Another case of observed speciation

[Deeje]

Prove it.

The thing is.....I don't need to. God doesn't need to prove himself to anyone. His creation speaks for itself. You either look and listen or ignore, just as you do with science.

You believe science because you think it has evidence. But the evidence upon which you base your belief is no more provable than the Creator. Puny humans have no test for something that is out of their range of experience. They can't even tell us how life began.

So I t's a choice between one belief system and another. We each have the same evidence but with different explanations.

The Creator has plans for his creation and tells us how we can be part of them. He won't force anyone to do or believe anything, but will allow individual 'hearts' to make their own choices for their own reasons.

You have your reasons, I have mine. This is what separates the believers from the unbelievers.

The Bible explains everything from beginning to end. There is a reason and purpose for everything....and a pre-determined end. No unanswered questions.

Science tries to explain things, but there are huge gaps that are filled in with suggestions as to how those gaps "might be" filled.
There is no reason or purpose in anything and no one knows how it will end except that man appears to be orchestrating his own extinction.

I know which one appeals to me......and why.

What about you?

 

[Bear Wild]

Speciation is fine. These changes will never accumulate to form a new " kind" though. That type of accumulation has never been seen heck these scientists are amazed at seeing a finch turn to another finch. Do you see the jump from an observation to an assumption here?

If you can accept speciation then the next step is not hard. Genetic variation + physical/social division and even sufficient complexity of an environment + selection pressure result in speciation. Add time and changes in environment then evolution. The problem for humans to understand is the time frames since we are here for such a limited amount of time that the times scales for evolution are hard to perceive.

 

[Deeje]

If you can accept speciation then the next step is not hard. Genetic variation + physical/social division and even sufficient complexity of an environment + selection pressure result in speciation. Add time and changes in environment then evolution. The problem for humans to understand is the time frames since we are here for such a limited amount of time that the times scales for evolution are hard to perceive.

Wild Fox, you are talking about adaptation. Speciation is about new varieties of the same taxonomic family of creatures, created by those external forces. No matter how much time elapses science has no real evidence that one species can ever morph itself into a different taxonomy.

If you have real life examples, then please produce them.

 

[Deeje]

Since nobody has ever given, a coherent definition of the term 'kind', that isn't an objection at all.

A "kind" are those that are included in a taxonomic family of creatures who may or may not be capable of interbreeding.
Adaptation will produce variety within that classification, but not outside of it. IOW there is no such thing as "above the species level" when one is speaking about "evolution" because real evidence for such is non-existent. If there was real evidence, then this debate would not be possible.

Yes, the finch becomes another species of finch. And primates become other species of primates. And mammals become other species of mammals.

Evolution arises from modifications of what is already there through changes over many generations not by large scale changes all at once.

But again, there is no proof that such changes take any organism out of their taxonomy. No matter how many changes or how many varieties are produced, they remain within their classification. When is this not true?
"Branching" is an assumption, not a proven fact. "Common ancestry" is also an assumption because "above species level" is not provable.

A good analogy has to do with languages. Languages change over time, usually very small changes over the course of, say, a decade or two. Every generation can easily understand both the previous generation and the following generation. So, in the course of, say, a century, there is no change in the 'kind' of the language.

But, if you look at what happens over the course of centuries, languages can change by very large amounts. I would challenge you to read anything written in Old English without training. And, over the course of thousands of years, languages *do* change 'kinds': French and Spanish are, in any reasonable sense, different 'kinds' of languages. But they both developed from Latin over the course of the last couple thousand years.

All language is communication, taught by those who pass it on to their children. This is a poor analogy because language is not alive, and without teaching it to the next generation, languages soon die out. Native dialects soon disappear when stronger language groups infiltrate their territory. Does the change in language alter the people who speak it? They are all still humans no matter what language they speak.

You are complaining that we see the small-scale changes in finches that are expected under evolution and that are analogous to the small scale changes in languages over the course of a year. But you then claim that it is impossible for large scale changes to occur like those between Latin and French because such changes haven't been seen in very recent studies. In the case of evolution, large scale changes are accumulations of these small scale changes over the course of thousands of generations. That means we don't see them in a mere century.

If the evidence you go by is what is observed in a lab, then no change in taxonomy will be observed. It is a suggestion that it "might" or "could" happen, but not because you have real evidence. The "evidence" is based on interpretation by men who have a theory to support. Can biased evidence be relied on in this case? You won't accept it from us, so why should we accept it from you? Its one "belief system" verses another. But only one party admits to it being "faith" based.

But we *do* see them in the fossil record.

What do you see?...please show us these talking fossils, fully dressed and examined in their own habitats.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The thing is.....I don't need to. God doesn't need to prove himself to anyone. His creation speaks for itself. You either look and listen or ignore, just as you do with science.

You believe science because you think it has evidence. But the evidence upon which you base your belief is no more provable than the Creator. Puny humans have no test for something that is out of their range of experience. They can't even tell us how life began.

So I t's a choice between one belief system and another. We each have the same evidence but with different explanations.

The Creator has plans for his creation and tells us how we can be part of them. He won't force anyone to do or believe anything, but will allow individual 'hearts' to make their own choices for their own reasons.

You have your reasons, I have mine. This is what separates the believers from the unbelievers.

The Bible explains everything from beginning to end. There is a reason and purpose for everything....and a pre-determined end. No unanswered questions.

Science tries to explain things, but there are huge gaps that are filled in with suggestions as to how those gaps "might be" filled.
There is no reason or purpose in anything and no one knows how it will end except that man appears to be orchestrating his own extinction.

I know which one appeals to me......and why.

What about you?

Sure you do. You made the claim. You back it up. Especially since you demand "proof" from everyone else, in regards to evolution. Of course, you need to learn what evidence is, first.

Evolution is not a belief system. It's a very well supported scientific theory. Evolution is true, whether it "appeals to you" or not. It's not about feelings and desires. It just is. Like gravity and germs. Germs and gravity don't go away just because they don't appeal to you.

I've ignored the rest of your post because you've just gone ahead and made even more unsupported claims.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Speciation is fine. These changes will never accumulate to form a new " kind" though. That type of accumulation has never been seen heck these scientists are amazed at seeing a finch turn to another finch. Do you see the jump from an observation to an assumption here?

Kind is not a word that has any meaning in evolutionary science and I have yet to see any creationist give any kind of useful definition of the word anyway.

 

[Bear Wild]

Wild Fox, you are talking about adaptation. Speciation is about new varieties of the same taxonomic family of creatures, created by those external forces. No matter how much time elapses science has no real evidence that one species can ever morph itself into a different taxonomy.

If you have real life examples, then please produce them.

No I am talking about the processes which cause the changes that finally result in new forms of life from a previous form of life. The science is well documented and available. Some of the evolutionary theory is complex including the new data for genetics but it all explains how life evolved more that adequately. There is no other explanation that has any evidence for it. There is clearly no evidence that a god or goddess created life then buried it to create new forms that were then buried again to create new forms over and over again. There is no evidence of a god or goddess actively now manipulating the genetics to create new variations. We would not even no which god or goddess of the 1000's that have been proposed that would be the one creating life forms. The Hebrew god is only one of many that are available. Thus the is no reason not to support the theory of evolution. If you have an aspect of the theory that is more specific that you have a question on that can be addressed but the banana to human or worm to human and other broad reaching comparisons shows a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

 

[Deeje]

Sure you do. You made the claim. You back it up. Especially since you demand "proof" from everyone else, in regards to evolution. Of course, you need to learn what evidence is, first.

I already explained why God needs no proof. He leaves "belief" up to us. We all believe what we want to believe, for our own reasons.

Most in the scientific community claim that evolution is a fact. What they don't say, is that only a small portion of what science presents is a fact that is actually backed up by experiments carried out in a lab. That small portion is called "adaptation". They have observed "speciation"....but never have they seen one organism morph itself out of its own taxonomy.

We have no issues with what science can 'prove'....but to then claim that adaptation can and must result in something for which the evidence is manufactured in the minds of scientists, is an exercise in wishful thinking, delivered to a gullible public, by those who are themselves convinced that what they imagine is true...it must be true because the alternative is unthinkable! They will make sure that all "evidence" is squeezed into the evolution box.

Evolution is not a belief system. It's a very well supported scientific theory.

"Well supported" by whom and with what? The so-called evidence is interpreted by those with a theory to uphold.....who would dare not support it if they don't want to be laughed out of their chosen career?

Evolution is true, whether it "appeals to you" or not. It's not about feelings and desires. It just is. Like gravity and germs. Germs and gravity don't go away just because they don't appeal to you.

You yourself claim to have been a "Christian" at one time. But were you? Does a question like that make former "Christians" uncomfortable? Could they have exchanged one lot of misinformation for another...in effect jumping out of the frying pan, into the fire?
Do they throw the baby out with the bath water? How sad would it be if they did? You see, "feelings" play more of a role in this question than you might think.

Throwing God away is a big deal because you must do it thoroughly. You must kill him off completely, because if you allow even a small vestige of him to remain, it carries with it a lot of uncomfortable baggage.
I understand why former believers fight for evolution so vigorously.

I've ignored the rest of your post because you've just gone ahead and made even more unsupported claims.

Your own belief system is based on "unsupported claims"....denying that doesn't make the Creator go away. I believe that he is waiting for the right people to find him. You might be one of them. He has never been where most people imagine him to be....you just have to look in the right place.....usually in the most unlikely place, with what appears to be the least likely people. He has never been "mainstream".

 

[Jainarayan]

The Bible explains everything from beginning to end. There is a reason and purpose for everything....and a pre-determined end. No unanswered questions.

Why do humans, canines, felines, cattle, elephants, giraffes have the same body plan, i.e. tetrapod? Why do they share it with fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds? Why are we made of chemical elements that are abundant on Earth? Why do we have bodies at all and are not made of energy or spirit? Why do male mammals have nipples? Why do the overwhelming majority of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds reproduce the same way? Why do we have the same DNA structures? Why did God keep using the same blueprint over and over and over again? How does the Bible explain that? Especially the nipples thing.

 

[Jainarayan]

Wild Fox, you are talking about adaptation. Speciation is about new varieties of the same taxonomic family of creatures, created by those external forces. No matter how much time elapses science has no real evidence that one species can ever morph itself into a different taxonomy.

If you have real life examples, then please produce them.

Still haven't read about the evolution of whales, have ye? Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia

 

[Bear Wild]

I already explained why God needs no proof. He leaves "belief" up to us. We all believe what we want to believe, for our own reasons.

Most in the scientific community claim that evolution is a fact. What they don't say, is that only a small portion of what science presents is a fact that is actually backed up by experiments carried out in a lab. That small portion is called "adaptation". They have observed "speciation"....but never have they seen one organism morph itself out of its own taxonomy.

We have no issues with what science can 'prove'....but to then claim that adaptation can and must result in something for which the evidence is manufactured in the minds of scientists, is an exercise in wishful thinking, delivered to a gullible public, by those who are themselves convinced that what they imagine is true...it must be true because the alternative is unthinkable! They will make sure that all "evidence" is squeezed into the evolution box.



"Well supported" by whom and with what? The so-called evidence is interpreted by those with a theory to uphold.....who would dare not support it if they don't want to be laughed out of their chosen career?



You yourself claim to have been a "Christian" at one time. But were you? Does a question like that make former "Christians" uncomfortable? Could they have exchanged one lot of misinformation for another...in effect jumping out of the frying pan, into the fire?
Do they throw the baby out with the bath water? How sad would it be if they did? You see, "feelings" play more of a role in this question than you might think.

Throwing God away is a big deal because you must do it thoroughly. You must kill him off completely, because if you allow even a small vestige of him to remain, it carries with it a lot of uncomfortable baggage.
I understand why former believers fight for evolution so vigorously.



Your own belief system is based on "unsupported claims"....denying that doesn't make the Creator go away. I believe that he is waiting for the right people to find him. You might be one of them. He has never been where most people imagine him to be....you just have to look in the right place.....usually in the most unlikely place, with what appears to be the least likely people. He has never been "mainstream".

I was a Christian at one time also until I saw the light. One of the problems with creation theory is the problem of which god or goddess. How would you know? Does not need to be the Hebrew one and no explanation of why so many forms of life were created then buried before the current ones appear. The creation myth makes no sense on so many levels when applied to our world instead of the mythical world. And if you use the faith statement then others will just claim theirs. Why not have faith in a system which has discovered and explained so much as the evolution theory instead of one made up buy some nomadic people wandering in the middle east?

 

[sealchan]

Again, there are some big points here:

1. Reproductive isolation of the new species
2. The short time it took to get reproductive isolation and speciation
3. This *is* how evolution happens: the only difference between this and 'macroevolution' is time and the number of generations.
4. Creationists don't understand even what the theory of evolution says or else they would understand the significance of this.

The study of evolution on islands is interesting as apparently the introduction of one member of a foreign genetic ancestry can significantly impact the native population.

The whole species idea is as unuseful as it is useful. It is useful in that it allows us to understand the variety of life and how populations of individuals operate. It is not useful in that any way we want to categorize life falls demonstrably short of lifes creative flexibility. But then again we might have trouble seeing this creativity without simultaneously placing some categories down for reference.

This is also a trap for creationists who want to make of species some sort of hurdle that evolutionary theory must overcome. But science shows us how tricksy nature/creation/God is.

The species definition is best seen as artful tool to describing nature rather than a hard feature of nature. Anyone who has attempted to categorize a wide range of natural or systemic phenomena knows that creating categories is an art as much as it is a science.

FYI...I'm doing a study on God's tricks described in Genesis 1 to 38 in the Scriptural Debates forum.

 

[Deeje]

No I am talking about the processes which cause the changes that finally result in new forms of life from a previous form of life. The science is well documented and available.

The science is actually not well documented at all. What is well documented is science's claims for how all these life forms came to exist. It is not supported by any real evidence, but on what science assumes to be true. An assumption is not a fact unless there is proof. We know Science has no proof.

Some of the evolutionary theory is complex including the new data for genetics but it all explains how life evolved more that adequately. There is no other explanation that has any evidence for it.

But if the "evidence" is open to interpretation by those who already "believe" in evolution, then how do you stop bias from altering how evidence is evaluated?

There is clearly no evidence that a god or goddess created life then buried it to create new forms that were then buried again to create new forms over and over again. There is no evidence of a god or goddess actively now manipulating the genetics to create new variations.

Getting rid of the image of the great wizard in the sky who "poofed" things into existence in 7 literal days, allows us to investigate creation in a whole different way. If creation was a long, slow and deliberate process with a powerful Creator bringing living things into existence one "kind" at a time, experimenting and fine tuning and even eliminating some lifeforms if they proved to be somehow unsuccessful for some reason, gives us reason to pause. If he created all creatures with adaptive abilities, then he does not need to actively manipulate anything. It is an automatic response as a survival mechanism.

At the end of each creative period, God expressed satisfaction with what he had achieved in that allotted period. Why would he need to do that if everything he created was perfect straight up? Those of us who are creative....artists, writers, poets etc, will attest to the fact that some of our work ends up being in the pile of "not our best work". If we are made in the image of our Creator, then why can't he be like that as well? If what he ended up with WAS his best work, then it was "perfect" in the true definition of the word.

We would not even no which god or goddess of the 1000's that have been proposed that would be the one creating life forms. The Hebrew god is only one of many that are available. Thus the is no reason not to support the theory of evolution.

This is what faith is all about. The Bible gives us an explanation as to why all those "god's" exist and why they are figments of human imagination. The best way to confuse humans is to give them too many choices.

In the beginning, the Bible explains that there were only two "gods" who were in competition for human worship. One was the true God, and the other was a pretender. As free willed beings, the Creator gave us the right of choice when his sovereignty was challenged. Knowing this, the pretender generated all other false gods and religious systems so as to appeal to all spiritual tastes. He doesn't care what religion, or what gods you worship, as long as its not the true God. I find the Bible's explanation to be very reasonable.

If you have an aspect of the theory that is more specific that you have a question on that can be addressed but the banana to human or worm to human and other broad reaching comparisons shows a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution.

Entertaining the very thought of bananas being related to humans is something that requires more faith to my way of thinking, than believing that the Creator made bananas as a food source for many living creatures....including us. If we are related to bananas, and we eat them, are we being cannibals?

 

[Bear Wild]

The science is actually not well documented at all. What is well documented is science's claims for how all these life forms came to exist. It is not supported by any real evidence, but on what science assumes to be true. An assumption is not a fact unless there is proof. We know Science has no proof.



But if the "evidence" is open to interpretation by those who already "believe" in evolution, then how do you stop bias from altering how evidence is evaluated?


Getting rid of the image of the great wizard in the sky who "poofed" things into existence in 7 literal days, allows us to investigate creation in a whole different way. If creation was a long, slow and deliberate process with a powerful Creator bringing living things into existence one "kind" at a time, experimenting and fine tuning and even eliminating some lifeforms if they proved to be somehow unsuccessful for some reason, gives us reason to pause. If he created all creatures with adaptive abilities, then he does not need to actively manipulate anything. It is an automatic response as a survival mechanism.

At the end of each creative period, God expressed satisfaction with what he had achieved in that allotted period. Why would he need to do that if everything he created was perfect straight up? Those of us who are creative....artists, writers, poets etc, will attest to the fact that some of our work ends up being in the pile of "not our best work". If we are made in the image of our Creator, then why can't he be like that as well? If what he ended up with WAS his best work, then it was "perfect" in the true definition of the word.



This is what faith is all about. The Bible gives us an explanation as to why all those "god's" exist and why they are figments of human imagination. The best way to confuse humans is to give them too many choices.

In the beginning, the Bible explains that there were only two "gods" who were in competition for human worship. One was the true God, and the other was a pretender. As free willed beings, the Creator gave us the right of choice when his sovereignty was challenged. Knowing this, the pretender generated all other false gods and religious systems so as to appeal to all spiritual tastes. He doesn't care what religion, or what gods you worship, as long as its not the true God. I find the Bible's explanation to be very reasonable.



Entertaining the very thought of bananas being related to humans is something that requires more faith to my way of thinking, than believing that the Creator made bananas as a food source for many living creatures....including us. If we are related to bananas, and we eat them, are we being cannibals?

Which creator?

 

[Bear Wild]

The science is actually not well documented at all. What is well documented is science's claims for how all these life forms came to exist. It is not supported by any real evidence, but on what science assumes to be true. An assumption is not a fact unless there is proof. We know Science has no proof.



But if the "evidence" is open to interpretation by those who already "believe" in evolution, then how do you stop bias from altering how evidence is evaluated?



Getting rid of the image of the great wizard in the sky who "poofed" things into existence in 7 literal days, allows us to investigate creation in a whole different way. If creation was a long, slow and deliberate process with a powerful Creator bringing living things into existence one "kind" at a time, experimenting and fine tuning and even eliminating some lifeforms if they proved to be somehow unsuccessful for some reason, gives us reason to pause. If he created all creatures with adaptive abilities, then he does not need to actively manipulate anything. It is an automatic response as a survival mechanism.

At the end of each creative period, God expressed satisfaction with what he had achieved in that allotted period. Why would he need to do that if everything he created was perfect straight up? Those of us who are creative....artists, writers, poets etc, will attest to the fact that some of our work ends up being in the pile of "not our best work". If we are made in the image of our Creator, then why can't he be like that as well? If what he ended up with WAS his best work, then it was "perfect" in the true definition of the word.



This is what faith is all about. The Bible gives us an explanation as to why all those "god's" exist and why they are figments of human imagination. The best way to confuse humans is to give them too many choices.

In the beginning, the Bible explains that there were only two "gods" who were in competition for human worship. One was the true God, and the other was a pretender. As free willed beings, the Creator gave us the right of choice when his sovereignty was challenged. Knowing this, the pretender generated all other false gods and religious systems so as to appeal to all spiritual tastes. He doesn't care what religion, or what gods you worship, as long as its not the true God. I find the Bible's explanation to be very reasonable.



Entertaining the very thought of bananas being related to humans is something that requires more faith to my way of thinking, than believing that the Creator made bananas as a food source for many living creatures....including us. If we are related to bananas, and we eat them, are we being cannibals?

So how does this goddess of god do it?

 

[Deeje]

Why do humans, canines, felines, cattle, elephants, giraffes have the same body plan, i.e. tetrapod? Why do they share it with fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds?

Why do architects use the same framework and engineering principles when constructing different buildings.....from a doghouse to a skyscraper? If the principle works for all construction, why not use it?

The bones of birds are designed to be light so as to facilitate flight, whereas the bones of land dwelling creatures the bones are quite dense. Just a co-incidence? Or planned that way?

Why are we made of chemical elements that are abundant on Earth?

That is what God used to created Adam....if we weren't made up of the elements of the earth then that would rule out creation. But it reinforces it.

Why do we have bodies at all and are not made of energy or spirit?

Why did God create creatures to live in the spirit realm and then decide to create matter? Their bodies are spirit but we are a different creation because we are meant to live on a material earth.

Why do male mammals have nipples?

Probably for the same reason why males and females share other traits. Like hair on their heads and under their arms and around their genital area. Males may have facial and chest hair but that is due to testosterone.
Stem cells in the formation of a fetus know exactly what they are supposed to be, though in recent times the whole gender issue has gotten a little out of hand. Our genetics are being messed up by man made environmental factors, no doubt...along with some weird ideas.

Why do the overwhelming majority of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish and birds reproduce the same way?

Because the principles of the reproductive process work across many species. All begin as microscopic eggs and sperm.Yet all reproduce only according to their "kind", just as Genesis says.

Why do we have the same DNA structures? Why did God keep using the same blueprint over and over and over again? How does the Bible explain that? Especially the nipples thing.

We all have the same Creator, using the same basic materials for all his living creatures. The "blueprint" again works across all species. DNA is a code. It is the transmission of information received by the cells in the construction of new cells, all of which are pre-programmed to produce a part of a living creature. Every creature can replicate itself, true to its "kind", with all its individual cells in the right place. If you think that this process is a product of blind chance, then what is there left to say?

 

[Deeje]

Still haven't read about the evolution of whales, have ye? Evolution of cetaceans - Wikipedia

Are you kidding? Its one of my favorites! I have exposed the scientist's creativity concerning this evolutionary chain in many posts. Its not obvious unless you know what you are looking at. They make it sound so plausible...yet when you really examine it, its laughable.

 

[Deeje]

Which creator?

The only one. You have obviously never met him.

So how does this goddess of god do it?

He uses his spirit or power. If he can create the Universe and everything in it, including trillions of stars in trillions of galaxies, (many of which make our own sun look like a small light bulb with tiny baubles orbiting it) then imagine the power he possesses? Can you...?

Why in the microscopic world is an atom a replica of huge solar systems? Just a co-incidence?

Can you begin to comprehend what kind of power would be necessary to bring matter into existence......can science even scratch the surface when it comes to knowing anything about the universe? We barely know what is in our own insignificant solar system. Why is science so arrogant? Compared with what there is to know.....science really knows nothing.

 

[Bear Wild]

Are you kidding? Its one of my favorites! I have exposed the scientist's creativity concerning this evolutionary chain in many posts. Its not obvious unless you know what you are looking at. They make it sound so plausible...yet when you really examine it, its laughable.

That's because it is plausible unlike the magical creationism which has no evidence because you do not need evidence. You just have to believe people who wrote about a creation story without any understanding of the natural world. Why it is just magic. The god or goddess appears creates everything. That reminds me you never have said which goddess created everything. I am going for Anu what about you.

 

[Bear Wild]

The only one. You have obviously never met him.



He uses his spirit or power. If he can create the Universe and everything in it, including trillions of stars in trillions of galaxies, (many of which make our own sun look like a small light bulb with tiny baubles orbiting it) then imagine the power he possesses? Can you...?

Why in the microscopic world is an atom a replica of huge solar systems? Just a co-incidence?

Can you begin to comprehend what kind of power would be necessary to bring matter into existence......can science even scratch the surface when it comes to knowing anything about the universe? We barely know what is in our own insignificant solar system. Why is science so arrogant? Compared with what there is to know.....science really knows nothing.

Never meant who? And what do you mean Him? Have you meet him and talked to him? What you seem to not to comprehend that that the universe has always been. No need to come up with a mythical creator. And how do you know it is a him. Does he have a y chromosome? I thing a female as the creator makes more sense if you need a creator but of course you don't because everything is explained by natural forces which you want so hard to ignore. Maybe if you relook at the evolution therapy again with an open mind you finally find the truth. So which goddess created the universe?