Some people will believe anything

[BoSoxGal]

Access to plentiful nutrients IS an environmental condition.

[Sue U]

Sue, I think those articles DESCRIBED speciation, but I don't think any of them observed it. It's a theory that seems to make sense, but other than for microorganisms, the examples I've seen noted are more wishful thinking than anything else.

I don't know the details of all the research, obviously, and don't purport to be an expert, but from what I have gleaned, the behavioral and genetic modifications leading to animal speciation (and particularly, reproductive isolation) have in fact been reproduced in the laboratory using fish and fruit flies and has been observed in nature (the most frequently cited example being the North American hawthorn fly speciating to a distinct apple fly over the last two centuries or so, following the introduction of apples). More examples of observed speciation are cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_o ... speciation

[MajGenl.Meade]

Interesting stuff - but the fish are still fish and the flies are still flies. That Wikipedia article also explained that the reason we can't find those naughty fossils that would actually prove something is, they just didn't lay down dead in the right places - hence the gaping holes and lack of intermediaries. What did lay down dead in the right places of course does prove exactly what we say it does.

You know that science has made theory in its own image when you agree with everything that science agrees with

Meade (TFIC)

[Crackpot]

You've never seen fishflies?

[Sue U]

Interesting stuff - but the fish are still fish and the flies are still flies.

Yes, and apples and oranges are still fruit, but that doesn't mean they're the same species.

[MajGenl.Meade]

You've never seen fishflies?

No but I've seen fly fishing

Yes, and apples and oranges are still fruit, but that doesn't mean they're the same species

No, right absolutely. But isn't the origins argument that a fish became a lizard (give or take a few steps and millenia) whereas experiments show that a fish is still fish, a fly is still a fly, a sigh is still a sigh, and fundamental things apply? As time goes by

Meade

[Crackpot]

When it's impressive to see them en masse. swarming and covering everything with a light or with a light shining on it at night and still there in the Morning dead.

It's been a long time tradition to tell people who haven't seen them all kinds of lies. (they bite they swarm people etc. )

edited to chance url to img

[Grim Reaper]

Interesting stuff - but the fish are still fish and the flies are still flies. That Wikipedia article also explained that the reason we can't find those naughty fossils that would actually prove something is, they just didn't lay down dead in the right places - hence the gaping holes and lack of intermediaries. What did lay down dead in the right places of course does prove exactly what we say it does.

You know that science has made theory in its own image when you agree with everything that science agrees with

There aren't as many "gaping holes" as you keep thinking there are. And you keep using the circular logic nonsense which ignores how science actually works. If they didn't care about the truth, then they wouldn't keep digging to try and find out more about the past.

Kind the opposite of Creationists who instead claim everything difficult to explain can be handwaved as "God did it". They're a true example of circular logic.

How do you know God did it? The Bible says so! And how do you know the Bible is true? Because God wrote it!

[MajGenl.Meade]

There aren't as many "gaping holes" as you keep thinking there are. And you keep using the circular logic nonsense which ignores how science actually works. If they didn't care about the truth, then they wouldn't keep digging to try and find out more about the past.

Kind the opposite of Creationists who instead claim everything difficult to explain can be handwaved as "God did it". They're a true example of circular logic. How do you know God did it? The Bible says so! And how do you know the Bible is true? Because God wrote it!

Thank you for persevering. Going backwards..... (well obviously eh?!). Yes, that's a circular argument there as you point out - I've never heard a creationist make it (although some may) and have never made it myself. What I've read from creationists is extremely variable - some quite obviously silly and others more thought-provoking. The latter type tend not to explain difficult things with handwaving statements - you'd be more accurate I think to point out that creationist argument tends always to be counter-argument against... rather than any argument for.... (see all my posts as examples above).

As to scientists caring about the truth, I think you have a naif view of scientists. They have their entrenched positions in which mavericks imbued with the spirit of discovery are suppressed, refused tenure, rejected for publication and subjected to dirty academic tricks. This is not to say their theories of evolution and origins are wrong. But science is replete, even today, with the vital necessity for some to maintain the fixed ideology - conflict between Darwinists is almost de rigeur. And the use of circular arguments too.

How many gaping holes do I think there are then? And how many are there in your estimation?

Cheers
Meade

[Grim Reaper]

Science has some entrenchment, but mainly to deter crackpot theories. If an idea gets enough evidence, it will overturn the conventional wisdom. Evolution needed a lot of evidence before it started getting mainstream support. If there's an idea that could supplant evolution, it would eventually overcome the theory of evolution. And people are more for creating new ideas than for simply reinforcing existing ones. So there's a definite drive for people to keep digging for the truth.

For creationists, the end answer will always be "God did it".

And it's hard to say how many gaps there are, but we do have a lot of the pieces to the puzzle now, and more fossils will be found as time goes by. We have proto-birds, proto-humans, proto-amphibians, proto-whales, and other transitional fossils. We don't need to see every single step along the way to figure things out though.

[MajGenl.Meade]

We have proto-birds, proto-humans, proto-amphibians, proto-whales...

I rather think that's part of the dispute is it not? Is it (and I ask not to be funny) not the same as saying we have things that are not-birds, not-humans, not-amphibians and not-whales..... but since the theory of origin is correct, they must be proto-something else (other than what they are). It would be nice to see some steps - other than those which show that monkeys beget monkeys, horses beget horses and so on - we know all that without fossils. How is it that it is the important fossils that would prove transition that are all missing? There should be just as many of those as there are of stable creatures.

Meade

[Andrew D]

The persistence of atavism is continually astounding.

[Grim Reaper]

The fossils that prove transition aren't all missing. You're just asking for a detailed step by step guide from the beginning until now.

[loCAtek]

Dogs and wolves are both sub-species of Canis Lupus. They are of the same species.

Man does not tend to create new 'species'. That's not how natural selection works.

Wiki;

The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris),[2][3] is a subspecies of the gray wolf (Canis lupus),

...good, we both agree with Dsg49. I hoped the link would illustrated that if not for the influence of Man; dogs probably would not have become a sub-species. I guess you could say that's not direct, deliberate 'creation', so maybe it's not.

[Gob]

We have proto-birds, proto-humans, proto-amphibians, proto-whales...

Do we have proto-beers?

Cliff Clavin's Theory of Beer

"A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. When the herd is hunted, the slow and weak at the back are killed first. The speed and health of the herd keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.

"In the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as its slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. Naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.

"In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers."

[MajGenl.Meade]

[Gob]

[MajGenl.Meade]

The persistence of ad hominemism is continually astounding.

Fixed!

[loCAtek]

Obviously, war/conflict for resources, was the result of evolution: Apes took the next step of pro-active offensive, to achieve strategic advange over other primate competitors.

When Man rose above his beastiality, and sought to forgive without any selfish benefit to himself, did he show his divine spark.