Right. I'm glad you read a bit of it Huggy, but evolution doesn't work by your framework. Gradual changes over time. Lots of little changes equal a big change. It's not much more complicated than that at a fundamental level. If you "expect" one species to transform into something entirely different, you need to go back and read more about it. And there's plenty more.

(February 13, 2015 at 12:43 pm)Natachan Wrote: "and by species, I mean from one animal into another, "

Someone is moving their goal posts. I love seeing these new flying goal posts, can I buy them at Academy?

(February 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I suppose I'd better include the quote or I'd be accused of "moving the goal posts"
http://atheistforums.org/thread-24368-po...#pid618632

Called it.
I was saying this a year ago btw, that why I included the link...

Guess you don't realize there are multiple definitions of "species"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-spec...html#part2
from robvalue's link

Quote:2.0 Species Definitions

A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. Three recent reviews in the Journal of Phycology give some idea of the scope of the debate (Castenholz 1992, Manhart and McCourt 1992, Wood and Leatham 1992). There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists. These include folk, biological, morphological, genetic, paleontological, evolutionary, phylogenetic and biosystematic definitions. In the interest of brevity, I'll only discuss four of these -- folk, biological, morphological and phylogenetic. A good review of species definitions is given in Stuessy 1990.

(February 9, 2015 at 11:38 am)Drich Wrote: why?

Sorry didn't realize you responded.

Its pretty embarrassing to pretend adults will take something as ridiculous as a capital C being anything more than using Grammar.

mark is just the name of some bloke. Mark with a big M is a fucking awesome bloke, which happens to be me.

(February 13, 2015 at 12:44 pm)robvalue Wrote: Right. I'm glad you read a bit of it Huggy, but evolution doesn't work by your framework. Gradual changes over time. Lots of little changes equal a big change. It's not much more complicated than that at a fundamental level. If you "expect" one species to transform into something entirely different, you need to go back and read more about it. And there's plenty more.

Yes, and that gradual change is considered to be "speciation" and by the definitions given in your article, a different species?

In my example of the selective breeding slaves, would you consider African-Americans a different species of human? considering they fall under the same definition.

If they can no longer interbreed, they are considered to have speciated.

Are you aware of the time scales were talking about here?

If two forms of human can no longer interbreed then you'd say they have speciated. If not, then they haven't yet. I'm no expert but that's the general gist.

---

Again, if you're expecting really quick speciation you will be disappointed. It typically takes a long time, though not always.

I don't give two shits what your view of a species is. You are wrong. The scientific consensus is that speciation has happened. If you want to argue "kinds" go ahead. It doesn't mean you're right or give your arguments any credibility. The definition of species that is commonly used and the one I know of through biology courses says that yes, speciation occurs. Often.

Right, please don't play word games. Words are arbitrary in the end. Evolution happens, small changes happen, splits occur where interbreeding can no longer happen, and eventually a lot and I mean a LOT of small changes make what is a visible big change.

---

But to just say something is "a frog" is a simplification and will be including huge numbers of transitional forms.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: If they can no longer interbreed, they are considered to have speciated.

Are you aware of the time scales were talking about here?

If two forms of human can no longer interbreed then you'd say they have speciated. If not, then they haven't yet. I'm no expert but that's the general gist.

It doesn't mean they can no interbreed because of incompatibility, but because they are isolated from each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Quote:Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise. The biologist Orator F. Cook was the first to coin the term 'speciation' for the splitting of lineages or "cladogenesis," as opposed to "anagenesis" or "phyletic evolution" occurring within lineages.[1][2][3] Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.

There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry, agriculture, or laboratory experiments.

It states that speciation can be induced artificially through "animal husbandry" which is selective breeding, so my question still stands.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:04 pm)robvalue Wrote: If they can no longer interbreed, they are considered to have speciated.

Are you aware of the time scales were talking about here?

If two forms of human can no longer interbreed then you'd say they have speciated. If not, then they haven't yet. I'm no expert but that's the general gist.

---

Again, if you're expecting really quick speciation you will be disappointed. It typically takes a long time, though not always.

Exactly. Given enough time and genetic isolation, it is possible a new species would result. But, in the slave case, there was neither time nor genetic isolation.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:07 pm)Natachan Wrote: I don't give two shits what your view of a species is. You are wrong. The scientific consensus is that speciation has happened. If you want to argue "kinds" go ahead. It doesn't mean you're right or give your arguments any credibility. The definition of species that is commonly used and the one I know of through biology courses says that yes, speciation occurs. Often.

first of all muppet I was asked what I meant by "entirely different species"

(February 12, 2015 at 4:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Right, and what is an "entirely different species" according to your definition?

And I gave an answer.

Esquilax posted a link about two similar frogs...
http://people.wcsu.edu/pinout/herpetolog...lation.htm

Quote:The gray treefrog and Cope's gray treefrog were once believed to be the same species.

that doesn't qualify as being an "entirely different species" under any definition.