Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Any examples of speciation?

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 1:38:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

At what level?

http://education.nationalgeographic.com...

http://biomed.brown.edu...
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 3:25:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

Current estimate is that there are around 8.7 million species on the planet, that should be convincing that speciation has occurred.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 3:45:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

http://education.nationalgeographic.com...

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

http://www.darwinwasright.org...

http://www.talkorigins.org...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 6:16:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry I should have clarified. I'm only interested in peer-reviewed journal articles.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 9:48:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Can you please provide your idea of speciation? I know of several examples, but I'd like to know exactly what you think it is so I don't end up wasting my time.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 3:31:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 9:48:10 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Can you please provide your idea of speciation? I know of several examples, but I'd like to know exactly what you think it is so I don't end up wasting my time.

Genetic isolation, e.g. 2 populations become unable to interbreed and produce viable offspring, although they were observed to originate from a common ancestor
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 3:34:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 3:31:25 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 6/29/2014 9:48:10 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Can you please provide your idea of speciation? I know of several examples, but I'd like to know exactly what you think it is so I don't end up wasting my time.

Genetic isolation, e.g. 2 populations become unable to interbreed and produce viable offspring, although they were observed to originate from a common ancestor

A chihuahua and a great dane.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 7:37:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 3:34:40 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 3:31:25 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 6/29/2014 9:48:10 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Can you please provide your idea of speciation? I know of several examples, but I'd like to know exactly what you think it is so I don't end up wasting my time.

Genetic isolation, e.g. 2 populations become unable to interbreed and produce viable offspring, although they were observed to originate from a common ancestor

A chihuahua and a great dane.

I'm not convinced that a chihuahua would never take advantage of a sleeping great dane.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 7:56:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

That's ok if it's not entirely objective, neither are the criteria for speciation.

How can one legitimately determine when an organism has changed into a different species, when the "species" classification is nothing more than a made up category for classification purposes?? Until someone can show empirically that there is a basic fundamental unit of biological life, a claim such as speciation is not even relevant, but that is how evolutionism claims to proceed.

Sometimes reproductive isolation is used to determine when a lineage has "speciated", so they call the two groups by different species names. That criteria can't hold though, because there are organisms that reproduce asexually and an organism can't become reproductively isolated from itself. As you already know, many groups that we say are different species, can actually inter-breed so even by evolutionist standards, they shouldn't be labeled as different species.

In the end it's basically just guess work. Classification may be useful in some instances, but when a basic fundamental unit of biological life can't be determined, that classification system is not going to provide you with a solid foundation, upon which to base an entire theory that proposes to explain origins and diversification of life forms. In that respect, speciation is no more biologically relevant than saying that I and my son are a different species.
numberwang
Posts: 1,917
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 8:14:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Guys, what do you mean what "level" of speciation?

Speciation is a change at the species level, anything below isnt speciation.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 9:57:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 7:56:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Sometimes reproductive isolation is used to determine when a lineage has "speciated", so they call the two groups by different species names. That criteria can't hold though, because there are organisms that reproduce asexually and an organism can't become reproductively isolated from itself.

That's a good point. Maybe if Lenski had his mutant E. coli reclassified as something else, he could flaunt his experiment as even more convincing proof of Evolution (as long as he's preaching to the choir of course).
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2014 10:15:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 8:14:28 PM, numberwang wrote:
Guys, what do you mean what "level" of speciation?

Speciation is a change at the species level, anything below isnt speciation.

From what I remember in my biology class, there are actually different ways to classify species.

There are times when two types of animals that look rather different do not interbreed, but in specific areas they might interbreed and produce offspring. Should they be considered different species or the same?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

That source gives a specific example of what I'm talking about.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:52:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 10:15:24 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:14:28 PM, numberwang wrote:
Guys, what do you mean what "level" of speciation?

Speciation is a change at the species level, anything below isnt speciation.

From what I remember in my biology class, there are actually different ways to classify species.

There are times when two types of animals that look rather different do not interbreed, but in specific areas they might interbreed and produce offspring. Should they be considered different species or the same?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

That source gives a specific example of what I'm talking about.

God made a couple of spiders. these spiders make more spiders. No spider was anything other than an arachnid. It was always and will forever be a spider.

Same with Canines.
Same with Frogs.
Same with horses.
Same with Whales.
etc..

Sometimes changes can occur that will keep a type of Spider from mating with another type of Spider. But they both will remain spiders.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:53:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 8:14:28 PM, numberwang wrote:
Guys, what do you mean what "level" of speciation?

Speciation is a change at the species level, anything below isnt speciation.

Here this has pictures. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

Species, is a subjective label.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 6:28:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 7:37:27 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 6/29/2014 3:34:40 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 6/29/2014 3:31:25 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 6/29/2014 9:48:10 AM, Burzmali wrote:
Can you please provide your idea of speciation? I know of several examples, but I'd like to know exactly what you think it is so I don't end up wasting my time.

Genetic isolation, e.g. 2 populations become unable to interbreed and produce viable offspring, although they were observed to originate from a common ancestor

A chihuahua and a great dane.

I'm not convinced that a chihuahua would never take advantage of a sleeping great dane.

It was a joke anyway. Who knows. I just know that if you have any understanding of genetics you will realise that two isolates populations of the same species exposed to different selective pressures then they'll eventually be different enough to consider as two separate species. You don't really need empirical examples if you understand the theory.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 9:21:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

I always thought the link between the Bonobo and Chimpanzee is speciation enough.
http://www.nature.com...

Now in captivity you can get them to breed. But, we can also get Zebras/Horses and Donkeys to breed. This does not mean its the norm.
http://www.macroevolution.net...

Anyway thought you may find it interesting. Probably you have read the Nature paper, but I included it just in case.
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 9:37:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/29/2014 7:56:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

That's ok if it's not entirely objective, neither are the criteria for speciation.

How can one legitimately determine when an organism has changed into a different species, when the "species" classification is nothing more than a made up category for classification purposes?? Until someone can show empirically that there is a basic fundamental unit of biological life, a claim such as speciation is not even relevant, but that is how evolutionism claims to proceed.

Sometimes reproductive isolation is used to determine when a lineage has "speciated", so they call the two groups by different species names. That criteria can't hold though, because there are organisms that reproduce asexually and an organism can't become reproductively isolated from itself. As you already know, many groups that we say are different species, can actually inter-breed so even by evolutionist standards, they shouldn't be labeled as different species.

In the end it's basically just guess work. Classification may be useful in some instances, but when a basic fundamental unit of biological life can't be determined, that classification system is not going to provide you with a solid foundation, upon which to base an entire theory that proposes to explain origins and diversification of life forms. In that respect, speciation is no more biologically relevant than saying that I and my son are a different species.

This is exactly why this theory needs to get to a genetic level. Only in understanding how genes and genetic structure changes and what the end result is can we truly understand how much an organism can change.

The recent discovery of the DNA pathway on how electric fish converted muscle cells into an electric organ which can discharge its electrical capacity rather than contracting the cell is good evidence of the possibility of evolution

Formal paper: http://www.sciencemag.org...
Article on it: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Every day there is more and more discoveries on genetic tweaks that give arise to things that make functionality in an organism. Similarly to the electric fish a pathway was discovered on how chickens make a hard shell. turtles using a rib cage as its origination of its shell.

As these pathways are discovered it will become more and more difficult to deny evolution. I suppose a purist Creationists could still argue that an fish evolving an electric organ is still a "fish" and is still of the same "type", but that just falls in to the error by classification that you point out.

If a muscle cell can be converted randomly to a different type of cell that has a different function such as an electric discharge, then anything is possible.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 1:13:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 3:52:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/29/2014 10:15:24 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:14:28 PM, numberwang wrote:
Guys, what do you mean what "level" of speciation?

Speciation is a change at the species level, anything below isnt speciation.

From what I remember in my biology class, there are actually different ways to classify species.

There are times when two types of animals that look rather different do not interbreed, but in specific areas they might interbreed and produce offspring. Should they be considered different species or the same?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

That source gives a specific example of what I'm talking about.

God made a couple of spiders. these spiders make more spiders. No spider was anything other than an arachnid. It was always and will forever be a spider.

Same with Canines.
Same with Frogs.
Same with horses.
Same with Whales.
etc..

Sometimes changes can occur that will keep a type of Spider from mating with another type of Spider. But they both will remain spiders.

There are many different species of spiders.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:04:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

By asking the question you are pretty much demonstrating that no amount of evidence will be sufficient, but here are a few:

http://www.jstor.org...

http://archive.bsbi.org.uk...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:05:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 1:13:11 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/30/2014 3:52:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/29/2014 10:15:24 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:14:28 PM, numberwang wrote:
Guys, what do you mean what "level" of speciation?

Speciation is a change at the species level, anything below isnt speciation.

From what I remember in my biology class, there are actually different ways to classify species.

There are times when two types of animals that look rather different do not interbreed, but in specific areas they might interbreed and produce offspring. Should they be considered different species or the same?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

That source gives a specific example of what I'm talking about.

God made a couple of spiders. these spiders make more spiders. No spider was anything other than an arachnid. It was always and will forever be a spider.

Same with Canines.
Same with Frogs.
Same with horses.
Same with Whales.
etc..

Sometimes changes can occur that will keep a type of Spider from mating with another type of Spider. But they both will remain spiders.

There are many different species of spiders.

oh is there? and yet you agree they are all spiders
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:14:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 3:05:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/30/2014 1:13:11 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/30/2014 3:52:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 6/29/2014 10:15:24 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/29/2014 8:14:28 PM, numberwang wrote:
Guys, what do you mean what "level" of speciation?

Speciation is a change at the species level, anything below isnt speciation.

From what I remember in my biology class, there are actually different ways to classify species.

There are times when two types of animals that look rather different do not interbreed, but in specific areas they might interbreed and produce offspring. Should they be considered different species or the same?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

That source gives a specific example of what I'm talking about.

God made a couple of spiders. these spiders make more spiders. No spider was anything other than an arachnid. It was always and will forever be a spider.

Same with Canines.
Same with Frogs.
Same with horses.
Same with Whales.
etc..

Sometimes changes can occur that will keep a type of Spider from mating with another type of Spider. But they both will remain spiders.

There are many different species of spiders.

oh is there? and yet you agree they are all spiders

Are you saying that "spider" is a species? You are wrong. In taxonomy they are an order. The are part of the order Araneae.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 3:47:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 3:05:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

oh is there? and yet you agree they are all spiders

Yes ... that doesn't mean they're all the same. I haven't done biological classification in a while, but I at least remember there were different levels (e.g. kingdom, phylum, class, order, and so on). The person above me said they are an order, so I'll assume it's true for now. Below that would be families, then genus, then species, showing that there are different kinds of spiders on many different levels.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 4:57:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 3:47:33 PM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
At 6/30/2014 3:05:08 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

oh is there? and yet you agree they are all spiders

Yes ... that doesn't mean they're all the same. I haven't done biological classification in a while, but I at least remember there were different levels (e.g. kingdom, phylum, class, order, and so on). The person above me said they are an order, so I'll assume it's true for now. Below that would be families, then genus, then species, showing that there are different kinds of spiders on many different levels.

May as well source it.
"Spiders are arthropods of the order Araneae"
http://www.jaad.org...(01)25132-9/abstract

You have to have an account to read the paper, sorry.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/30/2014 11:07:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 9:21:07 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

I always thought the link between the Bonobo and Chimpanzee is speciation enough.
http://www.nature.com...

Now in captivity you can get them to breed. But, we can also get Zebras/Horses and Donkeys to breed. This does not mean its the norm.
http://www.macroevolution.net...

Anyway thought you may find it interesting. Probably you have read the Nature paper, but I included it just in case.

It's interesting, sure, but I specifically asked for cases where they can't interbreed, so why are you posting cases where they can? lol
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2014 7:02:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 11:07:24 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 6/30/2014 9:21:07 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

I always thought the link between the Bonobo and Chimpanzee is speciation enough.
http://www.nature.com...

Now in captivity you can get them to breed. But, we can also get Zebras/Horses and Donkeys to breed. This does not mean its the norm.
http://www.macroevolution.net...

Anyway thought you may find it interesting. Probably you have read the Nature paper, but I included it just in case.

It's interesting, sure, but I specifically asked for cases where they can't interbreed, so why are you posting cases where they can? lol

True, but its also probable that humans can breed with apes (chimps and bonobos). Ethically will this be tried further than the random experiments done years ago? Probably not. But it does beg the question what is species as then humans, Chimps and Bonobos would all be the same species according to the interbreeding aspect.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 8:34:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 9:37:56 AM, slo1 wrote:

This is exactly why this theory needs to get to a genetic level. Only in understanding how genes and genetic structure changes and what the end result is can we truly understand how much an organism can change.

The recent discovery of the DNA pathway on how electric fish converted muscle cells into an electric organ which can discharge its electrical capacity rather than contracting the cell is good evidence of the possibility of evolution

The article you linked to says that this electrical ability is found only in fish, and it requires a water-based organism that can use the water as a conductor. I guess they're not aware of the electrical activity going on inside the heart of each and every organism that has a heart, or the fact that all muscle has electrical potential.

What is a heart?? It's a muscle with electrical activity. I don't find this paper very convincing of anything at all. Fish have hearts, which means that muscles in the fish had to already be busy conducting electricity, long before these scientists allege that muscles evolved to conduct electricity. Just more evolutionary speculation and imagination.

So, this begs the question...Why doesn't electrical muscular activity evolve into electrical fields in other organisms, including other water-based organisms, if all life forms evolved from marine organisms??

Formal paper: http://www.sciencemag.org...

Let's take a look at this abstract...

"Little is known about the genetic basis of convergent traits that originate repeatedly over broad taxonomic scales. The myogenic electric organ has evolved six times in fishes to produce electric fields used in communication, navigation, predation, or defense."

They start off with a fair statement, little is known, but then they proceed from there to claim to know that it "evolved", that it did so six times, and they claim to know the reasons WHY it evolved.

"We have examined the genomic basis of the convergent anatomical and physiological origins of these organs by assembling the genome of the electric eel (Electrophorus electricus) and sequencing electric organ and skeletal muscle transcriptomes from three lineages that have independently evolved electric organs. Our results indicate that, despite millions of years of evolution and large differences in the morphology of electric organ cells, independent lineages have leveraged similar transcription factors and developmental and cellular pathways in the evolution of electric organs."

In layman's terms, "We're going to insist on interpreting everything within the evolutionary paradigm so this is what we think happened".

Within this paper, is there any empirical evidence that actually "shows" that anything "evolved", rather than evolutionists just telling us what we should believe?? Finding a genetic basis for a function does nothing to show that the function "evolved", from something else, and identifying the genetic basis for the function is all that this paper can claim to show. Sure, I agree that obviously "it must have evolved that way", is the evolutionist's explanation, but there is nothing in this paper that shows that explanation to be empirically true.

The fact that this function appears in several different types of aquatic organisms, and wasn't inherited from its predecessors, is a conundrum for evolutionism. To explain it, they appeal to "convergent evolution", which is nothing more than saying that evolution is going to explain anything and everything that we learn about biology and genetics because it has to. The only other possibility is that they were created that way, which is an explanation that no atheist will accept, no matter what the evidence shows. To keep the hypothesis alive in the face of potential falsification, evolutionists appeal to divergent/convergent/parallel/reductive/pre-adaptive evolution. Now with the overwhelming evidence for stasis in the fossil record, along with numerous "living fossils", evolutionists have even had to incorporate "no evolution", into evolutionary theory, to explain away the overwhelming evidence against the hypothesis of Universal Common Ancestry (UCA). This basically amounts to nothing more than covering all the bases, and making it an unfalsifiable, thus unscientific hypothesis.

Is there any mention of a solution to the issue that I brought up above, about electrical activity in the cardiac muscle, or the natural electrical potential of any and all muscles for that matter, being present from the very first moment of the existence of these organisms?? No, there isn't, so this paper is irrelevant to the issue that is being debated, which is that organisms have the ability to change into other types of organisms. This is just more equivocation between micro and macro, being claimed as evidence for evolutionism, when it isn't.

Article on it: http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Every day there is more and more discoveries on genetic tweaks that give arise to things that make functionality in an organism. Similarly to the electric fish a pathway was discovered on how chickens make a hard shell. turtles using a rib cage as its origination of its shell.

The organism and its DNA must already exist before it can be "tweaked", so these tweaks explain nothing but adaptation and variation. It takes more than just a tweak to turn an organism into a different type of organism.

As these pathways are discovered it will become more and more difficult to deny evolution. I suppose a purist Creationists could still argue that an fish evolving an electric organ is still a "fish" and is still of the same "type", but that just falls in to the error by classification that you point out.

I'm making an error by classification, seriously?? Why?? Is it because I call a fish a fish and say that fish will only produce fish and that fish are the only things that produce other fish and can show that empirically, while you believe that something else produced fish and that male fish fertilizing the eggs of female fish can somehow produce something that is a non-fish??

Even if I don't assign a name to the organism, the processes and result don't change. You still have organisms breeding with like organisms which produce like offspring, and evolutionism needs them to produce something different.

If a muscle cell can be converted randomly to a different type of cell that has a different function such as an electric discharge, then anything is possible.

You guys are too easily impressed, because you're too desperate to find and claim evidence for evolution. This is why so many claims made by evolutionists get overturned once more is known about the evidence that they are claiming, they rush to judgment.

What you're saying here is that, since you think a fish cell has been converted to perform a different function within the fish, you extrapolate that into the fish being able to change into something other than a fish. Have you really thought about how much of a stretch that is, and how little there is to support that possibility??

DNA tells cells what to do. It controls the function of cells, as well as telling the organism to produce more or stop producing them. You have to have a genetic basis for any and all cells, which means that when a cell is produced, it already has an assigned function. You don't just have cells floating around in an organism waiting for a function to be assigned, which is what you seem to be proposing here. When something goes haywire with that process, you get an accumulation of deformed cells, aka a cancerous tumor. Well, not all tumors are cancerous, but you get the point, bad things happen. Tumors, dysfunctional cells such as those in diabetics, sickle cell anemia, etc.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 9:09:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/30/2014 9:37:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
...

This is exactly why this theory needs to get to a genetic level. Only in understanding how genes and genetic structure changes and what the end result is can we truly understand how much an organism can change.


Indeed, and this is a tacit admission that evolution has never gotten past the generic hypothesis stage.

The recent discovery of the DNA pathway on how electric fish converted muscle cells into an electric organ which can discharge its electrical capacity rather than contracting the cell is good evidence of the possibility of evolution

Formal paper: http://www.sciencemag.org...
Article on it: http://www.sciencedaily.com...


I only read the summary, but I don't see any 'discovery' here. This is merely a refinement of the hypothesis. It assumes evolution, then guesses at a sequence between the two points. It's basically the same as arranging fossils in an assumed sequence.

Every day there is more and more discoveries on genetic tweaks that give arise to things that make functionality in an organism.

And let's note once again - genetics is Mendel, not Darwin. Nobody disputes that we all look a little different from our parents, that variation is built into the reproductive system. But that's not evolution. Evolution proper requires the creation of new information not inherent in the original DNA.


As these pathways are discovered it will become more and more difficult to deny evolution. I suppose a purist Creationists could still argue that an fish evolving an electric organ is still a "fish" and is still of the same "type", but that just falls in to the error by classification that you point out.


I would argue, as I say, that there's no discovery here, just assumptions. Evolution is one giant "begging the issue" argument.

If a muscle cell can be converted randomly to a different type of cell that has a different function such as an electric discharge, then anything is possible.

Ah, no. A sperm cell, when mated with an egg, converts into all the different types of cells in the human body. But only human cells. "Anything is possible" is magic. Science is the study of strict cause and effect, and therefore limited possibilities.
This space for rent.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 1:13:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/1/2014 7:02:48 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 6/30/2014 11:07:24 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 6/30/2014 9:21:07 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 6/28/2014 4:03:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is there any convincing, observed example of speciation?

Of course, I mean convincing to me, where I can be convinced that it really is impossible to get these lifeforms to interbreed.

Disclaimer: This thread is about convincing me personally. It's not entirely objective.

I always thought the link between the Bonobo and Chimpanzee is speciation enough.
http://www.nature.com...

Now in captivity you can get them to breed. But, we can also get Zebras/Horses and Donkeys to breed. This does not mean its the norm.
http://www.macroevolution.net...

Anyway thought you may find it interesting. Probably you have read the Nature paper, but I included it just in case.

It's interesting, sure, but I specifically asked for cases where they can't interbreed, so why are you posting cases where they can? lol

True, but its also probable that humans can breed with apes (chimps and bonobos). Ethically will this be tried further than the random experiments done years ago? Probably not. But it does beg the question what is species as then humans, Chimps and Bonobos would all be the same species according to the interbreeding aspect.

This is just communicating your stream of consciousness lol

it doesn't address the OP even a tiny bit
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:55:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 8:34:44 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 6/30/2014 9:37:56 AM, slo1 wrote:

This is exactly why this theory needs to get to a genetic level. Only in understanding how genes and genetic structure changes and what the end result is can we truly understand how much an organism can change.

The recent discovery of the DNA pathway on how electric fish converted muscle cells into an electric organ which can discharge its electrical capacity rather than contracting the cell is good evidence of the possibility of evolution

The article you linked to says that this electrical ability is found only in fish, and it requires a water-based organism that can use the water as a conductor. I guess they're not aware of the electrical activity going on inside the heart of each and every organism that has a heart, or the fact that all muscle has electrical potential.

What is a heart?? It's a muscle with electrical activity. I don't find this paper very convincing of anything at all. Fish have hearts, which means that muscles in the fish had to already be busy conducting electricity, long before these scientists allege that muscles evolved to conduct electricity. Just more evolutionary speculation and imagination.

I had to delete most your response due to space. Unfortunately, your response shows you have a poor understanding of evolution. First and foremost the paper exposes how a cell built to have electrical capacity and when discharges contracts the cell can have the dna change and instead build a cell that has electrical capacity and discharge it so it travels outside the cell.

If your heart can shock people, more power to you.

Also just because 6 fish develop the dna change to grow an electric organ does not mean all creatures living in the water must also incorporate that dna change and pass it to their off spring. You have very odd notions about how evolution works.

I have never said that this paper should not be scrutinized, but it shows that as we gain greater understanding on what base pairs change and the effect of those changes evolution denying will become the position of radicals.