the apple maggot flies, the flycatchers are no longer interbreeding, and have thus taken the first step towards becoming two different species.

These might seem like little changes, but remember, as we learned with dogs, little changes can add up. Because they're not interbreeding, these different groups will accumulate even more differences over time. As they do, they will start to look less and less alike. The resultant animals will be like the species we clearly see today. Perhaps some will adapt to a lifestyle entirely different from their sister species - the orcas, for example, may diverge dramatically as small changes allow them to be better suited to their unique prey types. Others may stay fairly similar, even hard to tell apart, like various species of squirrels are today.

The point is that all kinds of creatures, from the smallest insects to the largest mammals, are undergoing speciation right now. We have watched species split, and we continue to see them diverge. Speciation is occurring all around us. Evolution didn't just happen in the past; it's happening right now, and will continue on long after we stop looking for it.


The talk.origins article, Observed Instances of Speciation, first discusses species and speciation and then gives a list (which I shall not bother to reformat so that the dBCodes here would match the HTML, because we know full well that you will never bother to even look at it -- follow the link to read it with the original formatting):

quote:
5.0 Observed Instances of Speciation
The following are several examples of observations of speciation.

5.1 Speciations Involving Polyploidy, Hybridization or Hybridization Followed by Polyploidization.

5.1.1 Plants
(See also the discussion in de Wet 1971).

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.

5.1.1.3 Tragopogon
Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.

5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica
The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.

5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.

5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis
Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.

5.1.1.7 Brassica
Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.

5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.

5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.

5.1.2 Animals
Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.

5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis
Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.

5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)
Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.

5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.

5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster
Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.

5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster
Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).

5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster
Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.

5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster
In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.

5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species
In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.

5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster
Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.

5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila
The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.

5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments

5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies
Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.

5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow
Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:

Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.

5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation
Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.

5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)
Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)
Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.

5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)
Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.

5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.

WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.

5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont
In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.

Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.

For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.

5.9 A Couple of Ambiguous Cases
So far the BSC has applied to all of the experiments discussed. The following are a couple of major morphological changes produced in asexual species. Do these represent speciation events? The answer depends on how species is defined.

5.9.1 Coloniality in Chlorella vulgaris
Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella.

5.9.2 Morphological Changes in Bacteria
Shikano, et al. (1990) reported that an unidentified bacterium underwent a major morphological change when grown in the presence of a ciliate predator. This bacterium's normal morphology is a short (1.5 um) rod. After 8 - 10 weeks of growing with the predator it assumed the form of long (20 um) cells. These cells have no cross walls. Filaments of this type have also been produced under circumstances similar to Boraas' induction of multicellularity in Chlorella. Microscopic examination of these filaments is described in Gillott et al. (1993). Multicellularity has also been produced in unicellular bacterial by predation (Nakajima and Kurihara 1994). In this study, growth in the presence of protozoal grazers resulted in the production of chains of bacterial cells.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by candle2, posted 04-28-2022 11:24 AM candle2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 142 of 254 (894005)
04-28-2022 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by candle2
04-28-2022 11:24 AM


I hadn't looked in on this thread in quite some time and didn't realize the topic had shifted from cosmology to biology.

candle2 writes:

Evolution is neither a logical nor a consistent theory.

What do you see as illogical or inconsistent?

The theory (which is a a stretch of the imagination to
even call it a theory) is not based on empirical science.

Why do you think this?

There is only one type of evolution that has even a tiny
hint of science behind it. And that is microevolution.

Even microevolution isn't true evolution. It is nothing
more than changes in gene frequencies within a species.

Changes in gene frequency in a population over time is the definition of microevolution.

No new information is acquired.

How is a mutation not new information?

All finches in the Galapagos are still finches.

If you think Darwin claimed speciation when he wrote about the finches, you're mistaken.

All the different breeds of dogs are still just dogs.

And all dogs are still just wolves. All dogs and wolves are the same species, Canis lupus.

One can say that minute changes over eons of time can lead
to the creation of new species/kind, but that belief
is based on faith, not science.

Do you write "species/kind" because you believe they are synonyms? I only ask because a definition of kind has never been offered before.

Faith is a religion.

I think you were probably trying to say something else, but I'm not sure what.

And religion has no place in the classroom.

More specifically, religion shouldn't be taught in public school science class.

Isolation can lead to speciation, which might lead to
some animals of the same kind no longer being
capable of reproducing, but this is a loss of
information.

Wouldn't an isolated population experience mutations? Aren't mutations new information?

Humans have not observed one species of animal
evolving into another species of animal (organism).

Speciation has been observed taking place when generation times are short in both the plant and animal kingdoms. Human lifetimes aren't long enough to observe speciation when generation times are longer.

Humans have no transitional fossils, when we should
have tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions.

Just as every photo of a child growing up is transitional, so is every fossil. Species are actually snapshots in time of reproductively isolated populations. For instance, examining more and more ancient Homo erectus fossils reveals increasingly archaic features, and there's an arbitrariness to where one draws the line between Homo erectus and what came before.

Some say that complex chemicals created life. And, I
say prove it. Replicate the process. Guess work isn't
science.

You're wandering away from evolution now and into the origin of life, but anyway, we don't know how life originated. Is it your position that what science doesn't know today must have a divine origin? Are dark matter, dark energy, quantum wave functions and what lies beyond the standard model of particle physics all divine?

The facts are all on my side.

I don't think you've mentioned an actual fact yet, except accidentally when you argued incorrectly about microevolution.

I assume that ending your lines early with a linefeed is a stylistic preference, but if not then realize you can just keep typing and the lines will automatically wrap.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by candle2, posted 04-28-2022 11:24 AM candle2 has taken no action

  
candle2
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 12-31-2018


Message 143 of 254 (894121)
05-02-2022 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by dwise1
04-28-2022 12:56 PM


Dwise, I understand that there is a huge amount of
genetic diversity within a "kind." I don't dispute this.
There is clear and convincing proof of this.

Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

It is such a simple request, and I am completely
justified in asking for it. I want what any competent
individual (especially what a competent scientist
should demand), and that is empirical and
operational evidence.

It took me many years and a good deal of empirical
evidence to place all my faith in God. God commands
us to prove everything.

I don't have anything near the amount of faith it would
take for me to even associate variety within a "kind" to
"kind" producing a totally different "kind."

The theory of evolution is the only (so called)theory
that has not been abandoned, even though it lacks
any semblance of empirical science.

Evolutionary philosophy isn't science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2022 12:56 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-02-2022 3:26 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 146 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 3:39 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 147 by Tangle, posted 05-02-2022 3:42 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 148 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 4:12 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 149 by Omnivorous, posted 05-02-2022 5:11 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 150 by Percy, posted 05-02-2022 5:32 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 154 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 05-02-2022 8:10 PM candle2 has replied
 Message 155 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 8:33 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 159 by ringo, posted 05-03-2022 11:53 AM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 161 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2022 3:40 PM candle2 has taken no action
 Message 162 by dwise1, posted 05-03-2022 5:54 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3296
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 144 of 254 (894122)
05-02-2022 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

That is NOT EVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone keeps telling you that is not evolution!

Everyone keeps telling you that is not what the Theory of Evolution says!

Everyone keeps telling you that that is not how evolution happens.

No one is ever going to show you any proof of that, because that never happens.

Good grief, what is the matter with you?


Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by jar, posted 05-02-2022 3:36 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33904
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 145 of 254 (894123)
05-02-2022 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Tanypteryx
05-02-2022 3:26 PM


Tanypteryx writes:

Good grief, what is the matter with you?

Watsamatta U?

It's simple.

candel2 is just the typical member of the Christian Cult of Ignorance a Deceit.

They are all willfully ignorant and dishonest.


My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-02-2022 3:26 PM Tanypteryx has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 146 of 254 (894124)
05-02-2022 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

We keep telling you over and over again that IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

What is WRONG with you that you refuse to ever listen to the truth?

Evolution never has taught of "one kind producing a different kind". Nobody except a BRAIN-DEAD STUPID CREATIONIST would ever say such a stupid thing!

I explained it to you in Message 484. READ IT! And don't you dare whine like a baby that "your phone is too smwall ... waaaaahh!!!!". Pull your head out of your ass and learn the truth of what evolution says.

And stop repeating your stupid creationist lies. Why is it that creationists have no other recourse than to lie about everything? To serve their god through lies and deception, with reveals their (and your) god to be The Lord of Lies, AKA Satan!

 
I repeated the text of Message 484 in Message 70. Read it!

The new species which form from their parent species are still of the same "kind". That is exactly what evolution says! If they were to have become a different "kind", then that would disprove evolution and almost the whole of biology.

Get a fucking clue, you lying idiot!

 

 
PS

We owe you our undying gratitude for proving beyond any shadow of a doubt what a complete and utter shipload of bullshit your miserable false religion is. And your silly little satanic god too.

Now nobody will ever make the mistake of falling into your religion's slimy trap. All thanks to your undying efforts to expose it.

Edited by dwise1, : PS


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8493
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 147 of 254 (894125)
05-02-2022 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


quote:
Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

This does not happen and can not happen.

That is not biology, that is magic or miracle.

Ok?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5074
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 148 of 254 (894127)
05-02-2022 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


candle2 Wants Us to Prove Pixie Dust Makes Airplanes Fly
Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

Here's a hypothetical to illustrate the complete and utter bullshit that that "simple request" is.

In this hypothetical, you believe that heavier-than-air craft (eg, airliners) cannot possibly fly. Despite the fact that every day we observe them flying.

Your argument that they cannot fly is based on fairy dust. You argue that Tinker Bell cannot possibly produce enough fairy dust to keep domestic carriers and Lufthansa aloft.

Your "simple request" for us would be: "Show me empirical proof that Tinker Bell could produce enough fairy dust for more than a few aircraft."

Would we be able to provide that proof? Of course not! Because that is not how heavier-than-air flight works!

So we explain that to you along with explaining to you how heavier-than-air flight does actually work. Which you never ever bother to even look at, let alone read or attempt to understand. Instead, all you ever do is brainlessly repeat your stupid "simple request" that is completely divorced from reality.

 
And that is why you nothing but a fucking idiot and a stupid asshole.

quote:
From A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966):
Markus Lycus: If I've told you once, I've told you a hundred times; do not fan the girls when they're wet! But you'll never learn, you'll be a eunuch all your life.

 
From Dogma:

Muse: That is why he's the King and you're nothing but a schmuck!

 
From Homeland episode, Good Night (S3 E10), when a special ops troop wounded while trying to infiltrate Brody into Iran comes to:

"Oh no! I'm that guy! I don't want to be that guy!"

wickless, stop being that guy!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3851
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 149 of 254 (894129)
05-02-2022 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


One whole other kinda animal
candle2 writes:

Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

Well, there's you.

I bet your parents weren't trolls.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.
-Terence


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 150 of 254 (894130)
05-02-2022 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by candle2
05-02-2022 3:10 PM


candle2 writes:

Show me empirical proof that one "kind" of animal
can/has produce(d) an animal of a different "kind."

You're getting a lot of criticism for repeatedly claiming this despite being told multiple times that this isn't the way evolution works, but I haven't read the whole thread. Is that true, that you keep claiming that evolution holds that one "kind" of animal can produce a different "kind?"

An additional problem is that "kind" doesn't have a definition. Even you put it in quotes. You either need to define "kind" in a precise manner, or you have to use the word species.

I wonder if you're just expressing yourself imprecisely. Are you actually asking for empirical proof of one species gradually changing over time through many generations into a different species?

If so, then as I explained in my previous post, there is good evidence of this, but only for species with relatively short generation times. Species change for longer generation times takes longer than human lifetimes.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by candle2, posted 05-02-2022 3:10 PM candle2 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by dwise1, posted 05-02-2022 6:35 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022