The Jesus Freaks Will Hate This

[robvalue]

When all else fails, claim anything that's not 100% certain is utterly worthless.

[Huggy Bear]

That was an example of what I mean by completely different species.
Is it your view that ALL life has a common ancestor?

Try reading a book before shoving your head further up your duodenum. Such as The Ancestor's Tale. (Don't worry I know you won't, I'd never accuse you of being a bibliophile...)

A book by Dawkins? not biased at all...

[Esquilax]

That was an example of what I mean by completely different species.
Is it your view that ALL life has a common ancestor?

That is the inference one can draw from the very clear evidence for evolution, and it is supported unanimously by phylogenetic recapitulation and morphology.

You however, asked for an example of cats giving birth to dogs, and there's only two ways to take that: one is that you don't have the first clue as to what evolution is and does, as if you did you'd know that the discrete dividing line you're looking for will never be possible, as evolutionary changes are small and gradual, meaning the change from one species to another is a gradient, not a series of individual steps. Each organism in the chain will always be a member of the species its parents were, although that species might be different from, say, what their ancestors were a few thousand generations back.

The other way I could take that is that you do know how evolution actually works, and have dishonestly configured a question that cannot be answered as a way to get one over on us, as though you can redefine what evolution is by fiat assertion and then say that because your straw-evolution isn't real, the real thing also cannot be. Either way, nobody is required to pretend that your misapprehensions/misrepresentations are the same as the real definition. You can either discuss evolution or not, but what you can't do is try to discuss what isn't evolution as though it is.

I do have one question though: why the hang up about species transitions? Species is just a human defined concept, it's not some baked in objective barrier that existed in nature before we came along. All that's happening is that a given lineage is changing so that its current categorization is no longer appropriate; it's just the real world showing that it's bigger and more fluid than our definitions. That happens all the time. When you have these incredulous reactions toward changes in species, you're basically just boggling at a word.

That's not the point, the point is, where has one animal family been observed to split off into a separate animal family? (however you wish to define it)

Why are you arbitrarily setting the limit at "animal families"? Evolution doesn't just describe that, it describes any genetic change over time in a population. Are you just making up your own definition based on ignorance (don't think I didn't see the "just a theory!" moment of astounding fuckwittery from you on the last page) or do you understand that the kind of change you're asking for takes such a long length of time that no human could possibly observe it?

I guess what I'm asking is, are you being ignorant, or a liar? Please do let us know; it's good to have an idea which of the two kinds of creationist we're dealing with here.

[Mister Agenda]

My actual statement was
Show me where a species evolving into a completely new species has ever been observed.

Um, species don't evolve into completely new species. They evolve into very similar species. Since that's what the theory of evolution predicts, how is it a problem?

Now show me where (for example) canines have been observed evolving into felines, or something similar.

If that happened on a scale observable in a human lifetime, it would upend our understanding of evolution. Why do you keep asking for examples of evolution that would disprove it if they were actually observed? For the record though, canines and felines have a common ancestor about 50 million years ago; and hyenas are an example of the feliformia suborder producing a canine-like family. We know this from the fossil record and genetic comparison, not because it happened before our very eyes.

"speciation" is a new term that has been created within the past century.

What earthly relevance does the term's age have?

By this definition, African-Americans would be considered a new species from the selective breeding practices that occurred during slavery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry, agriculture, or laboratory experiments.[/hide]

Is there a prize for most ridiculous statement? Just because a new species can be induced artificially does not mean that any result of selective breeding is automatically a new species. Bowling can result in a perfect score, that doesn't mean I bowled a perfect score.

[Mudhammam]

Try reading a book before shoving your head further up your duodenum. Such as The Ancestor's Tale. (Don't worry I know you won't, I'd never accuse you of being a bibliophile...)

A book by Dawkins? not biased at all...

And you would never read a book by an author who has strong opinions about anything, of course.

[robvalue]

Evolution doesn't disprove God, by the way. It just makes you need to accept the creation account is a metaphor/bullshit.

But if you will never consider that being a possibility, you'll have to continue to deny reality the rest of your life.

[Mister Agenda]

You don't get to input your own incoherent definitions and then still pretend that you're talking about the actual theory of evolution.

At least you acknowledge it as a theory.

Now if only you would:

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon."

[robvalue]

Huggy, this is my last ditch attempt to show you what you are asking for. This is a metaphor only.

Say you denied that people keep giving birth and form a family tree. That is our claim. You say you don't believe it is possible, and you say, "Show me an example of a woman giving birth to her great-great-great-great-...-great grandson!" By asking this, you show you don't understand the nature of the claim, that the great... grandson comes from many iterations of birth, not from one birth. And if we could give you such an example, it would be proof our claim is wrong.

[Mister Agenda]

Everything (likely) has a common ancestor, but that doesn't mean that every animal family family is descended from every other, or vice versa. Your aunt can't give birth to your brothers, to use a metaphor.

That's not the point, the point is, where has one animal family been observed to split off into a separate animal family? (however you wish to define it)

Hm. A Family is two steps down from species. The farther you go down the taxonomic ladder the 'more stable the label'. I can't think of a change in family, like Carnivora becoming Feliforma and Canidae that wouldn't take millions of years.

[JesusHChrist]

Huggy.....lol

And they wonder why we choose to use mockery and ridicule. To actually use the "we don't see cats turning into dogs" trope. Wow.

No hole too deep!