(March 11, 2015 at 11:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote: "Species" and "speciation" are two completely different things
look at the definition for Species.

Quote:
species
noun spe·cies \ˈspē-(ˌ)shēz, -(ˌ)sēz\

biology : a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus

: a particular group of things or people that belong together or have some shared quality

A "completely different species" would not be able to reproduce with another species.

In the example of the Apple Maggot Fly genetically different offspring may have been produced but they still belong to the same species.

A Great Dane and Chihuahua belong to the same species.

And the prize for being scientifically illiterate enough to try posting a dictionary definition to a qualified Zoologist whilst adding a layer of bullshit regarding terminology goes to...

(March 12, 2015 at 9:00 am)Mr Greene Wrote: And the prize for being scientifically illiterate enough to try posting a dictionary definition to a qualified Zoologist whilst adding a layer of bullshit regarding terminology goes to...

Except, I included that definition in my original post.
I see the best you could do is copy/paste an article from 20 years ago which several people already posted in another discussion (you'd think a "qualified Zoologist" would have access to better, updated info). Am I to believe this is the only article that exist on this subject?

If your definition of species differs from the dictionary, then lets hear it.

Since you're so interested in definitions:

Quote:speciation
Line breaks: spe¦ci|ation
Pronunciation: /ˌspiːʃɪˈeɪʃ(ə)n/

/ˌspiːsiːˈeɪʃ(ə)n/



Definition of speciation in English:

noun
[mass noun] Biology

The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.

Derivatives

speciate
1
Pronunciation: /ˈspiːʃɪeɪt/ /ˈspiːsɪeɪt/
verb

Talk Origins is simply a good go-to source for information on regarding questions which get repeated ad nauseum and which I've been dealing with since Uni back in '99.
The fact that you haven't educated yourself before making the false statement that "speciation has not been observed" speaks volumes.
As such you're behind the curve even for the creationist, miost of which have shifted to "kinds" in a blatant dodge regarding the failure to hold the line at "species" as alluded to by another poster.
I'm not holding my breath, in the last 15 years creationists willingness to learn hasn't exactly been an outstanding characteristic of the group.

I wonder if creationists are actually scared of learning? It would make sense.

I suspect its more a case of training (indoctrination?) not to question what their leaders are telling them and simply regurgitating their pronouncements without actually investigating the claim before hand.
I presented the data for speciation here which Huggy obviously hadn't bothered to look up before he stuck his foot in mouth.
Sometimes this produces interesting results, on example being a time when a creationist questioned the amount of time from the beginning of life to emergence of multi-cellular life. I posted the genetic code for collagen (the 'glue' that holds cells together) which brought about a more interesting discussion though the creationist inevitably reverted to type and started a probability argument...

That's the problem. They're not interested in an actual discussion. They have their conclusions, and they will just bend arguments until they snap in half rather than consider they might be wrong.

It must be scary though, to have so much stake in a belief that you must defend it at all costs. So starting with the evidence and moving forward isn't an option for them, because they can never risk missing the target.

(March 12, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: By this definition, African-Americans would be considered a new species from the selective breeding practices that occurred during slavery.

Any sort of discussion with you is utterly useless. Your semantic gymnasitcs and rank willful ignorance, while impressive, shunt any sort of actual discourse to a halt.

"Completely new species" is a meaningless term.

No one (sane) has ever claimed that an animal from one family could give birth to an animal from another family. That is the absurd strawman that people who have no idea what evolution is always put forward.

(March 12, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Now show me where (for example) canines have been observed evolving into felines, or something similar.

Can I ask why you'd get into a conversation about evolution, and then ask for an example of something that's not only not evolution, but would actually disprove evolution?

Is there something wrong with you?