How would we know if a species was newly evolved?

[firedragon]

Gradual evolution is a mode of evolution based on the evidence. It is the common mode most people are aware of. I do not have any reason to think that determining a species is recently evolved would be any easier with punctuated equilibrium.

What other scientific foundation would you propose?

I am not proposing anything. I just wanted to know the reason for absolutism.

 

[ElishaElijah]

What do you mean by a "concrete starting point"? It seems to be a nonsensical question. You appear to be working under a misconception. We do not need to know how or exactly when life started to understand that we are the product of evolution.

Well, it isn’t a nonsensical question, if it was then people wouldn’t be trying to figure out the answer. I already have my answer to all of life’s questions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not proposing anything. I just wanted to know the reason for absolutism.

I have no idea what you mean by absolutism. The discussion is about speciation and not about political systems of monarchies and authoritarian despots.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it isn’t a nonsensical question, if it was then people wouldn’t be trying to figure out the answer. I already have my answer to all of life’s questions.

Sorry, but you do not get to claim that. If you want an answer you need to be able to explain what you mean by your question and why you think that it matters. And yes, you have answers for your life but you have shown that many of them are wrong. Your answers may be better than the ones that you had earlier in your life but that does not make them right.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Sorry, but you do not get to claim that. If you want an answer you need to be able to explain what you mean by your question and why you think that it matters. And yes, you have answers for your life but you have shown that many of them are wrong. Your answers may be better than the ones that you had earlier in your life but that does not make them right.

I can only claim that which I have obtained and that is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ.

 

[Watchmen]

Sorry, that is Lamarckism, and it is not how evolution works. Evolution reflects the natural world and may appear much crueler. One thing to remember is that there is always variation. Some people will have more melanin and some will have less, and there is a genetic reason for this A person with a low amount of melanin in a sun intense area is more likely to get skin cancer and die. If this happens before he breeds or if his offspring die due to his early death his early demise his DNA will drop from the genome. If this happens often enough There will be only dark skinned individuals left. The lighter skinned people would have been "selected" out.

Don’t apologize. The deliberate refusal for that particular poster to understand is somewhat maddening. Just tell it like it is (which you do so well typically).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can only claim that which I have obtained and that is Eternal Life through Jesus Christ.

And that is probably wrong too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don’t apologize. The deliberate refusal for that particular poster to understand is somewhat maddening. Just tell it like it is (which you do so well typically).

Oh, I am halfway trolling her. She seems to have put me on ignore. Since she kept denying that there was evidence I took the time to explain what evidence is until she was forced to accept it. The result, instead of admitting that there was evidence she put me on ignore. At least she no longer answers posts.

 

[sun rise]

I found a discussion about where new species have been observed over relatively short time frames. It's worth reading. Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

 

[ElishaElijah]

I found a discussion about where new species have been observed over relatively short time frames. It's worth reading. Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

Evolutionist definition of species is different, for example when you say a virus has many species and is still a virus so evolution is a fact I would say not so fast on that. Where in your tree of life are you placing this virus? When does it change from a virus to something else other than a virus?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionist definition of species is different, for example when you say a virus has many species and is still a virus so evolution is a fact I would say not so fast on that. Where in your tree of life are you placing this virus? When does it change from a virus to something else other than a virus?

When does evolution ever say that something "turns into something else". It does not make that claim. You are still an ape. Man never stopped being an ape.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evolutionist definition of species is different, for example when you say a virus has many species and is still a virus so evolution is a fact I would say not so fast on that. Where in your tree of life are you placing this virus? When does it change from a virus to something else other than a virus?

A different definition of species compared to what or whom?

It seems a moot point to repeat this, but the theory of evolution does not claim, explain or predict that viruses will suddenly change into something else. Fish are not claimed to turn into frogs. Dinosaurs are not claimed to transform into birds.

That is not the theory of evolution that you are in opposition to. I don't know what it is.

 

[ElishaElijah]

A different definition of species compared to what or whom?

It seems a moot point to repeat this, but the theory of evolution does not claim, explain or predict that viruses will suddenly change into something else. Fish are not claimed to turn into frogs. Dinosaurs are not claimed to transform into birds.

That is not the theory of evolution that you are in opposition to. I don't know what it is.

It sure seems to from this description and picture of the evolution theory tree, although the tree has blank branches, it sure starts as a single organism.
Macroevolution - Understanding Evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

It sure seems to from this description and picture of the evolution theory tree, although the tree has blank branches, it sure starts as a single organism.
Macroevolution - Understanding Evolution

A single population of organisms. Do you have a problem with that?

 

[YoursTrue]

We are not talking about religious views here, but on explanations for the natural world based on established and valid principles, logic, reason and evidence. I cannot test my beliefs to demonstrate them to others anymore than you can. But we can all look at evidence, theories and the internal and external logic applied to them.

We really are talking about religious views, even though I avoid them for the most part when discussing the theory of evolution, because -- as I said -- I used to believe what I was taught in school about the theory, I understand the implications -- and I used to believe the theory until I began studying the Bible and the account of creation, which says rather succinctly that God made the living creatures in the waters, the flying creatures in the skies, and finally made man. How He did it, I don't know. I do know, however, it is said He made man from the soil, and Eve from man's rib.
Genesis 2:7 says "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being." It makes sense to me that God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils after he was formed. Since we are discussing why you believe in the process of evolution, and I don't, yes, I would have to tell you why and it also no longer makes sense to me because of the missing information (dna gaps between species).

 

[Subduction Zone]

We really are talking about religious views, even though I avoid them for the most part when discussing the theory of evolution, because -- as I said -- I used to believe what I was taught in school about the theory, I understand the implications -- and I used to believe the theory until I began studying the Bible and the account of creation, which says rather succinctly that God made the living creatures in the waters, the flying creatures in the skies, and finally made man. How He did it, I don't know. I do know, however, it is said He made man from the soil, and Eve from man's rib.
Genesis 2:7 says "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being." It makes sense to me that God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils after he was formed. Since we are discussing why you believe in the process of evolution, and I don't, yes, I would have to tell you why and it also no longer makes sense to me because of the missing information (dna gaps between species).

Creationism is a religious view. Accepting reality is not . Evolution is supported by reality. Creationism is in the world of myth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We really are talking about religious views, even though I avoid them for the most part when discussing the theory of evolution, because -- as I said -- I used to believe what I was taught in school about the theory, I understand the implications -- and I used to believe the theory until I began studying the Bible and the account of creation, which says rather succinctly that God made the living creatures in the waters, the flying creatures in the skies, and finally made man. How He did it, I don't know. I do know, however, it is said He made man from the soil, and Eve from man's rib.
Genesis 2:7 says "Then the LORD God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being." It makes sense to me that God breathed the breath of life into Adam's nostrils after he was formed. Since we are discussing why you believe in the process of evolution, and I don't, yes, I would have to tell you why and it also no longer makes sense to me because of the missing information (dna gaps between species).

Perhaps that is what you are talking about. I am talking about science.

If you want to deny it on the basis of a religious doctrine, you are free too, but making a claim that you are correct in doing so has great limitations. I have merely acted to in some part to convey that fact to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It sure seems to from this description and picture of the evolution theory tree, although the tree has blank branches, it sure starts as a single organism.
Macroevolution - Understanding Evolution

The tree shows relationships and common ancestry. Not magical change of organisms from one form to another.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The tree shows relationships and common ancestry. Not magical change of organisms from one form to another.

What is that relationship but the common ancestry is a work of fiction, just because you draw a tree, doesn’t mean it’s so, especially because that tree is blank with missing information. That’s the big problem.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is that relationship but the common ancestry is a work of fiction, just because you draw a tree, doesn’t mean it’s so, especially because that tree is blank with missing information. That’s the big problem.

You found one example of a tree and not all tree diagrams. That it may have blanks on the branches is irrelevant and says nothing about the validity of the idea or use of them.

Common ancestry a theory supported by a rather hefty volume of evidence in a number of different disciplines. It is a scientific explanation rendered logically on that evidence and not a fiction that has no factual basis.