Why didn't the pre-Columbian Americans evolve?

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you paid attention, you would know how unlikely it is for that scenario to play out once, let alone enough times to populate the Earth with millions of different species.

Mutations are unlikely?

 

[Hollie]

As promised:

View attachment 606573

Home

Discover more about DNA, genes and genomes

www.yourgenome.org

I will say, that in searching for a link to the definition that I mean, it turns out that many proponents of evolution are hedging their bets on speciation. It may be that they lost enough arguments with ID proponents that they finally got tired of being sandbagged by their own words.

So, I will make an effort to say "Darwinian evolution," instead of just "evolution," when talking about the idea that species came about via natural selection. Darwinian evolution is about speciation, period, full stop.

'' Darwinian evolution is about speciation, period, full stop''

I would suggest you continue to use the ID'iot creationer standard of ''Darwinism''. It confirms your reliance on ID'iot creationer slogans for prattling on about what you don't understand.


How does anyone lose an argument with an ID'iot creationer groupie when creationers have no positive argument for creationer design? ID'iot creationers can't identify their supernatural designers, (other than attempt to sidestep their Christian fundamentalism), and they can't identify even one, single example of supernaturalism.


Rocks of Ages are subject to plate tectonics, Mr. Fundie man.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The people of America before European exploration were descendants of a large group of people who were isolated for ten to twenty thousand years. Those descendants spread over a large land mass, and founded civilizations including cities with up to five million in habitants. All without trade or any form of communication with people outside of the Americas. There were a wide variety of climate conditions over the large area and across the thousands of years. A perfect opportunity for Darwinian evolution to take place.

Yet, when Europeans landed in the Americas, they immediately began to copulate with natives and they produced large numbers of healthy and fertile offspring. In other words, in all those thousands of years, no human evolution had taken place. The Americans had their own languages, cultures, and superficial appearances, but their they were.

Still human. "After their kind," indeed.

Garbage premise is garbage.

You confuse the lack of speciation with the lack of evolution.

Consider that black people of African descent look more different from white people of European descent than the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the Americas did, and yet all of these groups are of the same species (and even the same subspecies), and all are thus able to freely interbreed.

This does not indicate that any of these groups did not evolve differently than any other; just that none of them evolved so far away as to become a different species.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Darwinian evolution is about new species evolving via natural selection.

His book is about natural selection and the title is "On the Origin Species." It amazes me that people still think that evolution has nothing to do with new species.

Not even entirely about new species evolving from older species.

Evolution and natural selection occurs within a species as well, without necessarily creating a new species.

Consider the relatively recent evolutionary history of the Peppered Moth…

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Humans have races, aka subspecies.

A misconception that I had was that race and subspecies were equivalent.

As it happens, race is a taxon below subspecies.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Enough small changes over a long enough time should result in new species. Do you disagree?

I disagree.

Small changes over time generally won't create a new species; they will only create variations within a species. The survivable of an isolated group depends on members of that group continuing to be able to breed with one another, which means that have to remain the same species.

Speciation involves mutation, and the rare event of more than one member of a former species having the same mutation at the same time, allowing the new species to breed.

I do not now recall or sure whether it was my late father, who had a Master's Degree in botany, or the instructor of a couple of botany classes that I took in college, who gave me an explanation of how the rutabaga came to be; starting as a sterile hybrid between two related species, having its process of genetic duplication altered by a sudden cold snap in a way that caused several instances in the same field to become fertile and interbreed with one another, creating a new species.

I thought I'd heard a similar story about triticale, but looking it up now, I see that triticale still exists only as a partially-fertile or infertile hybrid, and is the subject of efforts, so far unsuccessful, to artificially cause it to speciate into a new, fully-fertile species.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Mutations are unlikely?

The whole scheme is unlikely.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I disagree.

Small changes over time generally won't create a new species; they will only create variations within a species. The survivable of an isolated group depends on members of that group continuing to be able to breed with one another, which means that have to remain the same species.

Speciation involves mutation, and the rare event of more than one member of a former species having the same mutation at the same time, allowing the new species to breed.

Exactly.

I do not now recall or sure whether it was my late father, who had a Master's Degree in botany, or the instructor of a couple of botany classes that I took in college, who gave me an explanation of how the rutabaga came to be; starting as a sterile hybrid between two related species, having its process of genetic duplication altered by a sudden cold snap in a way that caused several instances in the same field to become fertile and interbreed with one another, creating a new species.

A good example of design.

I thought I'd heard a similar story about triticale, but looking it up now, I see that triticale still exists only as a partially-fertile or infertile hybrid, and is the subject of efforts, so far unsuccessful, to artificially cause it to speciate into a new, fully-fertile species.

Humans may one day be able to do that. Intelligent design like that can often produce seeming miracles that the superstitious attribute to random events.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Not even entirely about new species evolving from older species.

Evolution and natural selection occurs within a species as well, without necessarily creating a new species.

Consider the relatively recent evolutionary history of the Peppered Moth…

Peppered moth evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Even the most dogmatic bible thumping creationist agrees that evolution within species happens. But "a tall man marries a short woman and they have a medium sized kid" isn"t the kind of "evolution" the debate is about.

I suppose you could say that when a light skinned person moves to a sunny climate and gets a tan thats evolution. That's true but pointless.

Darwinism is about speciation. It's in the title of his book. At least creationists read their book, wrong though it is. The Darwinists on here havent read the first three words of Darwin's book title.

 

[Hollie]

Even the most dogmatic bible thumping creationist agrees that evolution within species happens. But "a tall man marries a short woman and they have a medium sized kid" isn"t the kind of "evolution" the debate is about.

I suppose you could say that when a light skinned person moves to a sunny climate and gets a tan thats evolution. That's true but pointless.

Darwinism is about speciation. It's in the title of his book. At least creationists read their book, wrong though it is. The Darwinists on here havent read the first three words of Darwin's book title.

"Darwinism is about speciation."

Actually, no. What the ID'iot creationers don't understand is that science has affirmed the principles of changes in populations over time. That is biological evolution.

The planet is not flat, species evolve and sacrificing farm animals earns no favors with your gods. Those are realities that the ID'iot creationers need to resolve.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Even the most dogmatic bible thumping creationist agrees that evolution within species happens. But "a tall man marries a short woman and they have a medium sized kid" isn"t [sic] the kind of "evolution" the debate is about.

I suppose you could say that when a light skinned person moves to a sunny climate and gets a tan thats [sic] evolution. That's true but pointless.

Darwinism is about speciation. It's in the title of his book. At least creationists read their book, wrong though it is. The Darwinists on here havent [sic] read the first three words of Darwin's book title.

Do you understand that strawman arguments are not the same species as valid arguments? The two cannot interbreed, and one cannot evolve into the other.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Small changes over time generally won't create a new species; they will only create variations within a species. The survivable of an isolated group depends on members of that group continuing to be able to breed with one another, which means that have to remain the same species.

Small changes over time generally won't create a new species; they will only create variations within a species. The survivable of an isolated group depends on members of that group continuing to be able to breed with one another, which means that have to remain the same species.

Yes, the changes have to be small enough that the mutation can still breed with other members of its herd.

Speciation involves mutation, and the rare event of more than one member of a former species having the same mutation at the same time, allowing the new species to breed.

Doesn't have to happen simultaneously. If the mutation is favorable and helps the offspring survive and reproduce better, it can eventually spread through the entire herd.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The whole scheme is unlikely.

Mutation and natural selection are unlikely?

Is that your strong feeling?

 

[Meathead]

The people of America before European exploration were descendants of a large group of people who were isolated for ten to twenty thousand years. Those descendants spread over a large land mass, and founded civilizations including cities with up to five million in habitants. All without trade or any form of communication with people outside of the Americas. There were a wide variety of climate conditions over the large area and across the thousands of years. A perfect opportunity for Darwinian evolution to take place.

Yet, when Europeans landed in the Americas, they immediately began to copulate with natives and they produced large numbers of healthy and fertile offspring. In other words, in all those thousands of years, no human evolution had taken place. The Americans had their own languages, cultures, and superficial appearances, but their they were.

Still human. "After their kind," indeed.

It would have been fascinating to watch how their civilization evolved. The Aztecs would likely have carried their empire to the north and south, eventually coming into direct conflict with the less warlike but advanced Inca. That would have been through coastal seamanship as Panama was essentially impassable/ Inevitably, there would have been conflict and other spheres of influence would have evolved.

The north, what is today Northern Mexico and the US would have been a barren wasteland but the coastal navigation would have brought Aztec domination of the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean islands.

The Inca showed little interest in the Amazon basin but would have spread north along the foothills of the Andes all the way to Colombia.

It was once said that the Inca were the Romans, the Aztecs the Spartans and the Maya the Athenians.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Do you understand that strawman arguments are not the same species as valid arguments? The two cannot interbreed, and one cannot evolve into the other.

View attachment 606721

Hyuck, hyuck!

I hate to break it to you, but the London Peppered Moth story was a hoax. That Darwinists still cite it as evidence for anything shows that they grasp at straws.

You'll seem more intelligent if you avoid that mistake in the future.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Mutation and natural selection are unlikely?

Is that your strong feeling?

Mutation and natural selection leading to a new species is unlikely, which is why it has not been observed.

Or do you feel that you can name some examples of origin of species by natural selection that have been observed?

 

[Hollie]

Mutation and natural selection leading to a new species is unlikely, which is why it has not been observed.

Or do you feel that you can name some examples of origin of species by natural selection that have been observed?

Actually, speciation has been observed. I understand your madrasah is not real rigorous with science matters but, get it together.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mutation and natural selection leading to a new species is unlikely, which is why it has not been observed.

We've only been observing for a few hundred years.

 

[Seymour Flops]

We've only been observing for a few hundred years.

And seen no speciation by natural selectio, right?

So it's all just guesswork.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And seen no speciation by natural selectio, right?

So it's all just guesswork.

We haven't seen any new species due to natural selection in the last few hundred years, AFAIK.