Another case of observed speciation

[ImmortalFlame]

Science has never been able to observe this process because of the time it supposedly takes to make these minuscule differences add up to something noticeable. What they cannot observe, they assume to have taken place because it all has to fit their theory.....

Actually, as science actually defines the term, we have directly observed macro-evolution many, many times.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

And if evolution is true, then why are there still primitive life forms today who have not changed significantly for millions of years? Where is their evolution? Were they standing behind the door when the clever branching genes were issued?

Evolution is not a ladder that all living things climb that results in continual change. It's a process of lengthy adaptation over time. If an organism is successful at what it does in its environment, such that environmental attrition is significantly lessened as a factor in reproduction, the change over time will be minimal because there is nothing driving the change for that particular population.

 

[metis]

Are you serious? What is a hypothesis? It is a scientist's word for an assumption.

No, as a scientific hypothesis needs at least some evidence to suggest it could be true. If I'm just guessing at something, that's simply not a hypothesis..

 

[metis]

I think universal common ancestry is more than a hypothesis. It's not like the idea was just recently proposed and has only scant evidence. It was proposed over a century ago and has massive amounts of corroborating evidence, which puts it firmly in the category of "scientific theory".

We normally use "scientific theory" in a more elaborate context, so "hypothesis" better fits what we're dealing with. The d.n.a. evidence appears to indicate that all current life forms on Earth may have evolved from a single source as you well know, but that by itself doesn't reach the level of referring to it as a "theory"-- at least imo.

 

[metis]

Are you telling me that as a Catholic you can accept both evolution and creation on faith?

Evolution certain isn't based on "faith" as the evidence for it is extremely overwhelming. Even if one didn't know that, common sense should, namely that all material objects tend to change over time, and genes are material objects. There simply is not one shred of evidence that points to "micro-evolution" somehow miraculously stopping short of "macro-evolution".

There is a planner.....but he is a Creator who, according to God's word, created the world and everything in it.....in carefully planned stages.

Notice your assumptions here. How do you know it's "Creator" and not "Creators"? How do you know "God's word" is the Bible and not some other source(s)? How do you know that our universe was made in "planned stages"? One assumption after another after another.

Six "days" (obviously not 24 hour days) and everything was "good".

Actually there's a problem because on the 7th day God rested. If a day was millions or billions of years, then the issue of God resting makes no sense.

I think that those who want to believe both creation and science need to pick a lane.

And I think that those who ignore science and so much of what we now know about the evolution of life are involved in a bogus religion or denomination because the Truth cannot be relative, and this is one of the two reasons why I left my fundamentalist Protestant church that I grew up in because they taught the same kind of nonsense that the JW's do on this subject.

Christianity should be enlightening, not Dark Age ignorance and superstition. It should be working hand-in-hand with science, not rejecting overwhelming evidence provided by centuries of scientific research. It should be based on love, not judgmental divisions based on we/they dichotomies. It should be based on the basis of believing in God and Jesus through love and compassion for all, not about having to be politically-correct on even the most minuteness of points.

 

[Bear Wild]

That post was directed at a believer Polymath....it was specific for him....not for an atheist.

Can you explain the concept behind the term "self-organized" for me though.....

Not sure who you are calling an atheist but I would like you to provide the proof or even evidence for the creation myth as fact. How does the creation story explain the fossil record for instance? How doe it explain the geologic history. You work so hard to find fault with evolution yet do not support how the creation myth fits any of the evidence of the real world and not the mythical world.

 

[Jainarayan]

"No credible scientist"....is that the same as saying "no true Scotsman? No credible scientists would dare step outside of what is accepted by the majority in the world of science because they would instantly lose their credibility....and likely their job along with it.

They prefer to just shut-up and go with the flow.

Wrong. There are scientists who dig their heels in for a hypothesis they form regardless of the majority view in the scientific community.

Changes that depend on random mutations that end up being beneficial are extremely rare....way too rare to have been repeated so many millions of times for so many living things. Neutral mutations are the most common but they do not affect the organism either way. But mutations that lead to harm are far more common than anything beneficial, so the numbers simply do not stack up IMO. There is a lot of wishful thinking to suggest otherwise.

Wrong again. That the human pelvis tilted so humans could walk upright, freeing their hands, is a beneficial mutation. Every mutation that allows a species to survive and procreate is a beneficial mutation.

The ability to interbreed appears to make no difference to the taxonomy.....all remain within their genetic "family".....and I cannot see where it has ever been clearly established that variety within a single species can take any creature outside of its own family. Felines are all still felines. Canines are all canines...finches are all finches.....fish are still the same kind of fish, regardless of their species.....science has never observed any branching taking place leading to a new "kind"....just to a new variety of one "kind".

You're stuck on the term 'kind', which is biblical and not used in any scientific context. Right there that takes your argument out of the running.

Well, if anyone is drinking the Kool Aid, it appears to be science flying in the face of what is obvious to anyone who can see the clear design in nature.

What would that clear design be?

It isn't until you start researching that you realize how much of nature is interdependent. That didn't just happen by undirected chance....otherwise people would be winning the lottery way more often than they do. Gambling is a fool's game....assuming that there is a win around every corner.

No one said nature is not interdependent. Coevolution.

Science has never been able to observe this process because of the time it supposedly takes to make these minuscule differences add up to something noticeable. What they cannot observe, they assume to have taken place because it all has to fit their theory.....a Creator just isn't "scientific" until you actually see him as the Creator of all that science studies. And humans are so clever that science has not been around very long compared to belief in this particular God.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/africa-s-deadliest-rapids-give-birth-new-fish-species

 

[Jainarayan]

And if evolution is true, then why are there still primitive life forms today who have not changed significantly for millions of years? Where is their evolution? Were they standing behind the door when the clever branching genes were issued?

They don't need to change or evolve. They are perfectly suited to their environments. Evolution does not have a plan or a goal.

 

[Jose Fly]

We normally use "scientific theory" in a more elaborate context, so "hypothesis" better fits what we're dealing with. The d.n.a. evidence appears to indicate that all current life forms on Earth may have evolved from a single source as you well know, but that by itself doesn't reach the level of referring to it as a "theory"-- at least imo.

I looked through a few journals and the majority of the cases where universal common ancestry was mentioned, it was referred to as a theory.

 

[Polymath257]

For the sake of simplicity, we will refer to fish as fish. If you want to be specific about how many fish are actually marine animals and mammals, then we can go there on another thread.

Mammals?

The experiments on speciation were done on stickleback fish if memory serves me. They remained stickleback fish even though small features about them changed. Adaptation has never been disputed. Adaptation was all that was observed....same with the fruit flies....and the bacteria.

And were major characteristics changed? yes.

And if evolution is true, then why are there still primitive life forms today who have not changed significantly for millions of years? Where is their evolution? Were they standing behind the door when the clever branching genes were issued?

Some populations remained in stable environments. They are not identical to their ancestors, just very similar. If selection pressure is low, that is expected.

That is like me telling you to go and read the Bible and learn about the Creator.

Which I have done. I have just found it to be severely lacking in anything of value.

I have read basic biology and I know the difference between something that is stated as a fact because it can be proven in a lab, compared to things that fall into the category of suggestion and educated guesswork. Biologists don't know everything either. If something falls outside of their ability to test, they do what all scientists do....err on the side of evolution and guess.

And there you have it. Humans feeling so superior about what little they know, that they assume to be able to take the place of God. Testable theory? You make me smile....the theory of evolution is not and never has been truly testable. It is guessable at best......completely in error at worst.
What is the point of being half right? What is the value of a half truth?

Of course evolution has been testable! That is sort of the whole point. We see changes in species over time. We see genetic changes that we can attribute to selection. We see actual reproductive isolation in modern populations. We see almost all of the stages existing even in modern populations. We can use our knowledge to predict the existence of ancient species. This is a testable theory!

On the contrary....it is more helpful in understanding what we see around us because our existence has a purpose, and this planet and all that inhabit it were made by a superior intelligence for a reason.
That reason is stated in the Bible....where is it stated in your textbooks?

Again, this isn't helpful for understanding the world around us *in a testable way*. It makes no predictions on what should be observed. It allows every statement and its negation to be justified. So it really isn't an 'explanation' at all.

Inference is like circumstantial evidence....it can be pointed to and talked about in a theoretical way....but NEVER touted as if it can't be wrong. The atheist scientist is a like the hard ball lawyer determined to make a case even though the evidence is not conclusive. He will make it sound very conclusive when trying to sway a jury.

I have read the papers and I see how much is hidden behind the jargon. Only when forced to simplify the language is the truth revealed. The language of fact does not need "might have" or "could have" or "leads us to the conclusion that"....because facts are statements of truth....science is way short when it comes to truth in the area of macro-evolution.

Scientists will use exactly those same words for describing what they see in a lab. They tend to be naturally cautious about conclusions, which is why your criticism is so far away from reality.

I rest my case. And you can believe that, yet deny the existence of the one who gave all of us food in infinite variety. There is not a single shred of solid evidence that what you said is true. Science is assuming it to be true....does it feel comfortable even saying it? You are related to a banana.

Again, the shared genes along with the variety of organisms that *don't* have those genes is enough to establish the relationship. All life on earth is related to all other life on earth. Duh.

Science infers that similarity equals relationship. Similar is just similar because the Creator may well have been experimenting with matter. It is obvious that he has a structural framework that is used for a variety of creatures and he has used the same genetic material to create all of them. We may have blood in our veins....air in our lungs....and four limbs of different kinds.....but we are all different.....none of that immediately points to evolution without a great deal of assumption. It can equally point to a Creator who was simply being creative without limits.

And if that were all we had as evidence, you could have a point. But it isn't just the similarities, but the pattern of similarities and differences and the *types* of changes we see across species, and the patterns of changes in species over time that support evolution and *not* special creation by a designer.

Oh please Polymath, I may not have a science degree but I'm not that stupid. The very idea that chickens are descended from dinosaurs is extremely far fetched when you have nothing solid to back up the assertion. Show us the evidence that this is true. It amazes me when scientists can say these things with a straight face and then call what we believe fairy tales.

The notion of feathered dinosaurs was once far fetched, but we have many fossils of such now. Species change over geological time. How could they not?

Or how way off the mark they have always been. If anyone reads your link, they would wonder what all the fuss is about. Two finches produced some other finches. Not exactly headline news is it? Like I said...much ado about nothing.

Yes, it is remarkable. We have reproductive isolation, which is one of the defining aspects of speciation. Recall that Darwin's book was called 'On the Origin of Species'. We have just witnessed the origin of a new species. if that isn't big, I don't know what is.

One thing you still haven't addressed is whether you believe it is possible to know anything at all about the distant past. Can we know things about the past through analyzing the evidence that remains in the present or not? Or are you claiming that we simply cannot know anything about the past unless a reliable witness was there and reported it?

 

[Polymath257]

That post was directed at a believer Polymath....it was specific for him....not for an atheist.

Can you explain the concept behind the term "self-organized" for me though.....

Sure. There are any number of naturally occurring structures, from crystals, to living things, that self-organize out of the components. The components naturally have a variety of forces, from electromagnetic to chemical, that pre-dispose them to organize into more complicated structures.

 

[metis]

I looked through a few journals and the majority of the cases where universal common ancestry was mentioned, it was referred to as a theory.

Probably using the lay definition as here's a scientific definition: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.

 

[Jose Fly]

Probably using the lay definition as here's a scientific definition: A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.

Um, no. Articles published in professional journals do not typically use terms in their colloquial sense; they use them in their proper professional context.

Is universal common ancestry being a scientific theory problematic for you?

 

[metis]

Is universal common ancestry being a scientific theory problematic for you?

Using the definition that most of us in science use, yes.

This from "Scientific American":
Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing. -- "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

OTOH, as a hypothesis, I have no problem.

 

[Jose Fly]

Using the definition that most of us in science use, yes.

Why?

This from "Scientific American":
Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing. -- "Just a Theory": 7 Misused Science Words

OTOH, as a hypothesis, I have no problem.

So your view is that universal common ancestry hasn't been substantiated?

 

[metis]

Why?


So your view is that universal common ancestry hasn't been substantiated?

There's definitely some evidence but not enough to use the word "substantiated", imo.

As an anthropologist, now retired, we've learned over the years that it's often best to cloak our statements because eating crow isn't that pleasant.

 

[Jose Fly]

There's definitely some evidence but not enough to use the word "substantiated", imo.

What's lacking, in your opinion?

As an anthropologist, now retired, we've learned over the years that it's often best to cloak our statements because eating crow isn't that pleasant.

What exactly do you think evolutionary biologists should guard against? Is there some other scenario you think is likely to replace UCA?

 

[Jainarayan]

The very idea that chickens are descended from dinosaurs is extremely far fetched when you have nothing solid to back up the assertion. Show us the evidence that this is true.

From dinosaurs to chickens and back to dinosaurs. Why do chickens have the ability to (re)grow teeth?

Chicken grows face of dinosaur
Mutant Chicken Grows Alligatorlike Teeth
Study of Chicken Teeth Sheds Light on Evolution

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Science has absolutely no proof that time will make varieties of creatures into completely new creatures.

I noticed you never commented on the endogenous retrovirus evidence being talked about quite heavily in another thread you were initially a part of. Do you understand what that term means, know of the findings within human and other apes' genomes, and comprehend the implications of those findings? If you like I can lay out a (hopefully) condensed/concise version of the evidence (and why it counts as evidence). I honestly don't believe a person can conscionably refute it if they have an understanding of the details. It's about as close to a "smoking gun" as you're going to get outside of literally getting to observe macro-evolution.

As many before me have stated - I don't think you know enough about the subject matter to be able to make statements like the one you did above. Though it is to be expected. You're Jehovah's Witness after all... with a vested interest in denying evolution like your life depends on it... because somehow you seem to truly believe that it does.

 

[Polymath257]

I've never seen any reason for this controversy -except the belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old -which is in no way biblical.

At least Jacob was not ignorant of breeding for specific traits to be passed on.....

Gen 30:37And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods. 38And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink. 39And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted. 40And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle. 41And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods. 42But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.

That's a rather bizarre way to breed specific characteristics. How does that work genetically? You know, where the white of the rods close to where a flock conceives determines the color of the offspring?

Seems rather shaky to me.