Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

[And_So_It_Burns]

Typical evolution vs creationism debate. One has an understanding of concepts like scientific theory, evidence and observation and other is a creationist

 

[bambu]

Typical evolution vs creationism debate. One has an understanding of concepts like scientific theory, evidence and observation and other is a creationist

Dumb, spoon fed nigga.....

Yall stupid niggas get exactly what you deserve cosign....

 

[Gold_Certificate]

The Biological Species Concept, proposed by Ernst Mayr, in 1942, emphasizes reproductive isolation as the basis of defining a species.[5] The definition states: "A species is defined as a population or group of populations whose members have the potential to interbreed with one another in nature and to produce viable offspring, but cannot produce viable, fertile offspring with members of other species." Mayr, a proponent of allopatric speciation, hypothesized that adaptive genetic changes that accumulate between allopatric populations cause negative epistasis in hybrids, resulting in sterility of the offspring.

Therefore, no new species.....

Good thing that's just a hypothesis that only refers to hybrids between allopatric populations.

Hybrids are the result of interbreeding between species. Sterile hybrids have no effect on allopatric speciation, because the fact that it's a hybrid means the speciation has already occurred.

So the non-bolded underlined conclusion is false since hybrids require speciation to exist.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

...

New Theory: Evolution Goes Backward

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Microbiologists contend that instead of increasing complexity, evolution of some systems—like interdependent microbial communities—can occur by losing complexity. How accurate or meaningful is this new idea about "reductive evolution," whereby life evolves by losing genes?1

The authors described their new hypothesis of evolution in the online journal mBio. They formulated this reductive evolution concept after they observed ocean-living bacteria losing genetic information.

The bacteria lost particular vital functions by somehow letting go of the genes that aided those functions. The bacteria survived by relying on nearby microbes to perform that vital task for them. Without devoting resources to that function, the bacteria are free to perform other roles more economically.

To these evolutionists, when bacteria lose genes, "reductive genome evolution" is occurring. But they admitted, "There is a tendency in evolutionary discourse to describe life's history as a progression towards increasing complexity." So has evolutionary discourse been misguided? Instead of simple-to-complex, was life's history instead filled with complex-to-simple evolutionary changes such as bacteria losing certain genes?

Life's history is often described as a progression because without a Creator, transforming hydrogen into humans required some kind of natural progression. One cannot climb a hill by falling down a hole.

But these study authors inadvertently showed why the story of simple-to-complex evolution is not scientific. They did not observe nature constructing bacterial genes, but they did observe bacteria losing genes. Gene loss may be termed "evolution" by some, but it provides absolutely no support for big-picture evolution. If evolution describes both the reduction and addition of genes, then it really doesn't describe anything...

I've stated that not all evolution is beneficial, and above I mentioned evolutionary change in E. Coli that leads to defects in DNA repair; so this article represents a good example of one of the types of biological evolution I've been referring to.

Gene loss may be termed "evolution" by some, but it provides absolutely no support for big-picture evolution. If evolution describes both the reduction and addition of genes, then it really doesn't describe anything

Good thing "big-picture evolution" only refers to one subjective form of evolution.

Evolution describes biological change over time; if one assumes that can't include reduction of genes, they are mistaken.

Both the gaining and losing of something are a form of change; lack of change would be remaining exactly same.

 

[bambu]

It actually refers the genesis of reproductive barriers of allopatric populations.....

Sure....

Hybrids are sterile and cannot produce offspring (a new species)

However the speciation has already occurred.....

Where is the new or evolved life form????

 

[Gold_Certificate]

It actually refers the genesis of reproductive barriers of allopatric populations.....

Sure....

Hybrids are sterile and cannot produce offspring (a new species)

However the speciation has already occurred.....

Where is the new or evolved life form????...

The bolded is allopatric speciation; the reproductive barriers are what lead to the speciation in the first place.

After speciation, the will be more than one species; so the "new" species will be the recently-speciated ones.

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

 

[bambu]

It actually refers the genesis of reproductive barriers of allopatric populations.....

Sure....

Hybrids are sterile and cannot produce offspring (a new species)

However the speciation has already occurred.....

Where is the new or evolved life form????...

The bolded is allopatric speciation; the reproductive barriers are what lead to the speciation in the first place.

After speciation, the will be more than one species; so the "new" species will be the recently-speciated ones.

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

Allopatric speciation among fruit flies

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

Thus shattering the myth of producing an "evolved" organism....

 

[Gold_Certificate]

It actually refers the genesis of reproductive barriers of allopatric populations.....

Sure....

Hybrids are sterile and cannot produce offspring (a new species)

However the speciation has already occurred.....

Where is the new or evolved life form????...

The bolded is allopatric speciation; the reproductive barriers are what lead to the speciation in the first place.

After speciation, the will be more than one species; so the "new" species will be the recently-speciated ones.

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

Allopatric speciation among fruit flies

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

Thus shattering the myth of producing an "evolved" organism....

According to the image you posted, the "color" (the color may represent the characteristics of the flies) of the fruit flies changed after "eight or more generations"; at which point reproductive isolation occurred. So, the result is the reproductive isolation of the two groups of fruit flies.

Since there is nothing saying that the resulting fruit flies "cannot produce offspring"; the underlined conclusion is unsubstantiated.

 

[bambu]

It actually refers the genesis of reproductive barriers of allopatric populations.....

Sure....

Hybrids are sterile and cannot produce offspring (a new species)

However the speciation has already occurred.....

Where is the new or evolved life form????...

The bolded is allopatric speciation; the reproductive barriers are what lead to the speciation in the first place.

After speciation, the will be more than one species; so the "new" species will be the recently-speciated ones.

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

Allopatric speciation among fruit flies

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

Thus shattering the myth of producing an "evolved" organism....

According to the image you posted, the "color" (the color may represent the characteristics of the flies) of the fruit flies changed after "eight or more generations"; at which point reproductive isolation occurred. So, the result is the reproductive isolation of the two groups of fruit flies.

Since there is nothing saying that the resulting fruit flies "cannot produce offspring"; the underlined conclusion is unsubstantiated.

LOL....

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

It actually refers the genesis of reproductive barriers of allopatric populations.....

Sure....

Hybrids are sterile and cannot produce offspring (a new species)

However the speciation has already occurred.....

Where is the new or evolved life form????...

The bolded is allopatric speciation; the reproductive barriers are what lead to the speciation in the first place.

After speciation, the will be more than one species; so the "new" species will be the recently-speciated ones.

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

Allopatric speciation among fruit flies

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

Thus shattering the myth of producing an "evolved" organism....

According to the image you posted, the "color" (the color may represent the characteristics of the flies) of the fruit flies changed after "eight or more generations"; at which point reproductive isolation occurred. So, the result is the reproductive isolation of the two groups of fruit flies.

Since there is nothing saying that the resulting fruit flies "cannot produce offspring"; the underlined conclusion is unsubstantiated.

LOL....

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

In the picture you posted the resulting offspring are not hybrids (and hybrids are what Mayr's theory refers to); instead they are reproductively-isolated populations.

Where is the source that says these reproductively-isolated offspring could not reproduce?

Without this source, your conclusion is unsubstantiated.

 

[bambu]

LOL....

caught you in a "semantic" web....

Don't run away from your own science....

This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.

Diane Dodd’s fruit fly experiment suggests that isolating populations in different environments (e.g., with different food sources) can lead to the beginning of reproductive isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events.

The Biological Species Concept, proposed by Ernst Mayr, in 1942, emphasizes reproductive isolation as the basis of defining a species.

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

LOL....

caught you in a "semantic" web....

Don't run away from your own science....

This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation.

Diane Dodd’s fruit fly experiment suggests that isolating populations in different environments (e.g., with different food sources) can lead to the beginning of reproductive isolation. These results are consistent with the idea that geographic isolation is an important step of some speciation events.

The Biological Species Concept, proposed by Ernst Mayr, in 1942, emphasizes reproductive isolation as the basis of defining a species.

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

The underlined merely describes the experiment and the reproductive isolation that it resulted in.

However, you posted an image representing Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment, and then you wrote the following:

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

Where is your source to substantiate this claim?

 

[bambu]

Allopatric speciation among fruit flies

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

Thus shattering the myth of producing an "evolved" organism....

Where is your source to substantiate this claim?

The Biological Species Concept, proposed by Ernst Mayr, in 1942, emphasizes reproductive isolation as the basis of defining a species.[5] The definition states: "A species is defined as a population or group of populations whose members have the potential to interbreed with one another in nature and to produce viable offspring, but cannot produce viable, fertile offspring with members of other species." Mayr, a proponent of allopatric speciation, hypothesized that adaptive genetic changes that accumulate between allopatric populations cause negative epistasis in hybrids, resulting in sterility of the offspring.... Mayr, Ernst (1970). Populations, Species, and Evolution

Therefore if....

"This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation."

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

Thus shattering the myth of producing an "evolved" organism....

 

[Gold_Certificate]

Allopatric speciation among fruit flies

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

Thus shattering the myth of producing an "evolved" organism....

Where is your source to substantiate this claim?

The Biological Species Concept, proposed by Ernst Mayr, in 1942, emphasizes reproductive isolation as the basis of defining a species.[5] The definition states: "A species is defined as a population or group of populations whose members have the potential to interbreed with one another in nature and to produce viable offspring, but cannot produce viable, fertile offspring with members of other species." Mayr, a proponent of allopatric speciation, hypothesized that adaptive genetic changes that accumulate between allopatric populations cause negative epistasis in hybrids, resulting in sterility of the offspring.... Mayr, Ernst (1970). Populations, Species, and Evolution



Therefore if....

"This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation."

Mayr's theory is that as a result of allopatric speciation, if these "new" species attempt to interbreed, they will produce a sterile hybrid as offspring.

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

Thus shattering the myth of producing an "evolved" organism....

The underlined is, once again, referring Mayr's theory about hybrids.

You still have not provided a source to substantiate you conclusion about Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment:

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

By "source", I mean something that documents that the fruit flies resulting from the experiment were infertile. Finding a source should be easy, assuming the conclusion isn't a baseless one you yourself formed.

If you are unable to provide this source, you may continue to repeat descriptions of Mayr's theory, allopatric speciation, and other details of the experiment; however, continuing to do so won't substantiate your conclusion.

 

[bambu]

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

They have.

Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment observed that isolation of fruit flies and the changing their food resulted in reproductive isolation after 35 generations; which demonstrates a form of allopatric speciation.

The ongoing "E. coli long-term evolution" experiment has tracked genetic changes in over 50,000 generations of 12 initially-identical populations of E. Coli; some of which were larger cells in all groups, defects in 4 groups' DNA repair, the ability to metabolize citrate in one group, and an average of 10-20 fixated beneficial mutations per population.

So, plenty have observed bacteria and fruit flies macroevolve; not to mention the easily-observable microevolution.

[/img]

 

[Gold_Certificate]

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.

They have.

Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment observed that isolation of fruit flies and the changing their food resulted in reproductive isolation after 35 generations; which demonstrates a form of allopatric speciation.

The ongoing "E. coli long-term evolution" experiment has tracked genetic changes in over 50,000 generations of 12 initially-identical populations of E. Coli; some of which were larger cells in all groups, defects in 4 groups' DNA repair, the ability to metabolize citrate in one group, and an average of 10-20 fixated beneficial mutations per population.

So, plenty have observed bacteria and fruit flies macroevolve; not to mention the easily-observable microevolution.

What claim did I make that requires support?

You made the below claim about Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment:

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

You have since failed to support this claim.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

...Therefore if....

"This is the sort of result we'd expect, if allopatric speciation were a typical mode of speciation."

I did not claim this. It is a quote you posted, and it refers to the expectations of whoever wrote it.

Expectations about the result scientific experiment fall under the "hypothesis".

So you have nothing to support this claim about Diane Dodd's fruit fly experiment?:

The result = a "genetically modified" organism that cannot produce offspring....

 

[bambu]

SMH @Janklow...

For taking the time to delete comments, but not being able to formulate any other rebuttal to @Bambu.....

"feelings"

 

[judahxulu]

FUCKING PATHETIC...LOL. look at the little threads yall clutch at. all bark no bite. all sizzle no steak. that shit is not even a relatively scaled down version of species changing into new ones.

A species changing into a new one is "speciation"; and sexual isolation is a form of allopatric speciation. So, by definition, what I described when referring to the fruit flies is a "version of species changing into new ones".

Besides you asked for "macroevolution", not speciation; which can be considered a form of either macroevolution or microevolution, depending on the circumstances. What I described when referring to the fruit flies and E. Coli are both examples of macroevolution.

If you are able to refute any of it, go ahead.

How does that = apes to humans? Thats a waaay bigger morphological jump. All this dense doublespeak....none of this and all of your more recent posts demonstrate how that relates to apes turning to men, cells turning to fish or anything like that. if thats not what evolution has come to mean then say that. its one way or another. there is proof or there is not. seems like you nigga just make up shit as yo go along SOLELY for the purpose of holding on to the CONCEPT of evolution as it was created because it validates the benefactors of such a theory being accepted as true. if all this shit works nothing like what Darwin said, then it needs to be publicly clarified with as much force and vigor as the misconception was taught. Its all game and bullshit though. if a muthafucka gotta talk long or evasive then they usually are bullshitting.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

FUCKING PATHETIC...LOL. look at the little threads yall clutch at. all bark no bite. all sizzle no steak. that shit is not even a relatively scaled down version of species changing into new ones.

A species changing into a new one is "speciation"; and sexual isolation is a form of allopatric speciation. So, by definition, what I described when referring to the fruit flies is a "version of species changing into new ones".

Besides you asked for "macroevolution", not speciation; which can be considered a form of either macroevolution or microevolution, depending on the circumstances. What I described when referring to the fruit flies and E. Coli are both examples of macroevolution.

If you are able to refute any of it, go ahead.

How does that = apes to humans? Thats a waaay bigger morphological jump. All this dense doublespeak....none of this and all of your more recent posts demonstrate how that relates to apes turning to men, cells turning to fish or anything like that. if thats not what evolution has come to mean then say that. its one way or another. there is proof or there is not. seems like you nigga just make up shit as yo go along SOLELY for the purpose of holding on to the CONCEPT of evolution as it was created because it validates the benefactors of such a theory being accepted as true. if all this shit works nothing like what Darwin said, then it needs to be publicly clarified with as much force and vigor as the misconception was taught. Its all game and bullshit though. if a muthafucka gotta talk long or evasive then they usually are bullshitting.

You asked:

how come no one has ever observe bacteria or fruit flies macro-evolve muthafucka? ...

Your question was about the observed macroevolution of fruit flies and bacteria, so my answer was also about the observed macroevolution of fruit flies and bacteria.

If you are able to refute my answer to your question, go ahead.

Or do you have a different question now?