Real Science…Not Darwin

[PoliticalChic]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

 

[alang1216]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

 

[irosie91]

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry

 

[PoliticalChic]

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry

You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.

 

[Hollie]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

1. variation within a population” is what we call biological evolution. You’re at a disadvantage in the thread you opened because you lack a science vocabulary. It’s actually comical that you use a term describing biological evolution but you fail to recognize the examples you use.

2. Another term you don’t understand is speciation. That’s not surprising as the fundie ministries you use as the sources of your cutting and pasting have a predefined agenda that is announced by the “Statement of Faith” that is common to the various fundie ministries.

3. Observed Instances of Speciation

4. Some More Observed Speciation Events

5. CB910: New species

6. Tell us about what you home skoolurs dun' learn about religionism.

 

[irosie91]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry

You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.

no----it is due to my having read your posts.
Here's one----approx "... no speciation noted in recorded
history.... " Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo development
of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION. Darwin wrote his
stuff a bare 120 years ago. SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
However---mutations happen ALL DA time. Most mutations are silent,
some are fatal. and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous. To the present
time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation

 

[Hollie]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

Do you home skoolurs study anything beside the Jimmy Swaggert channel for your skool werk?

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

We saw that the littlest differences can lead to dramatic variations when we looked at the wide variety in dogs. But despite their differences, all breeds of dogs are still the same species as each other and their ancestor. How do species split? What causes speciation? And what evidence do we have that speciation has ever occurred?

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

 

[Grumblenuts]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

Do you home skoolurs study anything beside the Jimmy Swaggert channel for your skool werk?

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

We saw that the littlest differences can lead to dramatic variations when we looked at the wide variety in dogs. But despite their differences, all breeds of dogs are still the same species as each other and their ancestor. How do species split? What causes speciation? And what evidence do we have that speciation has ever occurred?

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.

Boom! Class over!

 

[Hollie]

After species, and speciation, the next important term for you government schoolies to learn is microevolution. Your lack of understanding of same is the reason you fall for the Darwinist’s spiel.





10. When a change suddenly occurs in a population….say blue hair, and let’s say that children inherit the change, Darwinists swoon! There is proof of evolution, they claim!!

No it isn’t. It’s known as microevolution…and has never led to the creation of a new species.



So one way of stating the importance of speciation is by distinguishing between “microevolution”—the uncontroversial changes within species that people observed long before Darwin—and “macroevolution”—the branching-tree pattern of evolution that is the essence of Darwinism. “ Futuyma, Evolution, p. 401.


“Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species.” Richard Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, p. 8, 396.



In 1996, biologists Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff wrote in the journal Developmental Biology: “Genetics might be adequate for explaining

microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest…. The origin of species—Darwin’s problem—remains unsolved.”







And in 2001, biologist Sean B. Carroll wrote in Nature: “A long-standing issue in evolutionary biology is whether the processes observable in extant populations and species (microevolution) are sufficient to account for the larger-scale changes evident over longer periods of life’s history (macroevolution).”





Great description of Darwin’s theory: survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest!

Fitness for survival, not the degenerative effects of hyper-religionism.

Extraordinarily rapid speciation in a marine fish

Divergent selection can lead to the evolution of distinct species, a process known as ecological speciation. Evidence for ecological speciation in the marine environment is scarce, and the few known examples have happened within a time frame of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. We...

www.pnas.org

Divergent selection can lead to the evolution of distinct species, a process known as ecological speciation. Evidence for ecological speciation in the marine environment is scarce, and the few known examples have happened within a time frame of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. We present evidence that European flounders in the Baltic Sea exhibiting different breeding behaviors are a species pair arising from a recent event of ecological speciation. The two lineages diverged within less than 3,000 generations. This is the fastest event of speciation ever reported for any marine vertebrate. Extraordinarily rapid speciation driven by natural selection can therefore happen even in the marine environment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry

You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.

no----it is due to my having read your posts.
Here's one----approx "... no speciation noted in recorded
history.... " Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo development
of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION. Darwin wrote his
stuff a bare 120 years ago. SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
However---mutations happen ALL DA time. Most mutations are silent,
some are fatal. and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous. To the present
time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation

"....descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct...."


You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.



Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......


As always, I include sources:



First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, , p. 25–39.


And certainly not phenotypic differences.


"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475



Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

 

[Hollie]

Here am sum home skoolur studdie stuff.



CASE HISTORIES OF SPECIATION I&II

https://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/23.Cases.HTML

 

[Hollie]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry

You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.

no----it is due to my having read your posts.
Here's one----approx "... no speciation noted in recorded
history.... " Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo development
of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION. Darwin wrote his
stuff a bare 120 years ago. SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
However---mutations happen ALL DA time. Most mutations are silent,
some are fatal. and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous. To the present
time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation

"....descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct...."


You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.



Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......


As always, I include sources:



First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, , p. 25–39.


And certainly not phenotypic differences.


"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475



Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

Even the folks at dictionary.com have taken night school courses beyond their Jerry Falwell day classes.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

speciation
[ spee-shee-ey-shuh n, -see-ey- ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR speciation ON THESAURUS.COM
noun Biology.
the formation of new species as a result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

 

[forkup]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

1. Trying to come up with quotes from other people that you consider wrong does not offer any evidence of you being right. They call something like that an appeal to ignorance.

2. Actually, since there is no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, not all the terms you use are relevant.

3. You are conflating and purposefully misrepresenting terms like facts, proof, and scientific theory. Facts are proofs used to support a theory. As to it being disproven. Darwin's theory gives the best explanation for the diversity of life. I've yet to see anything that gives a better one. As to nobody has ever seen a new species evolve. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen. Wrong.

4. Scientists don't believe evolution is true because of the "word" of other people. They believe it because scientists have published articled confirming different aspects of Darwin's theory and those articles have been peer-reviewed.

5. "Persons of integrity?" "foisted upon students?" This debate is only ever conducted in political and religious circles not exactly places where integrity is common when it comes to discussing scientific theories.

6. This brings me to my point. Where is your Nobel Prize? If you are capable of disproving a theory that is a cornerstone of our scientific understanding why are you wasting your time talking here? Why not test your assertions in the only venue it will matter... the scientific world? You want to change what is thaught, come up with a better theory.

 

[Hollie]

Oh, dear. Might I suggest that the ND administration abandon their science curriculum in favor of the Benny Hinn Skool for the Silly?

Evolutionary Biology // Department of Biological Sciences // University of Notre Dame

Advancing human and environmental health through teaching, research and outreach.

biology.nd.edu

Evolutionary Biology
Organisms are evolving and changing every day, creating, molding, and even deleting genetic diversity. Meanwhile, next-generation sequencing is reinventing evolutionary biology and our ability to track and probe evolutionary processes. Our researchers use cutting-edge tools to understand evolutionary processes within whole genomes that lead to differences in organismal function. We also use evolutionary differences to detect species in nature and predict their responses to environmental change. We study the evolution in many organisms, mostly in wild populations, including human diseases and their hosts.

 

[Dick Foster]

It appears that Darwinian evolution has become a hot topic….the supporters of same are becoming rabid: it must mean that the truth is getting to them. At the very least this thread will provide an understanding of the terms needed in the debate.



1.There is the saying that apples to so very many government school graduates: "There are those who don't know, and don't know that they don't know.” Lots of ‘em were exposed in several recent discussions of the weakness of Darwin’s Theory, where there were comments like this:

“Evolution is a fact.” Science Believers

And this…

“Evolution [Darwin’s Theory] is a fact and is the basis of all of biology. The theory of evolution is the most robust, well supported scientific theory in the history of mankind.” The Pretense Called Evolution


And this winner:

“Back long ago there was only species of human, now we have Whites, Blacks, Abos, Asians... that came from evolution.” The Most Famous Fakes In Science



2. Either these geniuses never learned any science….or they learned exactly what the Left’s schools wanted them to ‘learn.’ This thread will teach the meaning of terms without which there can be no discussion of Darwin: evolution, species, microevolution and macroevolution.




3. Evolution means inheritable change over time. It means new species. Most important for the discussion of evolution is that it is not synonymous with Darwin’s theory. That hypothesis is simply one of a score of ideas to explain the diversity of life. The word ‘fact’ means that it is proven, not in dispute. Darwin’s particular version of explanation is not only not proven, not a fact, but it has been disproven in terms of the fossil record, the value of mutations, the belief in a common ancestor for all present life, and observation of vertebrate embryos (Haeckel’s diagram). A study of primary articles testing all sorts of theories, leads to the conclusion that no theory to explain diversity has ever panned out as far as empirical proof. No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

Again: no current explanation answers the question….yet government school grads come away with the very opposite belief.


4. “Before going further we should note the obvious: if a poll were taken of all the scientists in the world, the great majority would say they believed Darwinism to be true. But scientists, like everybody else, base most of their opinions on the word of other people. Of the great majority who accept Darwinism, most (though not all) do so based on authority. Also, and unfortunately, too often criticisms have been dismissed by the scientific community for fear of giving ammunition to creationists. It is ironic that in the name of protecting science, trenchant scientific criticism of natural selection has been brushed aside.”
Michael Behe



5. The reason to take this debate seriously is that Darwin’s theory is foisted on students, and the easily led, as a proven fact by the establishment’s school system, by neo-Marxists in academia, by atheists, and lies are told in support of this theory.

This alone should make every person of integrity furious! And curious….’why would lies be necessary whether the theory is true or not?’

What makes advancing it so important?

Why not tell the truth? To whom or to what would the truth be......dangerous, or damaging????

Darwin's theory of evolution makes sense to me. Much more than anything else on the topic has. I'll go along with Darwin for the most part. Although as a kid in Sunday school I was once told I was going to hell for thinking so. I suppose that Sunday school teacher had never heard the passage judge not yet ye be judged.
Of course that very same Sunday school teacher had said that it was a shame they didn't give Hitler more time so he could have wiped out all the Jews.
There just aren't any hypocrites quite as hypocritical as Southern Babtists. Well I suppose it could be debatable as to who the biggest drooling idiots are.

 

[irosie91]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

no speciation noted in RECORDED HISTORY.................sheeeeesh

You always 'find out' in my threads: I provide the truth, and support same.

Well, see, you say that.

I PROVE it.

My posts are always linked, documented, and sourced.

sophistry linked, documented, and sourced to ...more sophistry

You're lying.....I'll assume it is due to ignornace.

no----it is due to my having read your posts.
Here's one----approx "... no speciation noted in recorded
history.... " Actual SPECIATION which involves the denovo development
of a cohort of organisms descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct from OTHER descendants of the common ancestor and unable
to breed with the OTHER descendants of the common ancestor but able
to breed with each other----<<< THAT IS SPECIATION. Darwin wrote his
stuff a bare 120 years ago. SPECIATION don't happen over 120 years.
However---mutations happen ALL DA time. Most mutations are silent,
some are fatal. and some do produce a unique change in phenotype
which is non-fatal and a very few, even advantageous. To the present
time that is not enough information to trace examples of speciation

"....descended from a single ancestor which is
measurably different from the ancestor so as to be phenotypically
distinct...."


You couldn't be more wrong if your intent was to be more wrong.



Let's see how your knowledge of speciation compares to experts in the field, such as Mayr, Orr, and Coyne......


As always, I include sources:



First and foremost is a definition of ‘species.’ In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr found that the most useful definition was that of Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr’s “Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

If they can interbreed with each other....they are not different species...e.g. the black and white Peppered Moths they lied to you in high school as proving Darwin.

Why this definition?
Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”
Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr, , p. 25–39.


And certainly not phenotypic differences.


"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475



Even the dictionary puts you in your place.....

Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

chic MY discussion of species is ENTIRELY consistent with that of your
"experts" and my discussion of the issue of speciation is also consistent.
Your problem is that you fail to understand VERY SIMPLE
words like "phenotype". It is very clear that biology is just not your
field. Did you pass plane geometry? At no time have you ever manage
to "disprove" evolution. Fret not----there are similar people who insist
that they have "disproved" Freud. They struggle in the same manner that
you struggle

 

[irosie91]

I 'appeal' to knowledge and education.

Just not your knowledge and education. Certainly explains why your understanding of the topic is so shallow and providing you with other knowledge and education is fruitless.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.


We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

You just lied again.

Seem to be your reputation.

We both know you can't refute anything I've posted.....but you can lie.

If I lied please provide an example. You rely on cutting and pasting so there is no evidence you possess any real knowledge. Did your education provide you scientific knowledge? I don't recall what your degee(s) is in.

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation… In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species. "
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, p. 475





If all species (after the first) are descended with modification from some other species, which is Darwin’s theory, then everything in Darwin’s theory depends on the origin of new species from existing species—what evolutionary biologists call “speciation.”

There is no interest in the what or the why of evolution at all, unless it includes speciation….one species becoming one or more other species.
Any changes, modifications, differences within a species is not evolution, in the way the term is meant, and is of no interest in this discussion.



Sooo…..why are you government school dolts so furious when asked for proof of Darwinism, your religious belief???

Do you home skoolurs study anything beside the Jimmy Swaggert channel for your skool werk?

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

We saw that the littlest differences can lead to dramatic variations when we looked at the wide variety in dogs. But despite their differences, all breeds of dogs are still the same species as each other and their ancestor. How do species split? What causes speciation? And what evidence do we have that speciation has ever occurred?

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.

well----we have witnessed------or we are TOLD (and I believe) that
there are mutations in those DAMN ADENOVIRUSES all the time.
For those who would rather PLAY WITH SEMANTICS---you wanna called
the cohorts of mutations "STRAINS" ???

 

[Hollie]

Technical Paper Alert

The following was posted back in 2013 and there doesn't appear to have been real success in gathering technical research.

There is a real need for that comprehensive ''General Theory of Supernatural Creation''. Just keep in mind the prerequisites as noted in bold, below.

Call for Papers - Creation Biology Society

www.creationbiology.org

JCTSB: The Journal of Creation Theology and Science Series B: Life Sciences is edited and published by the Creation Biology Society. The journal serves as the outlet of technical research, reviews, and opinions of relevance to young-age creationist biology. As a young-age creationist journal, all submissions must be favorable to or at least respectful of creationism.