Contrary to wingnut claims, evolutionary theory does NOT...

Teach this wingnut . First sign of weakness of mind when one does not answer the question except with an insult



This is the basic biological definition of Species.

"The major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."
Thank you, a mule deer and whitetail deer can produce offspring. A horse and donkey can produce offspring. A lion and tiger can produce offspring. What do these groups of animals have in common ? Now how come there is so many different breeds of horses and dogs,is it because of evolution or cross breeding ?




A combination of both. Most people don't understand exactly how evolution works. In a nutshell, everything mutates through time. Most mutations are not beneficial and are in fact harmful so the organism dies. Some mutations are benign and confer no advantage so continue on with the critter but there is no outward change.

Sometimes however, a mutation comes along that gives the critter a huge advantage over other critters of the same type (in other words they are vying for the same food source as an example) because it is so much better at doing whatever it is that needs to be done it is able to reproduce better and thus it's genes are transmitted along to the next generation which further distances itself from the competition.

In some cases the benefits are so great that the opposing critters actually die out completely. The competition between Neanderthal and Homo Saiens is an example of that.
We reproduced faster than Neanderthal and that is what probably gave us an edge over them and is why they eventually disappeared. They actually were stronger and more robust than we were but their gestation time was according to one theorist up to a year. There is of course some debate on that hypothesis, but if true is the only real advantage I can come up with for us vs them.
 
No it is not. The statement is at best worthless. The mice on Faroe Island are still the same species.
Wrong. The original mice were mus musculus domesticus, the current mice are mus musculus faroeensis and mus musculus muralis . They are clearly different from the house mouse, and from each other. Sub-species are not the same as the original species, or each other..Example: domestic dogs and dingoes (and 37 other varieties) are subspecies of canis lupus.

It's also possible the mice are fully seperate species...no studies have been done as far as I know. And it's only been a very very short time.
They are a product of cross breeding and they are still mice.
There was no cross breeding. First, there were no mice on the Island. Mus musculus domesticus was introduced. Now, without any other mice brought to the islands, there are mus musculus faroeensis and mus musculus muralis...two new sub-species or species.

Cross-breeding is the mixing of two different breeds from the same species or sub-species.
 
Wrong. The original mice were mus musculus domesticus, the current mice are mus musculus faroeensis and mus musculus muralis . They are clearly different from the house mouse, and from each other. Sub-species are not the same as the original species, or each other..Example: domestic dogs and dingoes (and 37 other varieties) are subspecies of canis lupus.

It's also possible the mice are fully seperate species...no studies have been done as far as I know. And it's only been a very very short time.
They are a product of cross breeding and they are still mice.
There was no cross breeding. First, there were no mice on the Island. Mus musculus domesticus was introduced. Now, without any other mice brought to the islands, there are mus musculus faroeensis and mus musculus muralis...two new sub-species or species.

Cross-breeding is the mixing of two different breeds from the same species or sub-species.

This raises questions for me and I am such a natural skeptic. How can anyone be sure there were no other mice before the house mouse was introduced ? How can we be sure there was only one breed of mouse introduced ? Now for the all important question , if evolution happens through mutations and it takes thousands of years for the process how did these mice evolve in just a few hundred years ? The theory constantly is contradicted by evidence.
 
They are a product of cross breeding and they are still mice.
There was no cross breeding. First, there were no mice on the Island. Mus musculus domesticus was introduced. Now, without any other mice brought to the islands, there are mus musculus faroeensis and mus musculus muralis...two new sub-species or species.

Cross-breeding is the mixing of two different breeds from the same species or sub-species.

This raises questions for me and I am such a natural skeptic. How can anyone be sure there were no other mice before the house mouse was introduced ? How can we be sure there was only one breed of mouse introduced ? Now for the all important question , if evolution happens through mutations and it takes thousands of years for the process how did these mice evolve in just a few hundred years ? The theory constantly is contradicted by evidence.

Mitochondrial analysis can determine the parentage of the mice.

And evolution doesn't take thousands of years. Evolution is constantly acting on the gene pool.
 
They are a product of cross breeding and they are still mice.
There was no cross breeding. First, there were no mice on the Island. Mus musculus domesticus was introduced. Now, without any other mice brought to the islands, there are mus musculus faroeensis and mus musculus muralis...two new sub-species or species.

Cross-breeding is the mixing of two different breeds from the same species or sub-species.

This raises questions for me and I am such a natural skeptic. How can anyone be sure there were no other mice before the house mouse was introduced ? How can we be sure there was only one breed of mouse introduced ? Now for the all important question , if evolution happens through mutations and it takes thousands of years for the process how did these mice evolve in just a few hundred years ? The theory constantly is contradicted by evidence.





Evolution takes generations, not thousands of years. Some animals have very short lifespans thus in the normal lifetime of a human who experiences on average two and a half generations, a fruit fly colony will process through around 18,000 generations. The shorter the lifespan the more generations for evolution to occur. That's why mice are such nice subjects of study. The short duration of their existence allows us to see evolution in practice.

Your other concerns are of course logical. I think we can be 100% sure there were no mice before the introduction because there is no historical record of there being any whereas the record indicates quite clearly after the introduction of the mice as to there being a problem with them.

More then one species? No idea nor is it proveable one way or the other. However Occams Razor tells us that in the absence of evidence we must choose one species as that is the most logical and the simplest path.
 
Mammals? Sure

But I'm sure you know that evolution is not limited to MAMMALS

We are mammals. There is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence that a mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more species. There for evolutionary theory is not PROVEN in regards to mammals.

Further I know of no evidence that insects have evolve4d into two or more species. No fish or sea life either. Are birds mammals, as far as I know there is zero evidence they have evolved from one species into 2 or more species.

Plants and virus do not operate like these other species.

I suspected that was what you're implying. And there is EVIDENCE, so you are wrong about that.

Cases of Speciation

I don't know whether this has been posted yet but here is an example of large mammal speciation.

New species have been created by domesticated animal husbandry, but the initial dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. For example, domestic sheep were created by hybridisation, and no longer produce viable offspring with Ovis orientalis, one species from which they are descended.[17] Domestic cattle, on the other hand, can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., as they readily produce fertile offspring with them.
Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those that would argue that human domestication doesn't count I would ask: Why not?
Darwin argued evolution took place given three things. Random changes in individuals acted upon by one or more selection pressures over time. In this case the selection pressure is applied by humans wanting specific traits in individual animals. Such a pressure is not operationally any different than any other selection pressure like, say, isolation on an island in the South Pacific. One could also argue that if humans themselves were the product of years of natural evolution and that their intelligence and its by-product, human intent, were therefore natural, then the product of human intervention in producing the new species of sheep was also natural. Note the sheep are 'reproductively isolated' (cannot successfully mate with its wild ancestor) and therefore considered new species.

JM

P.S. Darwin's theory most significant feature was not that evolution happens with live creatures but that it called into question the origin of life itself and that is where the real controversy lies. He himself, in private correspondence, realized his theory called for a, let's say, paradigm change that polite society may not be ready for...and still might not be ready for.
 
Well..if we do all have a common ancestor, there would have had to be some incest.

Wouldn't there???? Because all of us would have come from the same dad, so to speak...and that could only happen if his children had children with each other.

OMG religious ignorance knows no bounds...:eusa_whistle:
 
Last edited:
Well..if we do all have a common ancestor, there would have had to be some incest.

Wouldn't there???? Because all of us would have come from the same dad, so to speak...and that could only happen if his children had children with each other.

OMG religious ignorance knows no bounds...:eusa_whistle:




Actually that is a legitimate question. If you weren't trying so hard to denigrate people and actually thought things through for a second or too, you would see that.
 
Well..if we do all have a common ancestor, there would have had to be some incest.

Wouldn't there???? Because all of us would have come from the same dad, so to speak...and that could only happen if his children had children with each other.

OMG religious ignorance knows no bounds...:eusa_whistle:




Actually that is a legitimate question. If you weren't trying so hard to denigrate people and actually thought things through for a second or too, you would see that.

I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.
 
I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.

The fact that scientists use 'mitochondrial Eve' to describe our earliest common female ancestor as a species is probably just as confusing.
 
I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.

The fact that scientists use 'mitochondrial Eve' to describe our earliest common female ancestor as a species is probably just as confusing.

Possibly, but I doubt it. Wingnuts are so ignorant, they've probably never heard the term "mitochondrial Eve"
 
OMG religious ignorance knows no bounds...:eusa_whistle:




Actually that is a legitimate question. If you weren't trying so hard to denigrate people and actually thought things through for a second or too, you would see that.

I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.




The current genetic theory of human evolution includes a "Mitochondrial Eve" who lived around 200,000 years ago and which geneticists point to as the earliest known female ancestor of the race of modern humans. Obviously there were more females that lived at the time, but all of modern man traces our existence to her. At this time. With more research I am sure more discoveries will occur.

The problem is all theories are valid until proved otherwise, if you choose to bring religion into the discussion then you limit the available material. Just like a religious fanatic does from the other side.
 
I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.

The fact that scientists use 'mitochondrial Eve' to describe our earliest common female ancestor as a species is probably just as confusing.

Possibly, but I doubt it. Wingnuts are so ignorant, they've probably never heard the term "mitochondrial Eve"




There are wingnuts on both sides.
 
Actually that is a legitimate question. If you weren't trying so hard to denigrate people and actually thought things through for a second or too, you would see that.

I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.




The current genetic theory of human evolution includes a "Mitochondrial Eve" who lived around 200,000 years ago and which geneticists point to as the earliest known female ancestor of the race of modern humans. Obviously there were more females that lived at the time, but all of modern man traces our existence to her. At this time. With more research I am sure more discoveries will occur.

The problem is all theories are valid until proved otherwise, if you choose to bring religion into the discussion then you limit the available material. Just like a religious fanatic does from the other side.

I posted the comment about Adam and Eve because I agree with you that bringing religion into this discussion was not advisable. Mabe that didn't come through

And while there is a Mitochondrial Eve (ME), that does not mean that we are the products of incest. It's more likely that ME had multiple mates as did her children
 
I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.




The current genetic theory of human evolution includes a "Mitochondrial Eve" who lived around 200,000 years ago and which geneticists point to as the earliest known female ancestor of the race of modern humans. Obviously there were more females that lived at the time, but all of modern man traces our existence to her. At this time. With more research I am sure more discoveries will occur.

The problem is all theories are valid until proved otherwise, if you choose to bring religion into the discussion then you limit the available material. Just like a religious fanatic does from the other side.

I posted the comment about Adam and Eve because I agree with you that bringing religion into this discussion was not advisable. Mabe that didn't come through

And while there is a Mitochondrial Eve (ME), that does not mean that we are the products of incest. It's more likely that ME had multiple mates as did her children




That is certainly the most logical explanation. However, incest is also a possiblity however unpalatable that may be. Unless you honor all relevant and possible theories and study them fairly you are doing a diservice to science.
 
I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.




The current genetic theory of human evolution includes a "Mitochondrial Eve" who lived around 200,000 years ago and which geneticists point to as the earliest known female ancestor of the race of modern humans. Obviously there were more females that lived at the time, but all of modern man traces our existence to her. At this time. With more research I am sure more discoveries will occur.

The problem is all theories are valid until proved otherwise, if you choose to bring religion into the discussion then you limit the available material. Just like a religious fanatic does from the other side.

I posted the comment about Adam and Eve because I agree with you that bringing religion into this discussion was not advisable. Mabe that didn't come through

And while there is a Mitochondrial Eve (ME), that does not mean that we are the products of incest. It's more likely that ME had multiple mates as did her children

What can you provide as proof there was more than one human couple to produce all of humanity ?
 
OMG religious ignorance knows no bounds...:eusa_whistle:




Actually that is a legitimate question. If you weren't trying so hard to denigrate people and actually thought things through for a second or too, you would see that.

I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.

Can you point out one positive mutation that benefitted an organism ?

How many mutations would it take for one organism to evolve into a completely new destinct organism ?

How many mutations does a human go through over their complete life ?

Where does the new information come from to produce a new species ?

Because as far as i can see a dog has the genetics to produce dogs and humans have the genetics to produce humans.
 
Last edited:
Actually that is a legitimate question. If you weren't trying so hard to denigrate people and actually thought things through for a second or too, you would see that.

I disagree. The idea that a species originates with one individual is an idea that can only be believed by someone who is very ignorant about the subject.

Evolution did not involve Adam and Eve.

Can you point out one positive mutation that benefitted an organism ?

How many mutations would it take for one organism to evolve into a completely new destinct organism ?

How many mutations does a human go through over their complete life ?

Where does the new information come from to produce a new species ?

Because as far as i can see a dog has the genetics to produce dogs and humans have the genetics to produce humans.




Of course, look at the finches of the Galapagos islands. There are many mutations amongst them that allow them to gather food on their particular island better than finches from the other islands would be able to do so.
 
The current genetic theory of human evolution includes a "Mitochondrial Eve" who lived around 200,000 years ago and which geneticists point to as the earliest known female ancestor of the race of modern humans. Obviously there were more females that lived at the time, but all of modern man traces our existence to her. At this time. With more research I am sure more discoveries will occur.

The problem is all theories are valid until proved otherwise, if you choose to bring religion into the discussion then you limit the available material. Just like a religious fanatic does from the other side.

I posted the comment about Adam and Eve because I agree with you that bringing religion into this discussion was not advisable. Mabe that didn't come through

And while there is a Mitochondrial Eve (ME), that does not mean that we are the products of incest. It's more likely that ME had multiple mates as did her children

What can you provide as proof there was more than one human couple to produce all of humanity ?




What can you provide as proof there wasn't?
 

Forum List

Back
Top