Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout
Options
Comments
-
Also, the article does not say the species was modified. Stop making ? up.
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »Biologists are debating whether or not they can be classified as such in the bio records now because they are still in the early stages of diverging as the article clearly says. Still, it shows evolution in action because they are, in fact, becoming seperate species
Really???
We are not talking about "becoming separate species"....
You were supposed to be providing the evidence of the observation of the origins of species.....Well then where is the new or evolved species???
Taking two sub-species, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae and modifying them to not reproduce does not illustrate a new species.......
It fits the provided definition in the article....The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
However, it does not provide a new species that can be included in the biological records......Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.
And therefore does not provide evidence or proof for the theory of evolution......
West Brooklyn wrote: »Also, the article does not say the species was modified. Stop making ? up.In the lab, researchers can coax successful breeding but there are complications.
Coax, modify....... Semantics
-
If we're talking about the origin of a species, we're in the right place. When ONE species becomes TWO; the origin of the second species is in the split of the first.Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species.
Biologists Laura Reed and Prof Therese Markow made the discovery by observing breeding patterns of fruit flies that live on rotting cacti in deserts.
The work could help scientists identify the genetic changes that lead one species to evolve into two species.
However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.
The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
When the two groups can no longer interbreed, they cease exchanging genes and eventually go their own evolutionary ways becoming separate species.
You said modify as if the Mojavensis or Arionzae were created by scientists but they weren't. This is something that happened naturally. Nothing was modified. Just as the article says, researches can COAX (or persuade; influence, NOT MODIFY) breeding but there are complications. Why are there complications? Because Mojavensis and Arizonae are evolving away from each other.
btw, coax and modify are not synonyms
mod·i·fy
verb \ˈmä-də-ˌfī\
mod·i·fiedmod·i·fy·ing
Definition of MODIFY
transitive verb
1
: to make less extreme : moderate
2
a: to limit or restrict the meaning of especially in a grammatical construction
b: to change (a vowel) by umlaut
3
a: to make minor changes in
b: to make basic or fundamental changes in often to give a new orientation to or to serve a new end <the wing of a bird is an arm modified for flying>
1coax
transitive verb \ˈkōks\
Definition of COAX
1
obsolete: ? , pet
2
: to influence or gently urge by caressing or flattering : wheedle <coaxed him into going>
3
: to draw, gain, or persuade by means of gentle urging or flattery <unable to coax an answer out of him>
4
: to manipulate with great perseverance and usually with considerable effort toward a desired state or activity <coax a fire to burn> -
It can't be this difficult to comprehend a single news article can it?
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »If we're talking about the origin of a species, we're in the right place. When ONE species becomes TWO; the origin of the second species is in the split of the first.
You said modify as if the Mojavensis or Arionzae were created by scientists but they weren't. This is something that happened naturally. Nothing was modified. Just as the article says, researches can COAX (or persuade; influence, NOT MODIFY) breeding but there are complications. Why are there complications? Because Mojavensis and Arizonae are evolving away from each other.
btw, coax and modify are not synonyms
LOL.....
Ok, Name the ONE species that evolved into TWO.....
You cannot......
The experiment began with two sub-species, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae.......
The experiment ended with Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae.......West Brooklyn wrote: »It can't be this difficult to comprehend a single news article can it?
btw, if a behavior or attribute has been coaxed into doing something that it would not do naturally.....
It would be safe to say that it has been changed or modified........
-
The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
The domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf. If two particular domestic dogs, like the great dane and the chihuahua, stopped reproducing or could not reproduce with one another, they would become seperate species. This is the case of mojavensis and arizonae.
-
-
-
-
ol copying is a form of flattery ass ? , biting @bambu style with the gif's after he son's you in this whole thread then step in your house with muddy boots and start doing the George Jefferson on your carpet.....
-
No doubt brother @waterproof......
dude trolling now that his argument has been beaten to death......
Too ignorant to realize that he is supporting his oppressors...
They got this ? exactly where they want him.....West Brooklyn wrote: »West Brooklyn wrote: »The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
The domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf. If two particular domestic dogs, like the great dane and the chihuahua, stopped reproducing or could not reproduce with one another, they would become seperate species. This is the case of mojavensis and arizonae.
This horseshit does not prove evolution......
separate species......
However, no "new species" or "evolved species".........
Still Danes and Chihuahua's..... mojavensis and arizonae.........
Where exactly is the "new species" or observation of the origins of species?????? -
Oh so now posting images is copyrighted by bambu? Gtfoh
@bambu, neither great danes nor chihuahuas have existed for all of earth's history. They both are descendents of the gray wolf. They are called subspecies, just like mojavensis and arizonae. A new species began when the subspecies descended from their ancestors but they are "born", or rather, they are classified as a new species when a subspecies can no longer interbreed with another. If you are arguing creation, you would have to explain how this happens with your theory because it's obviously observable as evolution. -
@bambu displays perfectly addiction to beliefs. Even when handed solid evidence opposing his views, he is blinded by his superstitions and ignorance. And @waterproof is so ignorant in general, all he can add to the topic is an argument over posting pictures.. Nothing relevant to bring to the table at all. Maybe you should go back in your hebrew thread and continue to ? around.. post Goodie Mob songs and talk about your fairy tales and the voices in your head; you know.. ? you know about. Both of you are clowns. You should pray for yourselves.
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »You should also take a look at this since you asked for itWest Brooklyn wrote: »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a "ring".
Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."[1]
Formally, the issue is that interfertile "able to interbreed" is not a transitive relation – if A can breed with B, and B can breed with C, it does not follow that A can breed with C – and thus does not define an equivalence relation. A ring species is a species that exhibits a counterexample to transitivity.[2]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are
• the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
• greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
• the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
• many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
• the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
• the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01
If you've skimmed a high school biology textbook, you've probably seen the picture: multicolored salamanders meander around California, displaying subtle shifts in appearance as they circle its Central Valley. This is Ensatina eschscholtzii, and it's so well known because it is a living example of speciation in action. Adjacent populations of the salamander look similar and mate with one another — but where the two ends of the loop overlap in Southern California, the two populations look quite different and behave as distinct species. The idea is that this continuum of salamanders — called a ring species — represents the evolutionary history of the lineage as it split into two.
Ensatina has been recognized as a ring species since the 1940s, when biologist Robert C. Stebbins trooped up and down California to investigate its range. Since then, several generations of scientists in Stebbins' institution, the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at UC Berkeley, have continued these studies, digging deeper into Ensatina's history and biology. At this point, one might think we'd know it all. What more could there be to learn after 60 years of research on a common salamander? "Lots!" says Tom Devitt, a graduate student at the museum. Tom studies Ensatina to flesh out its evolutionary history — but not just for Ensatina's sake. This classic example sheds light on the basic evolutionary processes that shape all life.
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »Oh so now posting images is copyrighted by bambu? Gtfoh
@bambu, neither great danes nor chihuahuas have existed for all of earth's history. They both are descendents of the gray wolf. They are called subspecies, just like mojavensis and arizonae. A new species began when the subspecies descended from their ancestors but they are "born", or rather, they are classified as a new species when a subspecies can no longer interbreed with another. If you are arguing creation, you would have to explain how this happens with your theory because it's obviously observable.
Well, the thing is you are supposed to be providing proof or evidence for this claim......
You are focused on the inability to interbreed, however you cannot provide evidence of the observation of a species descending or evolving from their ancestors....
-
? , humans domesticated the gray wolf and have been a witness to the modern domesticated dogs descend from that.
The inability to interbreed is how we determine a species. I've been posting proof for the last 2 pages. Proof, which by the way, you've been ignoring and avoiding.
If you're expecting me to post a youtube video of a new species evolving before our eyes in real time, that's not going to happen. This isn't Pokemon. This is real life -
Silly ? .....
3) In some rare cases scientists have been able to manipulate the gene pool so that some are able to reproduce......West Brooklyn wrote: »Also, the article does not say the species was modified. Stop making ? up.Coax, modify....... SemanticsWest Brooklyn wrote: »
You said modify as if the Mojavensis or Arionzae were created by scientists but they weren't. This is something that happened naturally. Nothing was modified. Just as the article says, researches can COAX (or persuade; influence, NOT MODIFY) breeding but there are complications. Why are there complications? Because Mojavensis and Arizonae are evolving away from each other.
btw, coax and modify are not synonyms
coax
transitive verb \ˈkōks\
Definition of COAX
4
: to manipulate with great perseverance and usually with considerable effort toward a desired state or activity <coax a fire to burn>
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »West Brooklyn wrote: »You should also take a look at this since you asked for itWest Brooklyn wrote: »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" species. Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region thus closing a "ring".
Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations, in which the intermediates have become extinct. Richard Dawkins observes that ring species "are only showing us in the spatial dimension something that must always happen in the time dimension."[1]
Formally, the issue is that interfertile "able to interbreed" is not a transitive relation – if A can breed with B, and B can breed with C, it does not follow that A can breed with C – and thus does not define an equivalence relation. A ring species is a species that exhibits a counterexample to transitivity.[2]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
Ring species show the process of speciation in action. In ring species, the species is distributed more or less in a line, such as around the base of a mountain range. Each population is able to breed with its neighboring population, but the populations at the two ends are not able to interbreed. (In a true ring species, those two end populations are adjacent to each other, completing the ring.) Examples of ring species are
• the salamander Ensatina, with seven different subspecies on the west coast of the United States. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed (Brown n.d.; Wake 1997).
• greenish warblers (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas. Their behavioral and genetic characteristics change gradually, starting from central Siberia, extending around the Himalayas, and back again, so two forms of the songbird coexist but do not interbreed in that part of their range (Irwin et al. 2001; Whitehouse 2001; Irwin et al. 2005).
• the deer mouse (Peromyces maniculatus), with over fifty subspecies in North America.
• many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides (Mayr 1942, 182-183).
• the American bee Hoplitis (Alcidamea) producta (Mayr 1963, 510).
• the subterranean mole rat, Spalax ehrenbergi (Nevo 1999).
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/devitt_01
If you've skimmed a high school biology textbook, you've probably seen the picture: multicolored salamanders meander around California, displaying subtle shifts in appearance as they circle its Central Valley. This is Ensatina eschscholtzii, and it's so well known because it is a living example of speciation in action. Adjacent populations of the salamander look similar and mate with one another — but where the two ends of the loop overlap in Southern California, the two populations look quite different and behave as distinct species. The idea is that this continuum of salamanders — called a ring species — represents the evolutionary history of the lineage as it split into two.
Ensatina has been recognized as a ring species since the 1940s, when biologist Robert C. Stebbins trooped up and down California to investigate its range. Since then, several generations of scientists in Stebbins' institution, the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at UC Berkeley, have continued these studies, digging deeper into Ensatina's history and biology. At this point, one might think we'd know it all. What more could there be to learn after 60 years of research on a common salamander? "Lots!" says Tom Devitt, a graduate student at the museum. Tom studies Ensatina to flesh out its evolutionary history — but not just for Ensatina's sake. This classic example sheds light on the basic evolutionary processes that shape all life.
-
The evolution of the domesticated dog is something that humans contributed to, but it still proves evolution. If evolution was false, humans would not have been able to do that.
The evolution of drosophila is something humans did not have a hand in.
You fail. -
Silly ? .....
Your previous posts does not prove ? ......
1) All "new species" that were observed are hybrids that are sterile (unable to produce offspring)......
2) A "new species" that is unable to survive without aid from scientists *Einstein or Frankenstein*
3) In some rare cases scientists have been able to manipulate the gene pool so that some are able to reproduce......
This actually provides more evidence for creationism rather than evolution.....
Can you read ? ????
Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
Your research, deconstructed.....
Sterile males
In the wild, Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae rarely, if ever, interbreed - even though their geographical ranges overlap.
In the lab, researchers can coax successful breeding but there are complications. *Einstein or Frankenstein*
Drosophila mojavensis mothers typically produce healthy offspring after mating with Drosophila arizonae males, but when Drosophila arizonae females mate with Drosphila mojavensis males, the resulting males are sterile.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3790531.stm
Here is my theory again stupid ? ....
All living creatures were created with the ability to reproduce only after their own kind....
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
The domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf. If two particular domestic dogs, like the great dane and the chihuahua, stopped reproducing or could not reproduce with one another, they would become seperate species. This is the case of mojavensis and arizonae.West Brooklyn wrote: »The evolution of the domesticated dog is something that humans contributed to, but it still proves evolution. If evolution was false, humans would not have been able to do that.
The evolution of drosophila is something humans did not have a hand in.
You fail.
Wolf: species:C. lupus
Great Dane: species: C. lupus
Chihuahua: species: C.lupus
mojavensis: species: Drosophila
arizonae: species: Drosophila
You fail.....
-
West Brooklyn wrote: »@bambu displays perfectly addiction to beliefs. Even when handed solid evidence opposing his views, he is blinded by his superstitions and ignorance. And @waterproof is so ignorant in general, all he can add to the topic is an argument over posting pictures.. Nothing relevant to bring to the table at all. Maybe you should go back in your hebrew thread and continue to ? around.. post Goodie Mob songs and talk about your fairy tales and the voices in your head; you know.. ? you know about. Both of you are clowns. You should pray for yourselves.
@Westbrooklyn ol snuggle soft, yellow back, weakling runt and son of a estrogen filled ape wipe yo mouth and shut the ? up,lol, wanna be a buddhist but never reached the spirtual point of serperating lower self from higher self to reveal the ELOHIM within from meditating and gaining knowledge of the universe and The Creator of All Things by listening to the Higher Self.
But look here ? boy didn't the very person who you follow said he will not move when he sat down by the tree until i find the end to suffering then while meditating he listen to innerself and answers manifest, lol i mean damn you is so stuck on trying to impress and prove a point that you forgot everthing your teacher taught and stand for, i mean with listening to his self you wouldn't have the book and teachings that you swear by, damn you is a ? lame.....lol.
and yes i will continue to post in my thread but i let other threads breath before i update, i see your ? ass pay attentions to what i listen, how i manifest elohim within by seperating lowerself from higherself and concerns about my thread when i haven't really give a ? about yours.
thanks for asking though,lol -
West Brooklyn wrote: »The emergence of a new species - speciation - occurs when distinct populations of a species stop reproducing with one another.
The domestic dog is a subspecies of the gray wolf. If two particular domestic dogs, like the great dane and the chihuahua, stopped reproducing or could not reproduce with one another, they would become seperate species. This is the case of mojavensis and arizonae.West Brooklyn wrote: »The evolution of the domesticated dog is something that humans contributed to, but it still proves evolution. If evolution was false, humans would not have been able to do that.
The evolution of drosophila is something humans did not have a hand in.
You fail.
Wolf: species:C. lupus
Great Dane: species: C. lupus
Chihuahua: species: C.lupus
mojavensis: species: Drosophila
arizonae: species: Drosophila
You fail.....
yo this ? guy @westbrooklyn is losing his mind, he's out of character right now i mean the emotional and mental beating you laying is causing him to become beast like in his manner -
plays some GOODIE MOB for @westbrooklyn maybe he can manifest and listen to his higherself and become ELOHIM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26fTzVncfXY -
waterproof wrote: »West Brooklyn wrote: »@bambu displays perfectly addiction to beliefs. Even when handed solid evidence opposing his views, he is blinded by his superstitions and ignorance. And @waterproof is so ignorant in general, all he can add to the topic is an argument over posting pictures.. Nothing relevant to bring to the table at all. Maybe you should go back in your hebrew thread and continue to ? around.. post Goodie Mob songs and talk about your fairy tales and the voices in your head; you know.. ? you know about. Both of you are clowns. You should pray for yourselves.
@Westbrooklyn (rant not included)
I didn't read any of this but thanks for putting time and effort into the responsewaterproof wrote: »yo this ? guy @westbrooklyn is losing his mind, he's out of character right now i mean the emotional and mental beating you laying is causing him to become beast like in his manner
If by emotional and mental beating, you mean making me laugh, sure
This discussion has been closed.