Real Science…Not Darwin

[Hollie]

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.

".... no distinction recognized within science between micro- and macroevolution, ...."

And so ends any possibility that you might know anything more than zero.


Here's your last chance to show you are educable:


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!

The mechanisms behind evolution within a species and evolution among multiple species are exactly the same so no difference is recognized.

I also find how you "debate" interesting. Don't acknowledge anything but the one thing you think you can find fault with. Condescend the other person and use logical fallacies. Good thing you are "a person of integrity"

Where's your proof?
There isn't any.
Many, many real scientists have stated so.

In order to demonstrate speciation, fruit flies have been bred for the last 70 years or so. These have constantly been exposed to mutations, yet no evolutionary change has been experienced, and no form of speciation encountered. Fruit flies have remained fruit flies.
Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48; Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70; Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny, New York: Viking Press, 1983, p. 134


In the same way, experiments and studies on the bacterium Escherichia coli down the years have revealed no new bacteria, much less multicellular organisms. E. coli have remained E. coli.
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, p. 87; L.P. Lester, R.G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, second edition, Dallas: Probe Books, 1989, p. 88



I don't debate. I simple provide truth with the diligence of a UN translator.

But you must be soooooo embarrassed that you're still parroting the same propaganda you were taught in grade school and you never caught on.

No proof? Just because you ignore proof doesn't mean it's not provided. But hey I'll give it again

No one has produced, or seen, new species evolved.

To which I replied. A New Bird Species Has Evolved on Galapagos And Scientists Watched It Happen

1. That is a fake, something Darwinists do all the time, and it works on folks like you who are less than astute.

This..." Now, genomic sequencing and the analysis of physical characteristics have confirmed the new species of Darwin's finch, endemic to a small island called Daphne Major in the Galápagos. Its discoverers have nicknamed it Big Bird. "


.....is not how a species is defined.

This is:

Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.

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, Speciation, p. 25–39.


The dictionary agrees:
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

Darwinist lie to support their beliefs, and will try to use another definition that supports them.
They simply make up a new definition of species to back up their claim.



No new species has ever been observed.

Ah so when you mean proof, you mean proof you are willing to accept? That's pretty convenient. I gave you an example that's the textbook definition of the biological definition of speciation. You claim it's a fake? No problem, prove it instead of just stating it.

I mean proof the science community accepts, based on the meaning of species.

I always provide sources you can check, and time and again, real scientists, not tinted red as Marxists, or admitted atheists who need to attack the creationists, admit that no one has ever documented speciation.

You should ask yourself why it is so important to Darwinists, that they will lie.

I gave you the article in Science showing that the science community accepts it. YOU not them refuses to accept it.

I provided dozens of well respected scientists in the field, from recognized universities, who refute any speciation.

They have no motive to lie.

Darwinists do.

You don't think that people of whom some aren't a scientist but literally try to find inconsistencies in the theory of evolution as a job and are paid by those who have the same agenda don't have a motive to lie? By the way, some of the sources you used are indeed well-respected scientists. Those are the ones who actually publish in science journals and of whom NONE have any doubt of the validity of the theory of evolution. In fact in order to do their job they need to understand and apply it.

Keith Thomson is a vertebrate paleontologist and anatomist who taught at Yale and Oxford; at the time this paper was published, he was president of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. Throughout his career, Thomson has been concerned with the explanatory adequacy of neo-Darwinism. “The basic article of faith of a gradualist [neo-Darwinian] approach,” he writes in this paper, is that major morphological innovations can be produced without some sort of saltation. But the dilemma of the New Synthesis [textbook theory] is that no one has satisfactorily demonstrated a mechanism at the population genetic level by which innumerable very small phenotypic changes could accumulate rapidly to produce large changes: a process for the origin of the magnificently improbable from the ineffably trivial.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Macroevolution: The Morphological Problem,” American Zoologist 32 (1992):106-112.

Yup this guy really looks like someone who thinks Darwin's theory is fundamentally flawed.

• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1988). Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-504912-8.[6][7]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1991). Living fossil: the story of the coelacanth. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-30868-5.[8]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1993). The common but less frequent loon and other essays. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-06654-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (1995). HMS Beagle: the story of Darwin's ship. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-03778-9.[9]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2002). Treasures on earth: museums, collections and paradoxes. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 0-571-21295-6.
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2005). Fossils: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-280504-1.[10]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2007). Before Darwin: Reconciling God and Nature. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12600-6.[11][12][13]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2008). The legacy of the Mastodon: the golden age of fossils in America. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11704-2.[14]
• Thomson, Keith Stewart (2009). The Young Charles Darwin. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-13608-1.[15]
• Thomson, Keith (2012). Jefferson's Shadow. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300187403.[16]

Just because you can find a quote from a scientist stating that some part of darwin's theory is not proven yet that you can throw it out. It's the epitome of intellectual dishonesty to quote mine someone who doesn't agree with you in the least. I'll let Thompson explain it to you.
View attachment 356542

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27851662?seq=1

BTW....I can provide dozens of anti-Darwin views by real scientists.

1. Yes. You can spam threads with repetitive cut and paste ''quotes''.
2. Real scientists perform experimentation and publish their work for peer review.
3. Identify the teaching universities or science journals that require a ''statement of faith''.

 

[Blues Man]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com

..back in 2014 and concluded (in your opinion):

Of course, the fact that classical evolutionary theory doesn't explain these sorts of things doesn't mean we should abandon the entire theory. There's a difference between a theory being wrong and being incomplete. In science, we cling to incomplete theories all the time. Especially when the alternative is complete ignorance.

That was then. Boy, just look at you now..

Real Science…Not Darwin

You aren't smart enough to realize that you are proof of the post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007

The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

 

[Blues Man]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

Continuing...

Recent genomic analyses indicate that an early polyploidization event may predate the radiation of flowering plants (Bowers et al., 2003), suggesting that 100% of angiosperms are paleopolyploid. Unfortunately, evidence for such ancient polyploidization events is almost always tentative because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported in insects and vertebrates (Table 1), with many more cases known among other invertebrate groups (Gregory and Mable, 2005).

That you imagine this reference helps your argument against Darwin is simply bizarre.

 

[Blues Man]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

 

[Hollie]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Outside of your creation ministries, we actually do know speciation has occurred and there are many relevant examples.

You might want to pas ps that on to you the charlatans at Harun Yahya.

Definition of speciation | Dictionary.com
Definition of speciation from Dictionary.com, the world’s leading online source for English definitions, pronunciations, word origins, idioms, Word of the Day, and more.

www.dictionary.com

[ 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.

1. Observed Instances of Speciation

2. Some More Observed Speciation Events

3. CB910: New species

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

Continuing...

Recent genomic analyses indicate that an early polyploidization event may predate the radiation of flowering plants (Bowers et al., 2003), suggesting that 100% of angiosperms are paleopolyploid. Unfortunately, evidence for such ancient polyploidization events is almost always tentative because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported in insects and vertebrates (Table 1), with many more cases known among other invertebrate groups (Gregory and Mable, 2005).

That you imagine this reference helps your argument against Darwin is simply bizarre.

It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....

"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Nancy Pearcey

 

[Grumblenuts]

It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....

This is not your thread?

 

[Hollie]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

How stereotypical. “Quote mining” Philip Johnson. You’re forced to “quote mine” creationist charlatans to press your agenda of fear and ignorance.

Encyclopedia of American Loons

It’s … The Encyclopedia of American loons! Our new and exciting series presenting a representative sample of American loons from A-Z.

americanloons.blogspot.com

Near-namesake of the (unfortunately) deceased but intellectually very much comparable Charles K. Johnson, Johnson is a retired Berkeley law professor and must perhaps be considered the very founder of the intelligent design movement (and founded, together with George Gilder, the Discovery Institute). The most important turnaround in Johnson’s career was when he became a born again Christian after divorce. He subsequently, and fully independently, realized that science didn't support the theory of evolution. What a coincidence.


His introduction of “intelligent design” came in his book ”Darwin on Trial”, which since Johnson presented evidence in the form of a mock trial (with legal standards of admissibility of evidence), rejected all scientific evidence in favor of anecdotal evidence – in addition to being (of course) utterly selective in what evidence to present. The point was, essentially, that since the evidence for theory of evolution didn’t provide absolute, logical, irrefutable proof, the theory has to be rejected (no one ever sees that kind of argument from misunderstanding of the role and standards of evidence pop up among climate change denialists, no?). The fact that intelligent design has failed utterly as a scientific theory does not seem to bother him.

Johnson’s vision of the mission of the Intelligent Design PR movement is not limited to evolutionary biology. Rather, the point is that all science lacks a proper theistic basis. Hence every field of science and indeed all public policy should be held hostage to theocratic organization. This is apparently why Johnson calls evolution the 'thin edge of the wedge' with which to 'split the log of materialism open'. This is a good resource on Johnson and his strategy. The idea is not to establish ID through science, but through public policy – hence the Discovery Institute’s focus, not on developing ID, but to get it into school curricula. See also this.

Thus Johnson is known for accepting not only creationism, but the whole full range of woo and crank ideas. He is, for instance, a HIV-denialist as well, having written several articles denying the link between HIV and AIDS.

Johnson has, however, remained relatively quiet the last 10 years after suffering a series of strokes, but he does make the occasional reappearance.

For fun, you can try scoring him on the crackpot index. Ed Brayton provides a brilliant guide here.

This is an interesting take on the whole creationist movement.
Diagnosis: Hyper-crackpot and one of the central founders of the denialist movement. His impact has been huge, but he seems to be semi-retired at present. Still dangerous, however.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....

This is not your thread?

Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

Darwins said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin]. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



Yet, here you are kicking and screaming because I provide tons of scientists arguing against Darwinism.

It's because you were taught it as a fact.

Clearly it isn't.

Ask yourself why it so important for adherents to demand the bending of the knee and the neck to the false god, Darwin.

 

[Blues Man]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

 

[Hollie]

The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

Continuing...

Recent genomic analyses indicate that an early polyploidization event may predate the radiation of flowering plants (Bowers et al., 2003), suggesting that 100% of angiosperms are paleopolyploid. Unfortunately, evidence for such ancient polyploidization events is almost always tentative because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported in insects and vertebrates (Table 1), with many more cases known among other invertebrate groups (Gregory and Mable, 2005).

That you imagine this reference helps your argument against Darwin is simply bizarre.

It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....

"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Nancy Pearcey

There is an abundant collection of transitional fossils. The Harun Yahya madrassah will have you believe otherwise, but religious extremism is not a valid excuse for your ignorance.

1. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

2. CC200: Transitional fossils

3. Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

 

[Grumblenuts]

"If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of transitional intermediate forms…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved."
Nancy Pearcey

Which makes perfect sense "because of the loss of sequence homology and synteny over evolutionary time. Although polyploidization is less prevalent in animals, nearly 200 independent examples of polyploidy have been reported" - also from one of your references. So you try to disclaim all credit while quoting conflicting messages willy nilly. Ages of mess = your posting history it seems.

 

[Hollie]

It isn't MY argument against the religion of Darwinism.....

This is not your thread?

Darwin posited evolution based on a gradual series of small changes, many of which would result in doom for the organism, but some which would make same better equipped to survive, and be passed on. But early on, contemporary paleontologists and geologists found contrary fossil evidence: the Cambrian explosion revealed "geologically abrupt appearance of a menagerie of animals as various as any found in the gaudiest science fiction.....During this explosion of fauna, representatives of about twenty of the roughly twenty-six total phyla present in the known fossil record made their first appearance on earth."
Meyers, "Darwin's Doubt," p. 31.

Darwins said simple to complex….what if the opposite is in the evidence? Picking up on the theme of sudden appearance, Roger Lewin wrote of a 'top-down approach:' “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit [ala Darwin]. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect[sudden appearance of fully formed new organims].”
Roger Lewin, “A Lopsided Look at Evolution,” Science 241 (July 15, 1988) p. 292



Yet, here you are kicking and screaming because I provide tons of scientists arguing against Darwinism.

It's because you were taught it as a fact.

Clearly it isn't.

Ask yourself why it so important for adherents to demand the bending of the knee and the neck to the false god, Darwin.

Roger Lewin is a “science writer”.

It’s gotten so bad that you’re forced to “quote mine” from science fiction authors.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I provide tons of scientists arguing against Darwinism.

It's because you were taught it as a fact.

Wrong. I was taught that questioning theory, even well established theory, is crucial to scientific methodology and progress. As Hollie has well exposed here, you simply don't understand what the real scientists have actually said and done, so defer to like minded charlatans making similar fart noises.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. To begin at the beginning, Darwin does not begin at the beginning. The origin of life is not part of his epic.
He begins with what had been known since mankind began raising food. Animal husbandry, farming domestication, raising livestock and selecting the best versions is simply logical. You can call it ‘natural selection’ if you wish. You try to breed the best ones of a type.

It's not accurate to give Darwin credit for the idea that had been in operation for millennia.

Democrat Michael Bloomberg “said … that farmers don't need as much brainpower for their jobs as do those working in the information economy, …Bloomberg said, "I could teach anybody, even people in this room, no offense intended, to be a farmer. It’s a process. You dig a hole, you put a seed in, you put dirt on top, add water, up comes the corn. You could learn that."
Mike Bloomberg Thinks Farmers Are Stupid

Maybe, maybe not, but breeders always knew that you can’t breed, say…horses with pigs. In science, we speak of the types as ‘species.’ And any change, alteration, modification within a species is not evolution.




7. Darwin always knew that his theory rises or falls based on explaining how the original species, assuming there was one original one, became different species. That’s why he named his thesis “On The Origin Of Species.”
His explanation has never....NEVER.....been proven.

Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote “for he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species into another was the most fundamental problem of evolution.”
Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought, p.403.



You cannot pass ‘go’ unless you understand the meaning of ‘species.’ I’ll reveal it next.

Actually changes within a species can lead to a new species

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

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.



For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. 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.

Glad you brought up this particular example.

There actually are some confirmed cases of observed speciation in plants— all of them due to an increase in the number of chromosomes, or “polyploidy.”

In the first decades of the twentieth century, Swedish scientist Arne Müntzing used two plant species to make a hybrid that underwent chromosome doubling to produce hempnettle, a member of the mint family that had already been found in nature. Polyploidy can also be physically or chemically induced with- out hybridization.

Arne Müntzing, “Cytogenetic Investigations on Synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit,” Hereditas 16 (1932), 10554. Justin Ramsey and Douglas W. Schemske, “Neopolyploidy in Flowering Plants,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 33 (2002), 589–639.



Observed cases of speciation by polyploidy, however, are limited to flowering plants. According to evolutionary biologist Douglas J. Futuyma, polyploidy “does not confer major new morphological characteristics . . . [and] does not cause the evolution of new genera” or higher levels in the biological hierarchy. Darwinism depends on the splitting of one species into two, which then diverge and split and diverge and split, over and over again. Only this could produce the branching-tree pattern required by Darwinian evolution, in which all species are modified descendants of a common ancestor.
Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolution (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2005), 398.



By doubling the number of gene copies, tetraploids undergo twice as many mutations as diploids. ... One benefit of a higher ploidy level is that it increases the number of gene copies that can harbor a new beneficial mutation.Nov 2, 2007
The Evolutionary Consequences of Polyploidy - ScienceDirect

And even though we have seen speciation in plants our observational records simple are not extensive enough to state conclusively that there will not be further divergence or that speciation only takes place in flowering plants.

Did you not understand the condition?

Your post is comparing apples to oranges.....botanical reference intended.



. Jeffrey Hugh Schwartz, PhD, (born March 6, 1948) is anAmericanphysical anthropologist[1]andprofessorof biologicalanthropologyat theUniversity of PittsburghinPittsburgh,Pennsylvania, and a fellow and President of theWorld Academy of Art and Science(WAAS) from 2008-2012. Schwartz' research involves the methods, theories, and philosophies in evolutionary biology, including the origins and diversification ofprimates. Jeffrey H. Schwartz - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
a. ... It was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
Jeffrey H. Schwartz, "Sudden Origins: Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species," New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000, p. 300

Yes I understand you want to limit the discussion as much as possible so you do not have to entertain any other view but your own

The fossil record is far from complete, we have no direct observations recorded for most of human history. Our knowledge is far from complete so anyone who says they have the answer to it all is delusional.

" Because the claims of Darwinism are presented to the public as "science"most people are under the impression that they are supported by direct evidence such as experiments and fossil record studies This impression is seriously misleading[: it is false.]
Scientists cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection in a laboratory or elsewhere."
Johnson P.E. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism," Foundation for Thought and Ethics: Richardson, Texas, 1990, pp1-17
Let that sink in.....then re-consider your belief in Darwin's thesis.

We can say that evolution is a fact as with the speciation of plants mentioned earlier.

That we have no direct evidence of speciation in animals is not proof that it cannot or does not happen.

As I said the fossil record is woefully incomplete since it turns out fossilization of organic matter while an understandable process requires very specific conditions and therefore only a very minute portion of life will ever be represented in the fossil record.

We can deduce certain processes and pose those as theory. It certainly follows a logical chain of thinking that if we can see evidence of evolution in one life form that other life forms can be shaped by the same process

We have evidence for the very opposite of Darwinism, in fauna.


The premise that Darwinian evolution is false is nowhere better revealed than in the Cambrian explosion. Consider the evaluation of Roger Lewin, former staff member of New Scientist in London for nine years. He, then, went to Washington, D.C. to write for Science for ten years. In "A Lopsided Look At Evolution," Lewin wrote "Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are bottom-up and top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect." A Lopsided Look at Evolution | Science

a. To give perspective, the Cambrian Explosion, in less than a 2 minute period out of a 24 hour day, in geological terms, with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.

" A few of the gaps (which are systematic in the fossil record) they claim to fill, but there’s another deposit in the region that throws the whole evolutionary story into disrepute: the Chengyiang bed in southern China. Here, the Cambrian Explosion has been documented in fine detail; all the major animal phyla appear in the early Cambrian without precursors." Chinese Fossil Beds Astound Paleontologists (http://www.nature.com/index.html?file=/nature/journal/v421/n6925/full/nature01420_fs.html)



Now.....why did you come from school misled into believing Darwinism is proven, factual?