It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can someone show me evidence of speciation, from one kind to another

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Hi all
Can someone show me evidence of speciation, from one kind to another
Just want a little evidence of speciation, changing of kind.
No I dont mean a weed turning into a weed or a bacteria turning into a bacteria, a dog turning into a dog
No assumption, guesses or theory, hard evidence

Can we see any evidence anywhere of one species evolving into another.
Now i know that I will get a lot of it takes millions and millions of years, thats not evidence.

I want scientific evidence not assumption.

See I dont believe it and if its true then I would like to see the evidence that has won so many over

There must be evidence right?


Please dont just link a site, maybe its better you copy and paste some information and then reference where it came from

I wont waste time looking at every website linked in this thread, mostly they are baseless or lack evidence.
edit on b2015Sat, 14 Mar 2015 00:19:03 -050033120156am312015-03-14T00:19:03-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Looking for scientific evidence of speciation ?

Here you go.

Hope you have a good pair of reading glasses and a bottomless cup of coffee on hand...




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Pretty tough evidence parameters dude .



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: borntowatch

Pretty tough evidence parameters dude .


Its based on science not assumption and belief, its very simple and scientific.

Remember Repeatable
Observable
and Testable

Scientific way science must be carried out...,.


or should I just go on someones hunch?
edit on b2015Sat, 14 Mar 2015 00:22:49 -050033120156am312015-03-14T00:22:49-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: borntowatch

Looking for scientific evidence of speciation ?

Here you go.

Hope you have a good pair of reading glasses and a bottomless cup of coffee on hand...



Sorry cranial sponge, I want a discussion not a link to a vague substanceless website.

Please copy and paste your points and then link the site.

Its a discussion not a link fest

I do hope you are not offended and understand?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch




posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: borntowatch



thanks randy, thats the sort of stuff I would expect

It is as valid as anything else i have seen before but do you think its really worth the effort



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

Well it's observable


SnF
edit on Ram31415v24201500000017 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch




Sorry cranial sponge, I want a discussion not a link to a vague substanceless website.


That's not a "vague substanceless website" I linked you too. It's not a website at all.

It's a comprehensive list of approximately 276,000 actual published peer-review science papers from all over the world on the scientific evidences of speciation that you can read for yourself.

Either you want to read and understand the actual science behind it all or you don't.

You can't get any more 'sciencey' than actual science papers.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: borntowatch




Sorry cranial sponge, I want a discussion not a link to a vague substanceless website.


That's not a "vague substanceless website" I linked you too. It's not a website at all.

It's a comprehensive list of approximately 276,000 actual published peer-review science papers from all over the world on the scientific evidences of speciation that you can read for yourself.

Either you want to read and understand the actual science behind it all or you don't.

You can't get any more 'sciencey' than actual science papers.



As I said...Not interested in assumption, want evidence, discussion.

I cant question whats written in a science paper, cant discuss my issues with what I dont understand.

You may gobble it all down as infallible, I dont and cant. Question everything is my moto.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Goes into several instances of speciation and hybrid-speciation.

Observed Evolutionary Events

Scrub jays evolving/speciating?
This Jay Is Evolving in a Very, Very Weird Way

Some more scholarly fare:

Speciation in Heliconius Butterflies: Minimal Contact Followed by Millions of Generations of Hybridisation (PDF)

If you really want to debate speciation why not join the scholarly debate in any number of scientific journals?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Goes into several instances of speciation and hybrid-speciation.

Observed Evolutionary Events

Scrub jays evolving/speciating?
This Jay Is Evolving in a Very, Very Weird Way

Some more scholarly fare:

Speciation in Heliconius Butterflies: Minimal Contact Followed by Millions of Generations of Hybridisation (PDF)

If you really want to debate speciation why not join the scholarly debate in any number of scientific journals?


I didnt want to debate it, I wanted to discuss it.
I dont believe it so the onus is on those who have the evidence to prove it, to prove it.

You have 4 articles that I am not interested in reading as I stated earlier.
Find the important points, copy paste link.

Is that to difficult?



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:34 AM
link   
No one can give you any hard evidence because there is none.

For example, the whole of Darwin's survival of the fittest was based on his observations of finches that had gradual changes. They called each of these gradual changes a new species and proof of evolution.

Yet, even today they are still only finches, and they inter-mate with each other. So you have to question the honesty of their scientific terminology of calling them new species.

Varieties within kinds do to a plethora of parameters have been sequenced into the DNA molecule. It is amazingly designed meticulously to allow for a variety within a species. But no species has ever broken the barrier put on it by the designer of the DNA. There is no missing link. There are 0 examples of one species turning into another one.

And like you said, some claim that it takes millions of years. But they are really quite mis-informed. For just one single protein in the human body to fold upon itself by accident correctly would take a billion billion billion years, much much much longer than the lifespan of our universe. You have to factor in the fact that there are over 50,000 proteins in a human, and they need to have arisen along with the DNA (the digital codebook) as well as RNA (proteins use this to replicate the codebook).

Those who say only millions or billions of years are needed for human life to have arrived by chance are sadly very deluded, as they have no grasp upon the time-span really needed. Mathematicians have shown it to be an impossibility.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Your links are not what he is after. You show a bird changing, but still a bird.

He is after evidence of a bird becoming .. not a bird.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: borntowatch

My, you are a lazy lazy debater. "I don't want to read your links."

Discussing is debating. And I owe you nothing, if you want to keep your head buried in the sand that is entirely your prerogative. Don't expect anyone to bend over backwards to educate you.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Goes into several instances of speciation and hybrid-speciation.

Observed Evolutionary Events

Scrub jays evolving/speciating?
This Jay Is Evolving in a Very, Very Weird Way

Some more scholarly fare:

Speciation in Heliconius Butterflies: Minimal Contact Followed by Millions of Generations of Hybridisation (PDF)

If you really want to debate speciation why not join the scholarly debate in any number of scientific journals?


and just out of interest Mr Black I opened one link and guess what, it was assumption and guess

Let me quote

Abstract
Documenting the full extent of gene flow during speciation poses a challenge, as
species ranges change over time and current rates of hybridisation might not reflect
historical trends
. Theoretical work has emphasized the potential for speciation in the
face of ongoing hybridisation, and the genetic mechanisms that might facilitate this
process. However, elucidating how the rate of gene flow between species may have
changed over time has proved difficult
. Here we use Approximate Bayesian
Computation
(ABC) to fit a model of speciation between the Neotropical butterflies
Heliconius melpomene and Heliconius cydno. These species are ecologically divergent,
rarely hybridize and display female hybrid sterility
. Nevertheless, previous genomic
studies suggests
pervasive gene flow between them, extending deep into their past, and
potentially throughout the speciation process. By modelling the rates of gene flow
during early and later stages of speciation, we find that these species have been
hybridising for hundreds of thousands of years, but have not done so continuously since
their initial divergence. Instead, it appears that gene flow was rare or absent for as long
as a million years in the early stages of speciation.


I( could bold more assumption, guess and computations but whats the point. Your link was a waste of time



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: borntowatch

My, you are a lazy lazy debater. "I don't want to read your links."

Discussing is debating. And I owe you nothing, if you want to keep your head buried in the sand that is entirely your prerogative. Don't expect anyone to bend over backwards to educate you.


As I said I wasnt debating, just questioning, I only asked that you copy and pasted information and then linked it.

i am not going to read a million useless links like the one you listed and I quoted where clearly its assumption, assumption I clearly asked not to be shown.

Feel free not to waste my time and yours, I would respect that.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
I didnt want to debate it, I wanted to discuss it.
I dont believe it so the onus is on those who have the evidence to prove it, to prove it.

You have 4 articles that I am not interested in reading as I stated earlier.
Find the important points, copy paste link.

Is that to difficult?


To be convinced, you have to understand it, but you've made it blatantly clear that you have no desire to do any of your own research. Is that too difficult? The onus is on you if you want an answer.



posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Does this work?





posted on Mar, 14 2015 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: borntowatch

Well it's observable


SnF


It is indeed observable and as valid as anything I have seen so far.

Just a little to bright for me I think



new topics




 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join