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.
So ....help me understand something please.
People say there's no evidence of one species turning into another, I provided some.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by addygrace
It's not a religious leap. There are lots of studies on the issue of crocodile evolution.
I wish I could link some other resources, but they're papers I only have access to through my University and I'm unable to share the links properly due to the protocols to prevent abuse of accounts.
Originally posted by GunzCoty
So ....help me understand something please.
If a spider mates with another species of spider and make yet another species of spider thats evolution? In the end it's a spider no? just asking.
And where did the first living cell come from?
And as far as creationists go, don't they cover the idea of all things e.g the sun moon earth bugs humans and so on?
But evolution only centers on life right?
So how could it ever be used to disprove a God?
I'm only asking your opinions on this.
I'm saying when a house cat turns into a dog.
Define what a kind is.
If a "dog" is a kind, then "kind" is defined as a subspecies, as Canis Lupus Familiaris is a subspecies of Canis Lupus...wolves.
Cats? That's a whole family.
Creationists have no reason to use the word 'kind' until they can get it straight. Nobody has even provided anything but a shifting definition that suits the argument.
Speciation under controlled circumstances shows that it's possible. They are new species because they are reproductively isolate. That's as close to a biological definition of speciation for gendered animals as you'll get.
Originally posted by addygrace
I'm saying when a house cat turns into a dog.
It doesn't show that it's happening.
There are no creationists claiming, "You can't take a housefly, diverge it in an experiment, and make these flies reproduce with their own diverged race.".
Your claiming these flies became 4 different species because they didn't reproduce with each other. If that happened, which they didn't show, they are still houseflies.
They never claimed those same flies would, or could never reproduce with each other. They just claimed in that experiment, they didn't.
My problems with this example are, as follows;
1.They are all still houseflies.
2.They designed and intelligently picked their controls. The irony in this one is incredible.
3.They never claimed those same flies would, or could never reproduce with each other, after the experiment. If they did, I didn't see it.
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Also, I find it funny how you mention creationists shifting definition of kind, when evolutionists can't even agree on species.
The reason for the differing definitions in evolution theory, is based on the expertise of the scientist.
Over two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists. But I think we're using this definiton; "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".
You don't know what a species is, do you?
And there are dozens of examples provided, yet you're harping one the one about houseflies?
It's your teaching thread. Break it down, and maybe we could learn something.
I'm sorry, but show me where they claimed that they simply chose not to.
Ok.
Well, it would take a lot more time to break from speciation to further diversification on the genus level.
No my point is, using a conscious mind to control an environment, for something that happens naturally, is ironic because your using the example to show creationists there is no creator needed.
They simply separated them out...which is something that actually happens in the wild. Population groups diverge.
This actually has me laughing. Why would I not harp on what you quoted. You quoted it. As far as the links go, I spent an hour looking through them. They were pretty informative. I will have to come back to every example, I guess. Choosing one seems to be the most efficient thing to do, as talking about everything in those links would take us at least 100 hours to get through. Surely that's not what you're implying, right.
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow
That refers to reproduction. It's right there. You know, you clearly didn't even bother to look at the links as you keep harping on what I quoted.
This I will concede. I have serious question, though. Let's say there are three distinct populations of an organism. We will call each one A, B, and C. A can breed with B, B can breed with C, but A can't breed with C. Would this be one species or two? Under the definition we are using for species, It can't be one or two.
They at the very least have a working definition of it. They don't switch from species to genus to family to phylum. Evolutionary biologists are sort of splitting hairs, it's what scientists do.
Along with bacteria just being one giant gene pool. The example I used above is another. The point I'm making here is, if you can keep adding definitions that fit every scenario, then we can never know when speciation is happening.
It also has to do with the difference between reproductive practices. Some slime molds are really difficult to pick the speciation of because they have hundreds of genders....
Originally posted by addygrace
Quote From MadnessinmysoulOver two dozen distinct definitions of "species" are in use amongst biologists. But I think we're using this definiton; "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".
You don't know what a species is, do you?
And there are dozens of examples provided, yet you're harping one the one about houseflies?
I'm harping on that one because, it was your first example. Obviously you thought it was important. Here's a thought, why don't you break down your first example(the houseflies), so maybe this thread you made, to teach creationists about speciation, will actually have your desired effect. Show us how it shows speciation.
Quote From MadnessinmysoulNo my point is, using a conscious mind to control an environment, for something that happens naturally, is ironic because your using the example to show creationists there is no creator needed.
They simply separated them out...which is something that actually happens in the wild. Population groups diverge.
Quote From MadnessinmysoulThis actually has me laughing. Why would I not harp on what you quoted. You quoted it. As far as the links go, I spent an hour looking through them. They were pretty informative. I will have to come back to every example, I guess. Choosing one seems to be the most efficient thing to do, as talking about everything in those links would take us at least 100 hours to get through. Surely that's not what you're implying, right.
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow
That refers to reproduction. It's right there. You know, you clearly didn't even bother to look at the links as you keep harping on what I quoted.
Quote From MadnessinmysoulThis I will concede. I have serious question, though. Let's say there are three distinct populations of an organism. We will call each one A, B, and C. A can breed with B, B can breed with C, but A can't breed with C. Would this be one species or two? Under the definition we are using for species, It can't be one or two.
They at the very least have a working definition of it. They don't switch from species to genus to family to phylum. Evolutionary biologists are sort of splitting hairs, it's what scientists do.
Quote From MadnessinmysoulAlong with bacteria just being one giant gene pool. The example I used above is another. The point I'm making here is, if you can keep adding definitions that fit every scenario, then we can never know when speciation is happening.
It also has to do with the difference between reproductive practices. Some slime molds are really difficult to pick the speciation of because they have hundreds of genders....
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by addygrace
The difference in scenario would be the difference in reproduction. The problem with defining speciation is that we've realized that the transitions aren't as distinct. We're not going to see the transition in a handful of generations so it won't be as stark.
Originally posted by addygrace]
I realized the speciation claims were minimal changes.
I think this is what most people who don't agree with the evolution model have a problem with. These small changes don't seem sustainable over all the animals on earth.
Let me assume speciation was part of the cause of all the animals on earth. Where do bacteria and viruses come in?
Where is the first common ancestor of a human and bacteria?
Was bacteria an ancestor of humans?
Are viruses even alive?
If so, how are they related to all other life? If not, what exactly is going on with viruses.
What caused human's to be self-reflective?
These questions are not all on topic, but hopefully you feel up to discussing it. If you would prefer, I could make a seperate thread.