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

originally posted by: borntowatch
Do you see how your standards of evidence are so poor that your opinion of evolution is pretty much worthless?

Do you think you could prove your 'theory' in a court of law?

Do you think the case for evolution would be found guilty or not guilty?

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: roth1

originally posted by: borntowatch

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?

You want an education or a debate? Educate yourself. That is how science works.

Science doesnt work by someone telling someone else what they have to believe, science works by discussion and questions and answers

You just don't have any answers only vague links to sites that tell people what they have to think

I have educated myself, there is no evidence to be seen only wild assumption over millions of years.

It is a place to start, inform yourself then have a discussion. Scientist read papers and studies of other for info as well as make their own studies. But starts with others info. Great men stand on the shoulders of giants. Educate yourself and ready yourself for the debate you want. It is such a broad subject. It will just be a debate. You implied you wanted info. That is how it works. SO many want shortcuts. That is why society is so dumb today. Your article was just bait so you can dispute claims admit it. Dispute it it what a fairy tale book?

evolution.berkeley.edu...



Case Study: Why So Many Beetles?

If you were to randomly pick an extant animal species, odds are that it would be a beetle. While there are 250,000 described species of plants, 12,000 described species of roundworms, and only 4,000 described species of mammals, there are over 350,000 beetle species described, with many more beetles yet to be discovered!

Percentages of Described Species

What accounts for all these beetles? Brian Farrell (1998) performed a phylogenetic study that helps to answer that question. He reconstructed the phylogeny of all the major groups of beetles and noted their feeding characteristics. This research allowed him to infer what the ancestral beetles were likely to have been eating and when each lineage switched to a new type of food. His evidence suggests that different beetle lineages switched to feeding on flowering plants (angiosperms) several times during their evolutionary history.


And the rest you may read, or not

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: borntowatch
Do you see how your standards of evidence are so poor that your opinion of evolution is pretty much worthless?

Do you think you could prove your 'theory' in a court of law?

Do you think the case for evolution would be found guilty or not guilty?

Do you think you could prove your 'theory' in a court of law?

Do you think the case for evolution would be found guilty or not guilty?

The OP is simply dishonest or ignorant......possibly both.
Asking for examples of speciation and then insisting that one species turning into another is not speciation is one of those 2 things, because that is what speciation is.

originally posted by: QueenofWeird
evolution.berkeley.edu...




Percentages of Described Species

What accounts for all these beetles? Brian Farrell (1998) performed a phylogenetic study that helps to answer that question. He reconstructed the phylogeny of all the major groups of beetles and noted their feeding characteristics. This research allowed him to infer what the ancestral beetles were likely to have been eating and when each lineage switched to a new type of food. His evidence suggests that different beetle lineages switched to feeding on flowering plants (angiosperms) several times during their evolutionary history.


And the rest you may read, or not

Thanks for the link, I wont read it
What puts me off reading the link is this statement

"This research allowed him to infer "
Now infer means assume/guess/have faith.
Thats kinda not what I am after, thats not real evidence

But I do appreciate the little grab line and then the link what I dont understand is what does it mean to you and why. Does that prove speciation to you?

originally posted by: roth1

It is a place to start, inform yourself then have a discussion. Scientist read papers and studies of other for info as well as make their own studies. But starts with others info. Great men stand on the shoulders of giants. Educate yourself and ready yourself for the debate you want. It is such a broad subject. It will just be a debate. You implied you wanted info. That is how it works. SO many want shortcuts. That is why society is so dumb today. Your article was just bait so you can dispute claims admit it. Dispute it it what a fairy tale book?

I dont think your comprehension skills are really coming to the fore in this thread.

I never asked for information, I asked for empirical evidence, some evidence that wasnt based on assumption and best guess, as the above Berkley link does.
I am not interested in an emotional argument about scientists and how they are such wonderful people deserving our utmost respect and love.

I asked for evidence, if you dont have any then just run along, please dont waste my time or other peoples time who also may be interested seeing evidence as well.

Please.

originally posted by: DarkATi

originally posted by: borntowatch

I am interested in seeing life changing from one species to another.

Are you wanting to see this happen before your very eyes? Since that amount of change usually takes a large amount of time, you probably wouldn't be able to see it happen in your lifetime. Forgive me if this is not what you are asking; I mean no offense.

Otherwise, take a look at the Snow Leopard. It is 'obviously' a cat, but it does not produce offspring with other members of the 'panthera' genus. (Whereas tigers [panthera tigris] can produce offspring with lions [panthera leo]. However, the male offspring are infertile.)

In fact, I think cats in general make for a good example of how life changes from one species to another. Take a look:

Its funny DarkATI
Why I dont want to define species is because there seems to be a very broad range of species.

I think (yes assume) that we have a species called felines and they all have a common ancestor, bit like canines.
Though the feline group maybe a little too broad to say all one species.

who knows

a reply to: borntowatch

You're not getting the very elementary-school level basics of evolution. What you are asking for isn't possible and doesn't even make sense. A scientific theory, such as Evolution or Gravity, are based on a set of facts. Scientist compile those facts together to come up with a theory to try and explain them.

There is no single "empirical" piece evidence of evolution, but there's a mountain of facts from all kinds of different scientific studies from all different areas (Geology, biology, genealogy, etcetera) that are used to put together the theory of evolution. Not one single one of these facts prove the entire theory, it's the entire body of evidence put together.

Gravity is also a theory. When you step off of a ledge, you will fall. Do you disagree? That is a fact. That fact, along with others, make up the theory of gravity. What exactly is gravity? No one really knows, hence the "theory" part of it. vWhat they do know is that it exists. Evolution works the same way.

Cellular theory is another example. Do you deny cells exist?

It is not on anyone else to prove evolution, it is on you to disprove it. Once you actually find your crocoduck, you will have the evidence you need to do so. Until there is sufficient evidence to negate the theory of evolution, it will remain the best way we have to describe the changes and diversity we see in all forms of life. Until there is sufficient evidence that shows some other force causing us to fall when we step off a ledge, the theory of gravity will remain the best way to describe it.

Until you are willing to understand this basic concept, you will get nowhere.

a reply to: AllIsOne

Powerful, indeed. As are the forces of gravity and aerodynamic lift, but there are other forces involved in flight. Thrust and drag are less obvious but equally important.

I see natural selection and random mutation as passive or automatic mechanisms behind evolutionary change. Without something 'steering' mutation, I cannot believe life could become so diverse and perfectly-adapted in only a few billion years. Even 100 billion years is a stretch.

Mutation rates as observed today are insufficient. On top of that consider that if every mutation is completely random, 99%+ of mutations will have a neutral or negative outcome. A random mutation is like rolling 30,000 dice and hoping for the best, when only a handful of possible outcomes result in a win (adaptation). Some of the outcomes can yield a neutral mutation, and the organism survives and procreates no better or worse than its parent generation. The vast majority of random mutations will be negative, and are not likely to be passed on due to natural selection.

I think if mutation rates were high enough to create the biodiversity we see today through purely random mutation, we would be able to observe macroevolution in complex organisms. Outside of eukaryotes, bacteria, and viruses, we don't even see minor mutations ocurring very often -- much less mutations significant enough to branch off into another species.

What might be 'steering' adaptive mutation? Maybe it comes down to some undiscovered law of molecular interaction or abiogenesis. Maybe mitochondria are super-intelligent symbionts. Maybe it's God. I prefer to admit uncertainty rather than feign omniscience.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: AllIsOne

I see natural selection and random mutation as passive or automatic mechanisms behind evolutionary change. Without something 'steering' mutation, I cannot believe life could become so diverse and perfectly-adapted in only a few billion years. Even 100 billion years is a stretch.

In the same way that something must be 'steering' the course of a river? After all, it always seems know the path of least resistance. How can that be?

Mutation rates as observed today are insufficient. On top of that consider that if every mutation is completely random, 99%+ of mutations will have a neutral or negative outcome. A random mutation is like rolling 30,000 dice and hoping for the best, when only a handful of possible outcomes result in a win (adaptation). Some of the outcomes can yield a neutral mutation, and the organism survives and procreates no better or worse than its parent generation. The vast majority of random mutations will be negative, and are not likely to be passed on due to natural selection.

I repeat my request for you to show the mathematical calculations you've used to come to this conclusion. Not figures plucked out of thin air but the actual scientific data you are sourcing them from and the formulas used to conclude that "Mutation rates as observed today are insufficient".

I think if mutation rates were high enough to create the biodiversity we see today through purely random mutation, we would be able to observe macroevolution in complex organisms. Outside of eukaryotes, bacteria, and viruses, we don't even see minor mutations ocurring very often -- much less mutations significant enough to branch off into another species.

See above.

a reply to: GetHyped

May need to elaborate on that river comparison. My impression is you think evolution is the result of...gravity?

You go ahead and put together your calculations which prove evolution is entirely resultant of random mutation. If the real answer hasn't been found by the time you're finished, I'll respond in kind.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
a reply to: GetHyped

May need to elaborate on that river comparison. My impression is you think evolution is the result of...gravity?

I'm saying it's a natural process.

You go ahead and put together your calculations which prove evolution is entirely resultant of random mutation. If the real answer hasn't been found by the time you're finished, I'll respond in kind.

There's a whole wealth of evidence that has been posted many times ad nauseum, as well as a wealth of information a simple google search away. However, this isn't about me, this is about your claim that you've stated twice already. Do you or do you not have scientific data and formulae to substantiate your claims? Or are you making it up?

originally posted by: borntowatch

Why I dont want to define species is because there seems to be a very broad range of species.

I think (yes assume) that we have a species called felines and they all have a common ancestor, bit like canines.

No - felines are a family - specifically they are the family felidae - within that family are gnus, and within each genus are species.

The family had 3 non-extinct and 2 extinct subfamilies, 14 genus and 41 species.

Though the feline group maybe a little too broad to say all one species.

who knows

Real scientists know, lots of other people who are not ignorant know.

People who blather on about speciation SHOULD know - at least to the extent that they know what they are talking about!!

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: borntowatch

You're not getting the very elementary-school level basics of evolution. What you are asking for isn't possible and doesn't even make sense. A scientific theory, such as Evolution or Gravity, are based on a set of facts. Scientist compile those facts together to come up with a theory to try and explain them.

You're not getting the very elementary-school level basics of my question.
Show me some evidence not assumption. If there is no evidence then at least admit your belief is a belief, you follow the herd.
Dont bring gravity into the argument, gravity has evidence, evolution is a religion based on no evidence, just belief.
Are you getting there yet, figuring it out yet???

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: borntowatch

There is no single "empirical" piece evidence of evolution, but there's a mountain of facts from all kinds of different scientific studies from all different areas (Geology, biology, genealogy, etcetera) that are used to put together the theory of evolution. Not one single one of these facts prove the entire theory, it's the entire body of evidence put together.

I Know "There is no single "empirical" piece evidence of evolution" thats why its a religion, a belief a best guess, yay for you
Next I can look at geology and then biology then genealogy as the King of Siam would say etcetera etcetera etcetera.
I am looking forward to asking a geology question

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: borntowatch
Gravity is also a theory. When you step off of a ledge, you will fall. Do you disagree? That is a fact. That fact, along with others, make up the theory of gravity. What exactly is gravity? No one really knows, hence the "theory" part of it. vWhat they do know is that it exists. Evolution works the same way.

Evidence for gravity and apple falls, evidence for evolution, nothing but gravity?
Gravity is a theory but I see the evidence, I am asking for evidence for evolution, why cant you see the difference and you patronise me?

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: borntowatch

Cellular theory is another example. Do you deny cells exist?

What, you are rambling, what has that to do with evidence for evolution, you are incoherent, lay of the drink.

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: borntowatch
It is not on anyone else to prove evolution, it is on you to disprove it. Once you actually find your crocoduck, you will have the evidence you need to do so. Until there is sufficient evidence to negate the theory of evolution, it will remain the best way we have to describe the changes and diversity we see in all forms of life. Until there is sufficient evidence that shows some other force causing us to fall when we step off a ledge, the theory of gravity will remain the best way to describe it.

This is a public thread with a public invitation,
Can someone show me evidence of speciation, from one kind to another
You cxan leave, someone else can show me what swayed them to believe in evolution, you dont dictate what others can and cant say, nor what I can ask.
It may well be the best option for secularist people to understand the reason we are here but its a belief with a set of rules and a priesthood, its a religion.

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: borntowatch

Until you are willing to understand this basic concept, you will get nowhere.

Until I see scientific evidence that is valid evolution is a religion to me.

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul

originally posted by: borntowatch

Why I dont want to define species is because there seems to be a very broad range of species.

I think (yes assume) that we have a species called felines and they all have a common ancestor, bit like canines.

No - felines are a family - specifically they are the family felidae - within that family are gnus, and within each genus are species.

The family had 3 non-extinct and 2 extinct subfamilies, 14 genus and 41 species.

Though the feline group maybe a little too broad to say all one species.

who knows

Real scientists know, lots of other people who are not ignorant know.

People who blather on about speciation SHOULD know - at least to the extent that they know what they are talking about!!

and I can make stuff up as well, just like you did.

Care to explain to me how they arrived at this conclusion so I can see any counter arguments.
It sounds good feasible and interesting how about a link.

So you are saying that genus, kind and species is all sorted out and there is no arguments or issues left in the scientific community..
That word blather seems appropriate now doesnt it???

a reply to: borntowatch

Show me some evidence not assumption. If there is no evidence then at least admit your belief is a belief, you follow the herd. Dont bring gravity into the argument, gravity has evidence, evolution is a religion based on no evidence, just belief.

What the heck are you on about? People have provided you evidence after evidence and yet you chose to ignore them. Why the hell would scientists choose to "believe" in evolution when all they want is to know more about the life and the universe? Knowledge is evolving. Science is evolving. It doesn't stop because scientists WANT to know MORE!

I don't know or remember if you ever defined the word kind. Define it again as clearly as possible and use a scientific word closest to what it means.

you are incoherent, lay of the drink.

No you lay of the drink.

a reply to: borntowatch

The definition of 'species' becomes fuzzier, the more you try to define it.

If it becomes fuzzy enough, any sort of heritable change could be described as a 'new species'.

a reply to: borntowatch

Before I get too far ahead of myself, would the following meet your criteria? As you can not or perhaps refuse to, give a proper definition to "kind", a non scientific terminology, while demanding a scientific explanation it becomes a little difficult to meet the rather restrictive perameters you request thus I'm simply attempting to ascertain the ground rules you are willing to entertain before I give out a potentially lengthy explanation. Anyway... Will you accept the following?

"... groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups."

Again, I'm just trying to clarify your position in order to give you the best and most appropriate response.

a reply to: borntowatch

Until I see scientific evidence that is valid to me evolution is a religion to me.

(Fixed that for you.)

I have yet to read your definition of "kind" and you have yet to define exactly what it is you are looking for. All the evidence presented to you in this and every one of your other threads has been valid scientific evidence. What is your definition of valid scientific evidence? It must be different from everyone else's.

Please spell it out for us. " I, borntowatch, will accept _________ as valid scientific evidence of evolution."
That should make it much easier.

Evidence for gravity and apple falls, evidence for evolution, nothing but gravity?

Please don't insult people's intelligence, it's not nice.

a·nal·o·gy
əˈnaləjē
noun
a comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.