(February 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Dogs evolve from Dogs. In that sense I don't consider the frogs to be different species.

You do realize dogs didn't come about naturally? We bred them from wolves.

This is "artificial selection", as opposed to "natural selection", but the same process is involved. This is how life gradually changes over time. You are correct that cats don't evolve into dogs. If such a thing happened, it would disprove evolution. However, when you look at going from wolf -> dog -> chihuahua, you can see the process at work.

Quote:So we see that speciation can induced artificially through animal husbandry.

As you well know, slavery was a part of Americas history where they bred people like animals in order to pass on "favorable traits", do you consider African-Americans to be a different species of human?

I regret that such a thing happened in history but I don't see how that relates to a discussion on evolution. The practice was in play long before Darwin came along. Bringing this up smacks of "poisoning the well" and "red herring".

But since you asked, no, science considers all of humanity to be one species. "Race" is arbitrarily defined and so not part of scientific discussion. "Species" however, is, like all terms in science, strictly defined with a checklist. A "species" is where it can reproduce and produce a viable offspring, meaning one that can itself reproduce with others.

For example, a donkey and a horse can breed and produce a mule but the mule isn't able to reproduce. It's sterile. So donkeys and horses are considered two separate species. They both have the same root ancestor and each developed and changed enough that they eventually became two separate species, unable to produce viable offspring with one another. This is an example of speciation.

Humanity was born in Africa and migrated to the rest of the world. We even know from the fossil records where and when these migrations happened. Those who settled in areas closer to the North Pole, away from areas with abundant direct sunlight lost their color to adapt. The melanin in the skin acts as a natural sun block. Lighter skin sucks up scare sunlight, needed to produce vitamin D. Darker skin shields from overexposure to sunlight, avoiding skin cancer and sunburn (and also, as a side benefit, reducing wrinkles in old age). Hence, the closer you get to the tropics, the darker the skin and the closer you get to the North Pole, the lighter the skin. We see this pattern not just among Africans and Europeans but all over the world (observe the different tribes of Native Americans, from the Inuits of Alaska to the Incas of Peru). As far as science is concerned, that's all it is: direct sunlight exposure over a very long period of time.

Hence, racism isn't just morally wrong but absurd. We in America have created a social system where the most important thing about you is how much direct sunlight did your immediate ancestors get.

When you demystify so-called "race", you see clearly that we're all one. There is only one race: the human race. Religion, by contrast, tells stories about "the angels that didn't side with Jesus" (Mormonism) to "the descendants of Ham" (the Old Testament).

This is one example of how religion is neither necessary nor helpful in our understanding or moral issues. Science and reason offer better approaches.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:16 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: 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.

400 years not enough? keep in mind, "speciation" has been produced in a lab. Either way, you're saying that given enough time a different species of slave would be produced?

Yes, sweety, they do. They can no longer interbreed. They are genetically different and can only breed with members of their own species. This is what is considered a species by biologists. It is the definition of a species. No quote you have posted to so far contradicts this, just some arguments on morphological and genetic differences between subspecies.

You are sticking your fingers in your ears and going "nuh-uh!" It's not a convincing argument from a five year old and while I concede your scientific background might be lacking you have enough sense for this type of behaviour to be inexcusable.

Yes, if you seperate human's for long enough they may speciate.

400 years is a short length of time in evolutionary terms. If you put artificial conditions on evolution like it has to speciate in x years or it's failed then you are judging it by a false standard.

I think you actually understand this, but are fighting against it for reasons I don't get.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: 400 years not enough? keep in mind, "speciation" has been produced in a lab. Either way, you're saying that given enough time a different species of slave would be produced?

400 years is no where near enough time and you are ignoring the lack of genetic isolation. If traits developed making reproduction unlikely or impossible, then yes a new species could have developed.

Speciation has been produced in a lab on organisms that reproduce frequently such as fruit flies and bacteria. Not humans. If you could manage 10,000 generations of humans with directed selection in a lab, why do you think you would not see speciation? The exact same mechanism would apply.

It's not as though human genetics are a special case and different from fruit flies.

(February 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I'm Glad you had to jump in and open you mouth, I clearly stated

Quote:You do realize that one species of animal has never been observed to evolve into a completely different species

and by species, I mean from one animal into another, I consider frogs to belong to the same group. I suppose you forgot that I stated a while back that an animal can evolve from it's group, but a cat cant evolve into a dog. Dogs evolve from Dogs. In that sense I don't consider the frogs to be different species.

Here's the thing. I don't, you know, care about what you consider a species to be? You aren't actually the arbiter of what is and isn't allowed in the biological sciences, and your layman's, intuitive "this looks like this therefore same species," idea of what's what, concocted as it is entirely to serve your own argument and not due to any real understanding or research into the science, quite simply does not match with the established science.

In short, if your only response is to redefine the important words in the discussion, by fiat assertion alone, to mean whatever you need them to mean, then you've already lost. Don't think it escaped my notice that, while you were oh so quick to dismiss what I had to say, you didn't provide any details as to what you do consider a species to be other than "not what you said." You're insisting we play by your definitions- we aren't required to- and then keeping those definitions intentionally vague so that you can change them whenever you need to to keep disagreeing with us. It's the same argument we get from creationists all the time, except they invent their own term, "kinds," whereas you've just decided you have the right to change what species means to suit your ends. But the question I'm going to ask is the same: we're discussing science, so why should I be using your definitions over those of the scientific community that you definitely are not a part of?

Quote: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

Do you really think it's fair to ask us a question, and then expect us to remember the same vague, fiat definition you gave in a thread almost a year ago?

Quote:Ok, so let's examine "speciation" since you brought it up.
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.

So we see that speciation can induced artificially through animal husbandry.

As you well know, slavery was a part of Americas history where they bred people like animals in order to pass on "favorable traits", do you consider African-Americans to be a different species of human?

Do you understand the difference between "animal husbandry can lead to speciation," and "all animal husbandry leads to speciation"? I mean, do you get the distinction there?

Speciation events can occur due to artificial selection like animal husbandry, but not all instances of artificial selection lead directly to speciation. This is still a process that requires time for sufficient genetic change to accumulate; for example, it took a couple centuries at least for wolf domestication to lead to the evolution of the modern dog, and many more after that to lead up to all the different breeds that we have today. The practice of slavery simply did not last long enough, nor was the artificial selection therein widespread enough, to effect a speciation event. It's not our fault that you don't understand basic concepts in evolution, while you simultaneously disagree with it based on nothing.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it's impossible for someone to properly understand evolution, and still disagree with it. The only reason you have problems with this is because you don't understand it, and refuse to do research on anything more than things that will confirm your ideas that parts of it are wrong. You do remember that I brought up the speedy speciation of the Cope's Gray Treefrog as the exception, not the rule, right?

Quote: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.

They "were once" believed to be the same species, meaning that now they are considered separate species, after genetic research into them discovered the autopolyploidy that led to their speciation event.

To be clear, we've got the biologists and herpetologists on one side saying that it's a different species, and we've got some undereducated layman with an ideological axe to grind, saying they're the same species because kinds. Why on Earth do you think we should take your opinion seriously, over and above the trained conclusions of people who have dedicated their lives to studying this? Because you said so?

(February 13, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 1:16 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: 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.

400 years not enough? keep in mind, "speciation" has been produced in a lab. Either way, you're saying that given enough time a different species of slave would be produced?

It's not really the number of years. It is the number of generations.

That's why, as others have pointed out, bacteria and fruit flies are used for experimentation.

(February 13, 2015 at 1:21 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(February 13, 2015 at 12:24 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Dogs evolve from Dogs. In that sense I don't consider the frogs to be different species.

You do realize dogs didn't come about naturally? We bred them from wolves.

This is "artificial selection", as opposed to "natural selection", but the same process is involved. This is how life gradually changes over time. You are correct that cats don't evolve into dogs. If such a thing happened, it would disprove evolution. However, when you look at going from wolf -> dog -> chihuahua, you can see the process at work.

I'm aware of that, I was Just putting it simply, this isn't the first time i've had this discussion.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31486-page-12.html

(March 8, 2014 at 3:27 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: did you miss the part in the definition where is states "category of things"
ie. the different family of animals.

Equidae
Ursidae
Canidae
Felidae
Cervidae

get it now?

My stance is was always that Noah for instance, never took two of every single animal on to the Ark, the Bible clearly state he took two of each "sort" or "category" or "group".

Quote:Genesis 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.

so what ever two "canines" he took aboard the Ark are the ancestors of all the canines we have today, the animals that he didn't take went extinct.

I believe animals can evolve within their group, I don't believe however, that all creatures evolved from the same ancestor.

Why are you talking about Noah?

Are you being serious?

(February 13, 2015 at 1:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I believe animals can evolve within their group, I don't believe however, that all creatures evolved from the same ancestor.

Then why would humans share 25% of their genes with rice?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/0...ared-genes

Quote:A Human and a grain of rice may not, at first glance, look like cousins. And yet we share a quarter of our genes with that fine plant. The genes we share with rice—or rhinos or reef coral—are among the most striking signs of our common heritage. All animals, plants, and fungi share an ancestor that lived about 1.6 billion years ago. Every lineage that descended from that progenitor retains parts of its original genome, embodying one of evolution’s key principles: If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. Since evolution has conserved so many genes, exploring the genomes of other species can shed light on genes involved in human biology and disease. Even yeast has something to tell us about ourselves.