According to science, how does a new species develop?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.

Of course we can . Where do you get this nonsense?

PS- nobody is going to watch thiose idiotic videos.

 

[james bond]

[
The argument against your goatsbeard cited polyploidy and not a new species. It was made by Rich Deem, an old earth creationist. .

Intentional Deception by Evolutionists

LOL I love your citations!

Evolutionists often "forget" to tell the reader that the new "species" are unable to produce viable offspring with the parental species simply because of a chromosomal duplication event.

That was your 'citations' gotcha

Except....it isn't true

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.

and again:

Because of the difference in chromosome number, the tetrapoid couldn't mate with either of its parent species, but it wasn't prevented from reproducing with fellow accidents.

Atheists are usually wrong. Here you are wrong twice -- goatsbeard and tetrapods. What Deem said wasn't a chromosomal duplication event. He stated polyploidy which you do not understand.

"Polyploidy is common among plants and has been, in fact, a major source of speciation in the angiosperms. Particularly important is allopolyploidy, which involves the doubling of chromosomes in a hybrid plant. Normally a hybrid is sterile because it does not have the required homologous pairs of chromosomes for successful gamete formation during meiosis. If through polyploidy, however, the plant duplicates the chromosome set inherited from each parent, meiosis can occur, because each chromosome will have a homologue derived from its duplicate set. Thus, polyploidy confers fertility on the formerly sterile hybrid, which thereby attains the status of a full species distinct from either of its parents. It has been estimated that up to half of the known angiosperm species arose through polyploidy, including some of the species most prized by man. Plant breeders utilize this process, treating desirable hybrids with chemicals, such as colchicine, that are known to induce polyploidy.

Polyploid animals are far less common, and the process appears to have had little effect on animal speciation."

Polyploidy | genetics

 

[james bond]

You know@Syriusly, the link you posted favors my argument that Darwinian evolution is wrong than favors Darwinism.



Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.

Of course we can . Where do you get this nonsense?

PS- nobody is going to watch thiose idiotic videos.

Oh sh*t. I'm not talking to you about science. You're too dumb AF to understand.

 

[james bond]

You know Syriusly. That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.

"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."

Species diverge every day instead of millions of years.

We already discussed goatsbeard and it is common speciation in plants due to polyploidy.

"But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species."

The article discusses rapid natural selection or rapid microevolution.

"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."

I would think this is rapid evolution due to human influence.

"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."

This discusses what I have been pointing out in epigenetic inheritance.

So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments. ROTFL.

 

[sealybobo]

You know Syriusly. That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.

"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."

Species diverge every day instead of millions of years.

We already discussed goatsbeard and it is common speciation in plants due to polyploidy.

"But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species."

The article discusses rapid natural selection or rapid microevolution.

"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."

I would think this is rapid evolution due to human influence.

"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."

This discusses what I have been pointing out in epigenetic inheritance.

So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments. ROTFL.

How? Where?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You know@Syriusly, the link you posted favors my argument that Darwinian evolution is wrong than favors Darwinism.

You won't talk to me because I embarrass you . You know less than nothing about evolution.



Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution.

Of course we can . Where do you get this nonsense?

PS- nobody is going to watch thiose idiotic videos.

Oh sh*t. I'm not talking to you about science. You're too dumb AF to understand.

 

[sealybobo]

You know Syriusly. That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.

"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."

Species diverge every day instead of millions of years.

We already discussed goatsbeard and it is common speciation in plants due to polyploidy.

"But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species."

The article discusses rapid natural selection or rapid microevolution.

"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."

I would think this is rapid evolution due to human influence.

"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."

This discusses what I have been pointing out in epigenetic inheritance.

So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments. ROTFL.

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

 

[Syriusly]

I love to see Kenneth Miller, who argued against creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, with egg on his face. Epic fail. What is the most powerful evidence of evolution?

Youtube- the favorite go to place for charlatans.

That's a non-sequitur. You make no sense at all.

You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution. It doesn't happen but we do see rapid evolution.]

Just pointing out that the hucksters love them their Youtube video's 'proving' crap.

 

[james bond]

You know Syriusly. That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.

"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."

Species diverge every day instead of millions of years.

We already discussed goatsbeard and it is common speciation in plants due to polyploidy.

"But plants aren't the only ones speciating through hybridization: Heliconius butterflies, too, have split in a similar way.

It doesn't take a mass of mutations accumulating over generations to create a different species - all it takes is some event that reproductively isolates one group of individuals from another. This can happen very rapidly, in cases like these of polyploidy. A single mutation can be enough. Or it can happen at a much, much slower pace. This is the speciation that evolution is known for - the gradual changes over time that separate species."

The article discusses rapid natural selection or rapid microevolution.

"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."

I would think this is rapid evolution due to human influence.

"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."

This discusses what I have been pointing out in epigenetic inheritance.

So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments. ROTFL.

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

woot!

 

[james bond]

I love to see Kenneth Miller, who argued against creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, with egg on his face. Epic fail. What is the most powerful evidence of evolution?

Youtube- the favorite go to place for charlatans.

That's a non-sequitur. You make no sense at all.

You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution. It doesn't happen but we do see rapid evolution.]

Just pointing out that the hucksters love them their Youtube video's 'proving' crap.

It just goes to show that you have no response to the anti-darwinian arguments. You are done.

 

[Syriusly]

You know Syriusly. That link you posted favors my argument against Darwinian evolution.


So, you provided a link that supports anti-Darwinian evolution arguments.

I am not sure why you are arguing against 'Darwinian evolution'.

When I am talking about the science of evolution.

 

[Syriusly]

I love to see Kenneth Miller, who argued against creationism in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, with egg on his face. Epic fail. What is the most powerful evidence of evolution?

Youtube- the favorite go to place for charlatans.

That's a non-sequitur. You make no sense at all.

You don't have video because we can't see Darwinian evolution. It doesn't happen but we do see rapid evolution.]

Just pointing out that the hucksters love them their Youtube video's 'proving' crap.

It just goes to show that you have no response to the anti-darwinian arguments. You are done.

Let me know when you have an actual argument.

 

[james bond]

I am not sure why you are arguing against 'Darwinian evolution'.

When I am talking about the science of evolution.

Here's the science of evolution from Syriusly. I guess you mean the ToE from your hero worship boy Darwin. We can't see it happen because it's so slow but it's there. From magic.

.

Let me know when you have an actual argument.

You are done and were done years ago. I provided the evidence and stuck a giant fork in you. So butthurt.

Even the media agreed with me around 2010, 2011 time period.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

 

[james bond]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

 

[james bond]

And you Rock are just a little bit smarter than some. Not nearly as smart as others.
The reason Neanderthal DNA has been found in a few of us "Modern Man" is not because of genetics, but because Modern Man lived at the same time as Neanderthals. And in rare cases may have bred with them. There was no evolution from them to us.

Evolutionists tried to shove this garbage down our throats for decades. And it has been shot to hell, Especially since we have discovered that pretend, part human Lucy was not the beginning of our journey. They have now found two skeletons of Modern Man that are older than Lucy. They were here before the whole Africa migration theory.
\There is no missing link. You aren't as smart as you think.

You still think Neanderthal man is part of our genetic evolution to Modern man. Science does not agree with you, and hasn't since the 70's. They have kicked him out of our evolutionary chain. You need to too.

I just found something interesting on my evolution.berkeley.edu website. Lucy or australopithecus afarensis has been deleted from human evolution. They are using ardipithecus now.

Syriusly was made a monkey of again .

The emergence of humans

 

[sealybobo]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?

 

[sealybobo]

I am not sure why you are arguing against 'Darwinian evolution'.

When I am talking about the science of evolution.

Here's the science of evolution from Syriusly. I guess you mean the ToE from your hero worship boy Darwin. We can't see it happen because it's so slow but it's there. From magic.

.

Let me know when you have an actual argument.

You are done and were done years ago. I provided the evidence and stuck a giant fork in you. So butthurt.

Even the media agreed with me around 2010, 2011 time period.

Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

Didn’t I tell you our dinosaur ancestor lived 3 million years ago and it turned warm blooded 2.6 million years ago? So it took 400,000 years to change slowly. No pelycosaur gave birth to a cynodont overnight

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It just goes to show that you have no response to the anti-darwinian arguments

Haha...are you feckin serious right now? Well go ahead, big guy...publish your "anti evolution" science. Encourage the deniers you are regurgitating to do the same.

Why aren't you? Why aren't they? Why isn't ANYONE?

I can think of an easy answer: you are all wrong and delusional and have not a shred of evidence, empirical or otherwise, to support your hilarious nonsense. Oh....and all of the evidence stands against you and is mutually supportive and supportive of evolution.

Carry on, cackler....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs

No dummy...birds ARE dinosaurs. And the "evos" -- i.e., every respected biologist on the planet -- are saying this, not the garbage you just made up.

 

[james bond]

This will blow your mind. We are descendents of dinosaurs. The first mammal like dinosaurs were 300 million years ago. Pelycosaurs. Then 260 million years ago they became warm blooded cynodonts. Those are our ancestors

You know what bugs me about this? The evos, i.e. Darwin's fanboys, keep saying that birds came from dinosaurs. They have changed their cladistics from reptiles to dinosaurs. No more mention of reptiles. Yet, Pelycosaurs and warm blooded cynodonts are reptiles. I think. What do you think?

We all came from dinosaurs. It’s hard to understand what you don’t get. Help us help you.

Ultimately where do you think humans came from. Fuck evolution. What’s your scientific theory?

So you think we came from dinosaurs?

I thought I was helping you. We still have the common ancestor theory.

What changed was the slow evolution of millions of years and chronological layers. The layers are where creatures died. That's it. No time associated with it. I would think we are going to have more examples of bushes of life vs ONE tree of life (still work in progress) which will alleviate the pressure to explain everything through ONE common ancestor. Here's the dinosarus "bush of life" which may or may not have led to birds. I don't think it did. Again, with a bush, you don't have to have everything being related to ONE common ancestor.

Here's an example of how atheist scientists split vertebrae development. What will change with "bush of life" is the cladistics of more developed creatures. Humans and animals would probably be different bushes for vertebrae.

Using the tree for classification