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

Someone has been watching too much Ray Comfort, I think.

'Kind' is not a taxonomic grouping. So, there's your first problem.

What do you mean by kind, exactly? Are a wolf and a dog the same kind? Are house cats and lions the same kind? Why? Why not?

Evolution is a gradual process. Dogs do not give birth to cats. Ever. That's not evolution. That's just stupid. Here's a good illustration:

We all get carried away sometimes. ATS can be an exercise in building patience.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
We do have evidence for evolution
Long term E. Coli experiemnt. Besides this evidence, I'm not sure why you would think that so many mutations can't add up to create species to species changes. It's just a process of long term accumulation of mutations. Explain to me what kind of barrier prevents this from occurring.

The E. Coli experiement is interesting, and does demonstrate that mutations can occur with regularity. Its significance cannot be discounted. Minor random mutations over many generations almost certainly can compound, resulting in offspring very different from the P1 generation.

My contention is this: it would take an impossibly high number of generations for life to arrive in its current state of well-adapted diversity...assuming it is all truly random.

a reply to: AllIsOne

I have no alternate explanation. Maybe somebody smarter and more industrious than myself will come up with one.

We don't know why gravity works the way it does, but we can rule out the theories that son't quite cut it.

a reply to: DarkATi

Unfortunately it's not that simple.

Remove the maroon-->purple colored text, and all you have is red jumping to blue. That would be a more accurate representation of the fossil record. This whole thread is about the 'missing links.'

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist
My contention is this: it would take an impossibly high number of generations for life to arrive in its current state of well-adapted diversity...

Show the mathematical calculations you've used to come to this conclusion.

assuming it is all truly random.

Genetic mutations are random. Their selection is not.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Randomness is an assumption though. We can't prove that randomness actually exists in the universe. There is also the idea that things happened as they did because one molecule bumped into another that started a LONG chain of events to lead us here. For instance, the Abiogenesis hypothesis posits that life is inevitable given the correct formula and conditions.

Also, keep in mind that we are dealing with BILLIONS of years here and billions of reproductive generations. To be honest, evolution makes a lot more sense if you think about it recursively. One of the uses for recursion in computer programming is to traverse tree diagrams. Well isn't evolution normally displayed as a tree diagram? Now I know that the type of recursion occurring with evolution is a bit different than the recursion needed to traverse a tree diagram, but they ARE similar concepts. With evolution, you are using the previous generation to define the newer generation.

originally posted by: OpenMindedRealist

Remove the maroon-->purple colored text, and all you have is red jumping to blue. That's more accurate.

No it's not.

This whole thread is about the 'missing links.'

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Now we're talking. We might agree on more than it first seemed. Your recursion reference had me scratching my head, but now I see it is pertinent to how we should look at time in evolutionary terms. Being introduced to functions in algebra class was enough for me to know I should focus on other subjects.

My problem with modern theory of evolution is this assertion that all evolution is the result of completely random mutation. If there were some guidance or pattern to adaptive mutation, it would take far fewer generations to see major evolutionary changes.

Maybe I have been unclear; I think Darwin was right about most of his observations and conclusions. I question some of the assumptions made by him and his successors. From my view random mutation and natural selection go a long way toward accounting for the diversity of life on Earth, but there has to be more to it.

a reply to: GetHyped

I guess you uncovered the complete fossil record in your backyard last night? And there were no gaps whatsoever, huh?

You really ought to let someone know about it. You might get a Nobel, I hear they award them for BS these days.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Do you have children? Then you are a transitional form.

We don't need to find every single one to demonstrate a clear lineage. That would require finding fossils for every single life form that successfully reproduced. You're moving the goalposts into an impossible position. Why? Is your faith threatened by the ramifications of evolution?

a reply to: borntowatch
I think for most people the one that shows multiple different species in one
animal is that one that has fur, lays eggs, lives like a beaver, and has a bird beak.

Platypus

a reply to: borntowatch
The cross between the beaver and the duck seems to exist
as I posted in my other post in this thread, aka Platypus.

a reply to: borntowatch If u wont except science from a scientist, then what chance do we have. Either agree with the theory(scientific) or compile evidence to the contrary as science is done. Simple

a reply to: borntowatch

Anything but a weed to a weed, bacteria to bacteria or a K9 to a K9, the principle must be from a cat to a dog, cow to a sheep, one distinct animal to another, not a version of a type.

Instead of defining what "kind" means in a way that everyone can understand, you bring in even more undefined words like "version", "distinct", and "type".

It doesn't seem like it should be this difficult for you to define what a "kind" is, since you seem to believe that it's an objective concept. Here, maybe if I ask you this way...

Please fill in the blank: A kind is [blank].

a reply to: iterationzero

Here, I'll have a go:

Please fill in the blank: A kind is [a non-scientific creationist term for preserving confirmation bias. The beauty of "kind" is that it can be redefined on the fly if pesky scientists start presenting basic conepts].

originally posted by: thepitpony
a reply to: borntowatch

I will take up the challenge and have a go in my own terms. Evolution is a product of a species adapting through eons of time to the progresive changing environments and conditions this planet underwent through its lifetime, those who delivered (or evolved) the strongest or most beneficial adaptations to survive environments flourished.

That is my take, can we please have your own so we can carry this discussion on.

Evolution is impossible because dogs breed and turn into other dogs, bacteria evolve into bacteria and weeds become weeds and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Yes there are adaptations but minor and within species, species dont and havnt and havnt been observed turning into other species, minor changes yes, major ones no.

Bit simplistic but so was yours.

Prove me wrong

originally posted by: Ex_MislTech
a reply to: borntowatch
I think for most people the one that shows multiple different species in one
animal is that one that has fur, lays eggs, lives like a beaver, and has a bird beak.

Platypus

So what did it evolve from, where is the fossil record that shows it was once a monkey or whatever.

Hey look a platypus, its parents were a duck and a bear and a chook and a beaver.
Seriously is that your best shot?

originally posted by: DarkATi
Someone has been watching too much Ray Comfort, I think.

'Kind' is not a taxonomic grouping. So, there's your first problem.

What do you mean by kind, exactly? Are a wolf and a dog the same kind? Are house cats and lions the same kind? Why? Why not?

Evolution is a gradual process. Dogs do not give birth to cats. Ever. That's not evolution. That's just stupid. Here's a good illustration:

You are comparing written words and colors to evolution and think your argument is logical.

Stop and think, just a little, only a tiny bit before posting another reply.

a reply to: borntowatch

These use the words kind and species to obfuscate and confound the question. For they are confused about it, because they have been lied to and deceived by their teachers. So they don't know what to consider is different, a kind or a species.

Take for example Darwin's "proof of evolution." As he studied finches. And as they began to develop different aspects, perhaps a bigger beak, a little longer legs, etc. Each time, each of these new observations were written down as new "species." Thus evolution was proven.

It is funny though, that even to this day, they are all still finches, and inter-mate with each other. You have to wonder about the integrity of these people, and their honesty when they say new species evolved.

a reply to: DarkATi

I agree with the sentiment, but your poster indicates that the difference between macro and micro evolution is that the latter occurs under a microscope?