Quote :

"You listed 3 different ideas, which could support intra-species evolution then you suddenly jump to the conclusion that from intra-species evolution we now get inter-species evolution."

Time. The longer the two groups adapt in different environments, the more different they become. Speciation is simply the ability to reproduce. When they become too different to reproduce, they are different species. Then groups of those groups split and so on. The key is time. It doesn't make sense if you aren't thinking on the scale of billions of years so I understand why someone who can't comprehend more than a thousand years would struggle with evolution.

Quote :

"Must be easy to be a "God fearing man" when your God conforms to whatever world view you want to have."

My God conforms to undeniable facts. Its not easy. You act like I chose to have evolution. Nobody chose for evolution to be the way it is. Its just the truth we discovered. God gave us the ability to reason and discover truths. These same methods have made life better in more ways than I can name and you want to say they are all luck and God is playing games with us.

7/22/2011 10:29:15 PM

Quote :

"These same methods have made life better in more ways than I can name and you want to say they are all luck and God is playing games with us."

How am I saying they are luck? Let's get something straight, it's apparent that the theory of evolution is postulation towards the idea, as you stated earlier, of why all cells behave identically. As I said interspecies evolution is not a MEANS to this end, but is a theory which is justified using this.

I am not saying that God is playing games with us, he did give us the ability to reason, and using this reason we discovered a multitude of scientific breakthroughs that improved our quality of life. Inter-species evolution is a theory, not an undeniable fact.


Inter-species evolution is not something you use to create progress, it is something you use to justify what you don't understand.

7/22/2011 10:35:02 PM

Actually, there has been tons of progress in areas that are still considered unethical but will be very useful someday when we find an ethical application. Like right now we could turn a chicken into a dinosaur because all of the genes are still present they have just become deactivated as mordern birds have evolved over the years. Theres no use for something like that but someday there will be a very useful application for this type of thing.

Quote :

"not an undeniable fact. "

the moon being held to earth by gravity is a theory.

by your logic there are no facts

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 10:47 PM. Reason : on theories. ]

7/22/2011 10:45:43 PM

Quote :

"Actually, there has been tons of progress in areas that are still considered unethical but will be very useful someday when we find an ethical application. Like right now we could turn a chicken into a dinosaur because all of the genes are still present they have just become deactivated as mordern birds have evolved over the years. Theres no use for something like that but someday there will be a very useful application for this type of thing."

Beyond the fact that I'd imagine there is more to it then what you state. Developing and creating a different life form does not qualify inter-species evolution. I'd love to see the scholarly article on turning chickens into dinosaurs. Is that being funded by John Hammond?

Quote :

"not an undeniable fact."

I'm not establishing relativism here, I'm trying to say that interspecies evolution theory, is a means of justifying something that we cannot fully understand. Gravity is also a means of justifying something we cannot fully understand. Albeit gravity is a much better means of justifying something we cannot understand as there are testable ramifications of gravity. Gravity is a predictable quantifiable theory, that we are exhibited and measured every day. Inter-species evolution is 1. Not observable. 2. Does not have testable ramifications, due to lack of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS.

7/22/2011 11:04:38 PM

We use short generation organisms like bacteria to observe evolution all the time.

7/22/2011 11:11:19 PM

Explain this.

7/22/2011 11:13:53 PM

http://news.msu.edu/media/documents/2009/10/a3270403-b19c-4be8-aac9-15acae041269.pdf
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/bergstrom_03

bacteria reproduce very quickly which gives us time to view hundreds or even thousands of generations in a reasonable time period. we can then watch mutations turn into adaptations and several adaptations turn into new species.

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 11:33 PM. Reason : k]

7/22/2011 11:32:18 PM

Neither of these examples show bacteria becoming a different species. These are both examples of intra-species evolution. There are also both "popular science" articles, which I was expecting you to quote since you are not yourself an evolutionary biologist, only a pedant who pretends to be.

7/22/2011 11:41:42 PM

How can you possibly qualify these as "new species" the researchers themselves, with their largest breakthrough call it:

"This development was particularly exciting because it showed that, in a relatively short period of time – a couple of decades – a brand new function could evolve"

A brand new function of the same species.

I myself think you are playing fast and loose with the idea of what defines a species.

7/22/2011 11:43:37 PM

You are being naive. If one function can pop up in that short of time then multiple functions will easily establish a new species. You must not know what species means. Its simply two things that are different enough that they can't reproduce fertile offspring. There are over 300,000 species of just Beatles. Most of which the average eye would call identical. You can also match the characteristics of similar species to the differences in their environments. Further proof of evolution.

Where do you see that those articles came from popular science and what is wrong with that magazine anyway? Its completely legit even though i didn't get these from there. michigan state and cal Berkeley are about as legit as you can get.

[Edited on July 22, 2011 at 11:51 PM. Reason : microbial ecology professors are wrong about bacteria ITT]

7/22/2011 11:50:04 PM

Well if that is the case for your definition of species, how would positing bacteria gaining more function support your theory of evolution, since bacteria reproduce asexually? And if this is a case of a new species forming why don't they just make the claim themselves. I may be being naive, but at least I'm not pretending to know something that I have no expertise in.

7/22/2011 11:53:24 PM

Quote :

"Where do you see that those articles came from popular science and what is wrong with that magazine anyway? Its completely legit even though i didn't get these from there. michigan state and cal Berkeley are about as legit as you can get. "

I'm saying they are not scholarly articles, they are a synopsis done by someone who is not in the field of evolutionary biology on people who actually are.

What I'm claiming is that you in fact, do not know what you are talking about, and are merely going about making claims with very little scientific backing.

7/22/2011 11:55:44 PM

Quote :

"microbial ecology professors are wrong about bacteria ITT"

How am I claiming this? Your putting statements in their mouths that are not what they are saying. It seems to me that you are using are defining a species one way, then using evidence that doesn't support your definition of a species and saying to me that it is speciation.

7/22/2011 11:58:15 PM

You don't need expertise to understand basic principles of science. This is middle school level biology we are talking about.

Speciation gets very vague when you are talking about bacteria since new bacteria species are evolving so often they are often just classified by genus alone. Mutations get passed down quicker and more easily in asexual organisms.

Which is it you have a problem with?

1.Mutations/genes
2.Adaptations/inheritance
3.Migration/Isolation
4.Time

All very simple concepts and the four of them together are all you need to understand how evolution happens.

7/23/2011 12:01:24 AM

Yes, I've heard your four basic principles before. I'm not having a problem with your four principles I'm having a problem with how you confound scientific evidence to support what you are postulating, since "Speciation gets very vague when you are talking about bacteria" removes your idea that inter species evolution can be tested.

So this is how this thread goes, you make a claim based on theory, I say to you this theory cannot be tested, you tell me how it can be tested, then when I disagree with what is being tested, you say it's because it vague but even though it's vague it can still be applied to every living creature in the exact same way.


My point is that I am asking a question not about your theory, which you stated in the four areas on page one, but your testable evidence, which you have failed to provide.


Also, I want to see the article where they say they can turn chickens into dinosaurs.

7/23/2011 12:07:24 AM

Here is a list of published scholarly articles on Lenski's research.
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSearchResults.php?group=aad

I don't have time to write a research paper for you.

7/23/2011 12:07:44 AM

Speciation is vague when you are talking about bacteria because bacteria are changing into different species so quickly. You were arguing that we couldn't see new species being created at all and the fact that bacteria speciation is vague is actually BECAUSE they are changing into new species so quickly that its pointless. We just classify these type of bacteria by genus since genus isn't changing quickly.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang/eng//id/1163

[Edited on July 23, 2011 at 12:12 AM. Reason : k]

7/23/2011 12:10:36 AM

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Lenski's research. He does not make the claims that you make, probably because he knows making claims without evidence is unwise.


Let me create 4 points that clearly describe why your whole thought process is flawed in this respect.

1. You say there is interspecies evolution amongst all species.
2. You list out three aspects that describe intraspecies evolution and one that can be used to justify inter-species
3. You tell me when I ask for testable proof on inter-species evolution that these bacteria studies are an example.
4. You then say that speciation among bacteria is complicated but have claimed this as evidence for testable interspecies evolution that could be expanded to justify life from single celled organisms.

If bacteria are always forming new "species" how do we expand this to say that all life stemmed from one single cell.

I'm tired of just dancing around the subject. The fact of the matter is your evidence proves nothing when expanded into a broader realm outside of bacteria. I'll admit I didn't know that bacteria were always classified as a new genus, but I fail to see how this can be expanded to justify all of inter-species evolutionary theory.

7/23/2011 12:15:11 AM

Outside of bacteria there are tons of other types of evidence that all point the same way.

Since we started mapping complete genomes we have confirmed inter species evolution. Genes have tracers that work like a clock and tell you exactly how many generations ago a certain mutation formed. With this information we can compare the genomes of different organisms and figure out how far down the line they are realated and when certain traits showed up. We can cross reference this information and check it against dated fossils that actually confirm certain traits showed up at certain times and we are able to produce a detailed timeline of the evolution of life on Earth. We can figure out when exactly specific traits popped up and how the current species evolved over time.

At the bottom of this tree represents the LUCA or the last universal common ancestor for all life on earth. Over billions of years, those four processses have occured over and over again producing the diversity we have now.

7/23/2011 12:27:22 AM

Since it looks like you got that from Wikipedia, I'll go ahead and post from Wikipedia, the limitations:

Quote :

"Although phylogenetic trees produced on the basis of sequenced genes or genomic data in different species can provide evolutionary insight, they have important limitations. They do not necessarily accurately represent the species evolutionary history. The data on which they are based is noisy; the analysis can be confounded by horizontal gene transfer,[8] hybridisation between species that were not nearest neighbors on the tree before hybridisation takes place, convergent evolution, and conserved sequences. Also, there are problems in basing the analysis on a single type of character, such as a single gene or protein or only on morphological analysis, because such trees constructed from another unrelated data source often differ from the first, and therefore great care is needed in inferring phylogenetic relationships among species. This is most true of genetic material that is subject to lateral gene transfer and recombination, where different haplotype blocks can have different histories. In general, the output tree of a phylogenetic analysis is an estimate of the character's phylogeny (i.e. a gene tree) and not the phylogeny of the taxa (i.e. species tree) from which these characters were sampled, though ideally, both should be very close. For this reason, serious phylogenetic studies generally use a combination of genes that come from different genomic sources (e.g., from mitochondrial or plastid vs. nuclear genomes), or genes that would be expected to evolve under different selective regimes, so that homoplasy (false homology) would be unlikely to result from natural selection. When extinct species are included in a tree, they are terminal nodes, as it is unlikely that they are direct ancestors of any extant species. Scepticism might be applied when extinct species are included in trees that are wholly or partly based on DNA sequence data, due to the fact that little useful "ancient DNA" is preserved for longer than 100,000 years, and except in the most unusual circumstances no DNA sequences long enough for use in phylogenetic analyses have yet been recovered from material over 1 million years old. In some organisms, endosymbionts have an independent genetic history from the host. Phylogenetic networks are used when bifurcating trees are not suitable, due to these complications which suggest a more reticulate evolutionary history of the organisms sampled.."

Looks to me like your concrete evidence is a little lacking.

7/23/2011 12:38:02 AM

Clearly there are good reasons why some of the specific details may not be exactly the way they are but that doesn't take away from the general idea in any way.

[Edited on July 23, 2011 at 12:41 AM. Reason : I just used the picture from google images anyway. its in every textbook sans texas]

7/23/2011 12:40:39 AM

Quote :

"Also, there are problems in basing the analysis on a single type of character, such as a single gene or protein or only on morphological analysis, because such trees constructed from another unrelated data source often differ from the first, and therefore great care is needed in inferring phylogenetic relationships among species."

This doesn't sound like a problem in the detail it sounds like a problem in the analysis, which they call an inference.

7/23/2011 12:43:12 AM

this thread is full of lol on both sides

7/23/2011 12:47:24 AM

All I'm saying is, there is no conclusive evidence to support a "law of inter-species evolution." This is why it is a theory.

7/23/2011 12:50:34 AM

It is generally accepted though by 99% of people

7/23/2011 12:54:02 AM

In Germany the holocaust was accepted by the majority of people. And endorsed by the German Catholic church. This does not make it right.

7/23/2011 12:58:48 AM

There's this other great theory that no one really argues much about. Gravity.

7/23/2011 1:00:22 AM

i hear thats never been proven though, so clearly the earth is only 6000 years old

7/23/2011 1:01:27 AM

Read my posts in the Christianity thread, I fixed my claim to be more scripturally sound. I was wrong with my initial claim.

7/23/2011 1:03:29 AM

lol, i have no idea what you are talking about, i was just making a joke, i dont post stalk you or really have any idea about your ideas except what i have read in this thread

7/23/2011 1:09:29 AM

OH...

7/23/2011 1:13:51 AM

Quote :

"I myself think you are playing fast and loose with the idea of what defines a species."

It'll always seem that way to a guy that defines his personal semantic categories around religious goalposts

7/23/2011 1:19:39 AM

I'll ignore that gem of insight like I ignore the rest of your useless comments McDanger.

Since I've never seen you actually contribute discussion to a thread.

7/23/2011 1:25:48 AM

Evolution-denial

A brilliant troll gag but you're not gettin me

7/23/2011 1:30:22 AM

Go back to trolling the soap box no one wants you in CC.

7/23/2011 1:31:26 AM

do you seriously believe that hilarious shit you posted, though?

[Edited on July 23, 2011 at 1:34 AM. Reason : Come on troll me. Make me believe.]

7/23/2011 1:34:19 AM

7/23/2011 1:36:49 AM

BEST EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION EVER


THE SUPER CLAP


http://blogs.forbes.com/daviddisalvo/2011/07/16/is-america-ready-for-the-super-clap/

7/23/2011 3:21:50 AM

everybody knows blackjesus is the poor mans salisburyboy, leave him alone in his crazy made up world

7/23/2011 3:27:43 AM

I leave and this thread turns into a soap box topic.

7/24/2011 10:11:33 AM

I guess he finally got his forty and a mule

7/24/2011 10:18:21 AM

ATTN: TWW I give this bitch the benefit of the doubt. Click show this post and ^ thats what I get?

CheesyLabia you're a good for nothing cunt*. Plz hang yourself. Insecure ugly bitch*.



* These words are for CheesyLabia so all other TWW wimmens plz step aside while I deal with this out of control slut.

7/24/2011 10:22:12 AM

Quote :

"everybody knows blackjesus is the poor mans salisburyboy, leave him alone in his crazy made up world"

this made me lolz

coffee on my keyboard

7/24/2011 10:31:20 AM

^ Thundercunt

7/24/2011 10:35:31 AM