Theory of evolution

[DarianF]

3 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

 

You cant even comprehend the question.

 

 

 

 

"Five hundred and fifty million years ago the hearts of the entire animal world were simple tubular hearts, something that still characterizes heart development at the early embryonic stages in animals today. However, as time went by in certain lineages the hearts became increasingly sophisticated. As they became more sophisticated, new switches for the add-ons were put into place."

 

Evidences for Evolution: The Heart and Circulatory System of Vertebrates

https://biologos.org/articles/evidences-for-evolution-the-heart-and-circulatory-system-of-vertebrates

 

Perhaps I don't understand your question. But equally, you don't understand the response. That's okay, maybe some greater minds can figure this one out on our behalf.

[DarianF]

2 minutes ago, Pinkiebee said:

I think its long hand for a person

 

Or that old fella in the clouds judging us all? 

[oddsnsods]

Just now, DarianF said:

 

"Five hundred and fifty million years ago the hearts of the entire animal world were simple tubular hearts, something that still characterizes heart development at the early embryonic stages in animals today. However, as time went by in certain lineages the hearts became increasingly sophisticated. As they became more sophisticated, new switches for the add-ons were put into place."

 

Evidences for Evolution: The Heart and Circulatory System of Vertebrates

https://biologos.org/articles/evidences-for-evolution-the-heart-and-circulatory-system-of-vertebrates

 

Perhaps I don't understand your question. But equally, you don't understand the response. That's okay, maybe some greater minds can figure this one out on our behalf.

 

Okay Truegroup

Bring back Darian the old skool guy you kidnapped, who used to be funny now please.

[DarianF]

1 hour ago, zarkov said:

 

Just piles for my efforts ;)

 

 

 

I am not ignoring the fact that life violates the law of entropy for a closed system.

A contradiction whether you accept it or not.

 

For energy to exist what else has to exist?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution as Described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics

https://phys.org/news/2008-08-evolution-law-thermodynamics.html

[DarianF]

7 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Okay Truegroup

Bring back Darian the old skool guy you kidnapped, who used to be funny now please.

 

Oh okay, sorry. Your original question was a joke. Now it makes sense. 

[zarkov]

3 minutes ago, DarianF said:

 

Need for intelligent structure?

The laws of physics can be used to describe this reality intelligently can they not.

 

 

Ive posted this before elsewhere but seems appropriate here.

It describes the vast mathematical improbability of random creation of human dna.

The video preceding this wrt wave genetics here

 

 

 

[DarianF]

1 hour ago, Pinkiebee said:

Well nothing. Energy is the building block of the universe.  energy makes up every thing else

 

Nb there isnt a law of entropy.  It's a law of thermodynamics.  

 

Nnb a pile of stones is a wall 

 

Just flicking through this paper. Nice one (Natural selection for least action). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2008.0178

[DarianF]

1 minute ago, zarkov said:

The laws of physics can be used to describe this reality intelligently can they not.

 

 

Ive posted this before elsewhere but seems appropriate here.

It describes the vast mathematical improbability of random creation of human dna.

The video preceding this wrt wave genetics here

 

 

 

 

I'll have a look. Thanks.

[Pinkiebee]

Just now, DarianF said:

 

Just flicking through this paper. Nice one (Natural selection for least action). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspa.2008.0178

This is what I wish I'd wrote. I used 5 paragraphs to say the same thing half as well

 

". In general, evolution is a non-Euclidian energy density landscape in flattening motion."

[Given To Fly]

On 4/14/2022 at 10:25 PM, DarianF said:

 

Ignore all the evidence and place it within a convenient conspiracy framework so you don't have to deal with it.

 

I've just gone through this whole thread and the websites and 'scientists' you post links to also seem to support vaxx and efficacy of lockdowns and mask wearing

[Given To Fly]

11 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Okay Truegroup

Bring back Darian the old skool guy you kidnapped, who used to be funny now please.

 

I said similar the other day. Darian has now become the Follow The Science guy (kindred to Don Lemon).

Edited April 16, 2022 by Given To Fly

[Pinkiebee]

1 hour ago, Given To Fly said:

 

I've just gone through this whole thread and the websites and 'scientists' you post links to also seem to support vaxx and efficacy of lockdowns and mask wearing

Can you give a couple of examples of evolutionary biologists that have gone on the record about masks.

 

 I'm not doubting you. it's just not really their field of expertise 

 

The problem with damming them for that is. If you ask a " scientist " how to stop a killer virus.  They will come up with more of less what we got. It's not out right wrong if the question is accurate 

 

If you ask a sociologist if it will work or the damage it will do to society or an economist if it's good idea or a logistics  exspert if it can be organised.  Youl get a different answer

 

As it is. The virus wasnt that deadly so every thing was over the top ( in fact at times completly irrational  . Not helped by the policemen enforcing laws that didnt exist)and ignored the people actually at risk nearly completly and no body considered the other issues at all it seems.

 

Masks may have had at least some effect.  If they had been surgery grade.  What was commonly used were just placebos 

 

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by Pinkiebee

[Golden Retriever]

Just saying

 

The hidden benefit of Covid is science that could change our world

By: Richard Dawkins

 

Excerpts

 

Our current worldwide plague, too, may have hidden benefits. Others have speculated that, having learned that we can work productively without the daily commute to the office, and that you can convene a meeting over the internet rather than round a table, these habits may persist – with benefit to our quality of life and air. But I want to mention a more specific benefit. The science that Covid-19 has provoked.

 

Looking beyond this particular virus, the techniques developed to make messenger RNA vaccines can be generalized to future vaccines against other viruses.

 

And of course, when the world breathes again, in 2022 if not before, the heroes of the hour will be the scientists: the men and – especially, as it happens – the women who rose to the occasion and developed at least three effective vaccines with astonishing speed. They built on the spectacular discovery by Francis Crick, James Watson, Fred Sanger and their successors throughout the world that molecular genetics is a form of digital information technology.

 

https://richarddawkins.net/2021/03/the-hidden-benefit-of-covid-is-science-that-could-change-our-world/

 

 

 

 

[DarianF]

4 hours ago, Given To Fly said:

 

I've just gone through this whole thread and the websites and 'scientists' you post links to also seem to support vaxx and efficacy of lockdowns and mask wearing

 

Nice diversion attempt Discussing the fine details of biological evolution, but oh wait, here's a logical progression, let's switch to lockdowns and mask wearing

[DarianF]

3 hours ago, Pinkiebee said:

Can you give a couple of examples of evolutionary biologists that have gone on the record about masks.

 

 I'm not doubting you. it's just not really their field of expertise 

 

The problem with damming them for that is. If you ask a " scientist " how to stop a killer virus.  They will come up with more of less what we got. It's not out right wrong if the question is accurate 

 

If you ask a sociologist if it will work or the damage it will do to society or an economist if it's good idea or a logistics  exspert if it can be organised.  Youl get a different answer

 

As it is. The virus wasnt that deadly so every thing was over the top ( in fact at times completly irrational  . Not helped by the policemen enforcing laws that didnt exist)and ignored the people actually at risk nearly completly and no body considered the other issues at all it seems.

 

Masks may have had at least some effect.  If they had been surgery grade.  What was commonly used were just placebos 

 

 

 

GivenTF is just trying to divert the topic to covid, to take the heat off the actual discussion at hand.

[DarianF]

4 hours ago, Given To Fly said:

 

I said similar the other day. Darian has now become the Follow The Science guy (kindred to Don Lemon).

 

Diversion, now strawmanning. Are we going to stick with actual debate, or this kind of juvenile shite?

[Mitochondrial Eve]

On 4/15/2022 at 7:44 PM, DarianF said:

On Speciation ( @kj35 @Morpheus @Mitochondrial Eve ):

 

 

 

Darian has posted several times about speciation in support of evolution. My time is limited so there is only so much I can offer to this thread, but there are counter arguments to speciation that need pointing out.

 

When it comes to speciation, it is important to understand firstly what is meant by species whereby the standard definition among evolutionary biologists entails a “reproductively isolated population”. However, this definition does not necessitate any significant biological change taking place between two populations. The definition of speciation therefore does not fit with the grander claims of Darwinian evolution whereby it is posited that higher biological forms can arise.

 

An understanding of the difference between primary and secondary speciation is also helpful and the following link sets this out. https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/

 

• Speciation by polyploidy is considered “secondary speciation” and occurs when hybridisation takes place in such as way which results in a doubling of chromosomes making reproduction possible. Polyploidy has only been observed in plants and also runs counter to Darwin's “hypothesis” that new species are produced via natural selection. Nor does polyploidy cause morphological change or support neo-Darwinian theory that speciation arises via geographic separation or genetic divergence.

• Primary speciation – the splitting of one species into two by natural selection - is therefore apparently what needs to be shown to substantiate evolution and this has, according to molecular and cell biologist Jonathan Wells, never been found.

 

The video by Bozeman Science posted by Darian is made up of examples which “may be” on their way to forming a new species. In addition to these videos, TalkOrigins compiled a list of 'Observed Instances of Speciation' in July 2011 which is commonly cited by pro-Darwin debaters as proof of the workings of evolution.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

To counter the TalkOrigins list, a paper by scientist and attorney Carey Luskin analyses the technical literature in 21 out of 30 of the claimed observations. For the other 9 examples, the author had not been able to easily access the original papers, some of which were very old. It was found that none of the examples could show that large scale evolutionary change had taken place and that the vast majority of cases did not even meet the standard definition of speciation.

 

https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/03/Casey-Luskin-Specious-Speciation.pdf

 

Regarding the examples more specifically in the Bozeman Science video:

 

Fruit Flies

 

Bozeman Science starts out by citing Diane Dodd's 1989 study which concerned feeding different populations of fruit flies different diets – four populations were given a starch based diet and another four populations a maltose-based medium. It was found that the flies preferred to mate with individuals which had been fed the same diet. This was hailed therefore as an example of reproductive isolation. Seriously?!

 

At page 22 of his paper, Luskin points out the obvious that it was not that the two types of population were unable to interbreed and produce offspring, “it was just that they did so less than would be expected under normal random mating”. Also it cannot be said that they never interbred, and further papers have concluded reproductive isolation in this case was not complete and speciation was also not said to have occurred.

 

As with all other similar fruit fly studies of speciation, of which many are examined throughout section 5.3 of Luskin's work, no significant morphological changes occurred between the populations. The fruit flies remained fruit flies and the different strains could be described as more akin to races rather than a different species.

 

Plains Viscacha Rat

 

This mammal, cited by Boseman Science as an example of polyploidy, was originally thought to have arisen through “hybridisation and chromosome doubling from an ancestor”. However, as is so often the case with evolutionary biology it would seem, doubt has been cast over the original hypothesis and Wikipedia can be reviewed to verify this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_viscacha_rat

 

This study re-examined the alleged origins of the Plains Viscacha Rat and concluded that “polyploidy in mammals remains as unlikely as it always has been”.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0888754305000029?via%3Dihub

 

Polyploidy in Plants

 

It is granted that hybridisation and polyploidy has been observed to occur among flowering plants including in one of the examples examined by Luskin in his paper. However, no significant biological changes have been observed in cases of plant polyploidy which is what the concept of evolution entails.

 

I also reiterate the point above about how it has been said by critics that polyploidy (secondary speciation) is not sufficient to confirm evolution as natural selection is not involved.

[DarianF]

@Mitochondrial Eve I just wanted to add this one to the previous discussion on whale evolution (for anyone new to the thread, you can go back a few pages):

 

 

[DarianF]

8 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Darian has posted several times about speciation in support of evolution. My time is limited so there is only so much I can offer to this thread, but there are counter arguments to speciation that need pointing out.

 

When it comes to speciation, it is important to understand firstly what is meant by species whereby the standard definition among evolutionary biologists entails a “reproductively isolated population”. However, this definition does not necessitate any significant biological change taking place between two populations. The definition of speciation therefore does not fit with the grander claims of Darwinian evolution whereby it is posited that higher biological forms can arise.

 

An understanding of the difference between primary and secondary speciation is also helpful and the following link sets this out. https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/

 

• Speciation by polyploidy is considered “secondary speciation” and occurs when hybridisation takes place in such as way which results in a doubling of chromosomes making reproduction possible. Polyploidy has only been observed in plants and also runs counter to Darwin's “hypothesis” that new species are produced via natural selection. Nor does polyploidy cause morphological change or support neo-Darwinian theory that speciation arises via geographic separation or genetic divergence.

• Primary speciation – the splitting of one species into two by natural selection - is therefore apparently what needs to be shown to substantiate evolution and this has, according to molecular and cell biologist Jonathan Wells, never been found.

 

The video by Bozeman Science posted by Darian is made up of examples which “may be” on their way to forming a new species. In addition to these videos, TalkOrigins compiled a list of 'Observed Instances of Speciation' in July 2011 which is commonly cited by pro-Darwin debaters as proof of the workings of evolution.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

To counter the TalkOrigins list, a paper by scientist and attorney Carey Luskin analyses the technical literature in 21 out of 30 of the claimed observations. For the other 9 examples, the author had not been able to easily access the original papers, some of which were very old. It was found that none of the examples could show that large scale evolutionary change had taken place and that the vast majority of cases did not even meet the standard definition of speciation.

 

https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/03/Casey-Luskin-Specious-Speciation.pdf

 

Regarding the examples more specifically in the Bozeman Science video:

 

Fruit Flies

 

Bozeman Science starts out by citing Diane Dodd's 1989 study which concerned feeding different populations of fruit flies different diets – four populations were given a starch based diet and another four populations a maltose-based medium. It was found that the flies preferred to mate with individuals which had been fed the same diet. This was hailed therefore as an example of reproductive isolation. Seriously?!

 

At page 22 of his paper, Luskin points out the obvious that it was not that the two types of population were unable to interbreed and produce offspring, “it was just that they did so less than would be expected under normal random mating”. Also it cannot be said that they never interbred, and further papers have concluded reproductive isolation in this case was not complete and speciation was also not said to have occurred.

 

As with all other similar fruit fly studies of speciation, of which many are examined throughout section 5.3 of Luskin's work, no significant morphological changes occurred between the populations. The fruit flies remained fruit flies and the different strains could be described as more akin to races rather than a different species.

 

Plains Viscacha Rat

 

This mammal, cited by Boseman Science as an example of polyploidy, was originally thought to have arisen through “hybridisation and chromosome doubling from an ancestor”. However, as is so often the case with evolutionary biology it would seem, doubt has been cast over the original hypothesis and Wikipedia can be reviewed to verify this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_viscacha_rat

 

This study re-examined the alleged origins of the Plains Viscacha Rat and concluded that “polyploidy in mammals remains as unlikely as it always has been”.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0888754305000029?via%3Dihub

 

Polyploidy in Plants

 

It is granted that hybridisation and polyploidy has been observed to occur among flowering plants including in one of the examples examined by Luskin in his paper. However, no significant biological changes have been observed in cases of plant polyploidy which is what the concept of evolution entails.

 

I also reiterate the point above about how it has been said by critics that polyploidy (secondary speciation) is not sufficient to confirm evolution as natural selection is not involved.

 

Indeed, speciation is a complex matter in evolutionary biology ( https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/speciation-the-origin-of-new-species-26230527/ ), which is why I recommended a few pages back this book ( https://www.sinauer.com/media/wysiwyg/tocs/Speciation.pdf ), which covers a lot of the complexities.

 

We could use equine speciation as a good example and there's a good discussion in this paper:

 

Speciation with gene flow in equids despite extensive chromosomal plasticity

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1412627111

 

As for the idea that interbreeding cannot occur between species that have separated, it's not so simple. There are no preset rules. Good discussion below:

 

A Long-Busted Myth: It's Not True That Animals Belonging To Different Species Can Never Interbreed

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelmarshalleurope/2018/08/28/a-long-busted-myth-its-not-true-that-animals-belonging-to-different-species-can-never-interbreed/?sh=579e71683e65

 

But on the other hand it's telling that you get a lot of sterility the further apart you go.

[DarianF]

On 4/11/2022 at 5:39 PM, Mitochondrial Eve said:

 

https://www.icr.org/article/embarrassment-evolutionary-blunder-junk-dna/

 

This article highlights how junk DNA, which does not code for proteins, has been touted for years by evolutionists as evidence of their theory. Because they hastily proclaimed that non-coding DNA, which makes up between 90% - 98% of the genome, was useless, junk DNA was considered strong evidence against intelligent design with evolutionists questioning why an intelligent creator would include such a mish mash of "junk". It could be said that evolutionists held back research into non coding DNA and that this highlights "how evolutionary theory consistently fosters the practice of poor science methodology".

 

The article also makes a case for why an engineering perspective is useful to bring to the debate. This could help to dissect the primary purpose of for non-coding genetic material.

 

 

Here is the link to the Perry Marshall quote for you. https://evo2.org/dna-atheists/

 

 

 

Back to this one, just came across an interesting read (re: junk dna): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03061-x

 

Far from disproving evolution, it just adds to the existing body of knowledge:

 

"Though de novo gene birth was once viewed as a highly unlikely occurrence, there are now several unequivocal examples of the phenomenon that have been described. It furthermore has been advanced that de novo gene birth plays a major role in the generation of evolutionary innovation." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6542195/

 

Of course, it's a new area so there are still competing hypotheses ( https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/fulltext/S0168-9525(15)00034-7 ).

Edited April 17, 2022 by DarianF

[kj35]

11 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Darian has posted several times about speciation in support of evolution. My time is limited so there is only so much I can offer to this thread, but there are counter arguments to speciation that need pointing out.

 

When it comes to speciation, it is important to understand firstly what is meant by species whereby the standard definition among evolutionary biologists entails a “reproductively isolated population”. However, this definition does not necessitate any significant biological change taking place between two populations. The definition of speciation therefore does not fit with the grander claims of Darwinian evolution whereby it is posited that higher biological forms can arise.

 

An understanding of the difference between primary and secondary speciation is also helpful and the following link sets this out. https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/

 

• Speciation by polyploidy is considered “secondary speciation” and occurs when hybridisation takes place in such as way which results in a doubling of chromosomes making reproduction possible. Polyploidy has only been observed in plants and also runs counter to Darwin's “hypothesis” that new species are produced via natural selection. Nor does polyploidy cause morphological change or support neo-Darwinian theory that speciation arises via geographic separation or genetic divergence.

• Primary speciation – the splitting of one species into two by natural selection - is therefore apparently what needs to be shown to substantiate evolution and this has, according to molecular and cell biologist Jonathan Wells, never been found.

 

The video by Bozeman Science posted by Darian is made up of examples which “may be” on their way to forming a new species. In addition to these videos, TalkOrigins compiled a list of 'Observed Instances of Speciation' in July 2011 which is commonly cited by pro-Darwin debaters as proof of the workings of evolution.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

To counter the TalkOrigins list, a paper by scientist and attorney Carey Luskin analyses the technical literature in 21 out of 30 of the claimed observations. For the other 9 examples, the author had not been able to easily access the original papers, some of which were very old. It was found that none of the examples could show that large scale evolutionary change had taken place and that the vast majority of cases did not even meet the standard definition of speciation.

 

https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/03/Casey-Luskin-Specious-Speciation.pdf

 

Regarding the examples more specifically in the Bozeman Science video:

 

Fruit Flies

 

Bozeman Science starts out by citing Diane Dodd's 1989 study which concerned feeding different populations of fruit flies different diets – four populations were given a starch based diet and another four populations a maltose-based medium. It was found that the flies preferred to mate with individuals which had been fed the same diet. This was hailed therefore as an example of reproductive isolation. Seriously?!

 

At page 22 of his paper, Luskin points out the obvious that it was not that the two types of population were unable to interbreed and produce offspring, “it was just that they did so less than would be expected under normal random mating”. Also it cannot be said that they never interbred, and further papers have concluded reproductive isolation in this case was not complete and speciation was also not said to have occurred.

 

As with all other similar fruit fly studies of speciation, of which many are examined throughout section 5.3 of Luskin's work, no significant morphological changes occurred between the populations. The fruit flies remained fruit flies and the different strains could be described as more akin to races rather than a different species.

 

Plains Viscacha Rat

 

This mammal, cited by Boseman Science as an example of polyploidy, was originally thought to have arisen through “hybridisation and chromosome doubling from an ancestor”. However, as is so often the case with evolutionary biology it would seem, doubt has been cast over the original hypothesis and Wikipedia can be reviewed to verify this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_viscacha_rat

 

This study re-examined the alleged origins of the Plains Viscacha Rat and concluded that “polyploidy in mammals remains as unlikely as it always has been”.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0888754305000029?via%3Dihub

 

Polyploidy in Plants

 

It is granted that hybridisation and polyploidy has been observed to occur among flowering plants including in one of the examples examined by Luskin in his paper. However, no significant biological changes have been observed in cases of plant polyploidy which is what the concept of evolution entails.

 

I also reiterate the point above about how it has been said by critics that polyploidy (secondary speciation) is not sufficient to confirm evolution as natural selection is not involved.

Superb @Mitochondrial Eve thank you

[Pinkiebee]

22 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:

Darian has posted several times about speciation in support of evolution. My time is limited so there is only so much I can offer to this thread, but there are counter arguments to speciation that need pointing out.

 

When it comes to speciation, it is important to understand firstly what is meant by species whereby the standard definition among evolutionary biologists entails a “reproductively isolated population”. However, this definition does not necessitate any significant biological change taking place between two populations. The definition of speciation therefore does not fit with the grander claims of Darwinian evolution whereby it is posited that higher biological forms can arise.

 

An understanding of the difference between primary and secondary speciation is also helpful and the following link sets this out. https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/

 

• Speciation by polyploidy is considered “secondary speciation” and occurs when hybridisation takes place in such as way which results in a doubling of chromosomes making reproduction possible. Polyploidy has only been observed in plants and also runs counter to Darwin's “hypothesis” that new species are produced via natural selection. Nor does polyploidy cause morphological change or support neo-Darwinian theory that speciation arises via geographic separation or genetic divergence.

• Primary speciation – the splitting of one species into two by natural selection - is therefore apparently what needs to be shown to substantiate evolution and this has, according to molecular and cell biologist Jonathan Wells, never been found.

 

The video by Bozeman Science posted by Darian is made up of examples which “may be” on their way to forming a new species. In addition to these videos, TalkOrigins compiled a list of 'Observed Instances of Speciation' in July 2011 which is commonly cited by pro-Darwin debaters as proof of the workings of evolution.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

To counter the TalkOrigins list, a paper by scientist and attorney Carey Luskin analyses the technical literature in 21 out of 30 of the claimed observations. For the other 9 examples, the author had not been able to easily access the original papers, some of which were very old. It was found that none of the examples could show that large scale evolutionary change had taken place and that the vast majority of cases did not even meet the standard definition of speciation.

 

https://www.discovery.org/m/2019/03/Casey-Luskin-Specious-Speciation.pdf

 

Regarding the examples more specifically in the Bozeman Science video:

 

Fruit Flies

 

Bozeman Science starts out by citing Diane Dodd's 1989 study which concerned feeding different populations of fruit flies different diets – four populations were given a starch based diet and another four populations a maltose-based medium. It was found that the flies preferred to mate with individuals which had been fed the same diet. This was hailed therefore as an example of reproductive isolation. Seriously?!

 

At page 22 of his paper, Luskin points out the obvious that it was not that the two types of population were unable to interbreed and produce offspring, “it was just that they did so less than would be expected under normal random mating”. Also it cannot be said that they never interbred, and further papers have concluded reproductive isolation in this case was not complete and speciation was also not said to have occurred.

 

As with all other similar fruit fly studies of speciation, of which many are examined throughout section 5.3 of Luskin's work, no significant morphological changes occurred between the populations. The fruit flies remained fruit flies and the different strains could be described as more akin to races rather than a different species.

 

Plains Viscacha Rat

 

This mammal, cited by Boseman Science as an example of polyploidy, was originally thought to have arisen through “hybridisation and chromosome doubling from an ancestor”. However, as is so often the case with evolutionary biology it would seem, doubt has been cast over the original hypothesis and Wikipedia can be reviewed to verify this.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_viscacha_rat

 

This study re-examined the alleged origins of the Plains Viscacha Rat and concluded that “polyploidy in mammals remains as unlikely as it always has been”.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0888754305000029?via%3Dihub

 

Polyploidy in Plants

 

It is granted that hybridisation and polyploidy has been observed to occur among flowering plants including in one of the examples examined by Luskin in his paper. However, no significant biological changes have been observed in cases of plant polyploidy which is what the concept of evolution entails.

 

I also reiterate the point above about how it has been said by critics that polyploidy (secondary speciation) is not sufficient to confirm evolution as natural selection is not involved.

That's making a big deal out of the views of Casey luskins.

 

Who somewhat deceptively calls him self a " scientist"  he has allegedly got " scientiific" qualifications. Though given his track record for telling lies that may be questionable. He is not however working as a scientist by any reasonable use of the term

 

 And He is not however qualifed in any sort of biological area at all. Even by his own admission.  

 

He is very skilled at misinterpreting facts. Quote mining and just making things up in a way that sounds convincing to the layman. Possibly his qualification as a lawyer helps in this

 

   Luskins is paid by the discovery institute who's whole perpose is to take gullible people  and exploit them for their own ends.

 

 Luskins and his ilk are genuinely evil. They earn a good living from the gullible just delibrately deceiving them

[DarianF]

2 hours ago, kj35 said:

Superb @Mitochondrial Eve thank you

 

"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

[DarianF]

54 minutes ago, Pinkiebee said:

That's making a big deal out of the views of Casey luskins.

 

Who somewhat deceptively calls him self a " scientist"  he has allegedly got " scientiific" qualifications. Though given his track record for telling lies that may be questionable. He is not however working as a scientist by any reasonable use of the term

 

 And He is not however qualifed in any sort of biological area at all. Even by his own admission.  

 

He is very skilled at misinterpreting facts. Quote mining and just making things up in a way that sounds convincing to the layman. Possibly his qualification as a lawyer helps in this

 

I'm genuinely ok with you choosing to be wilfully ignorant. But  Luskins is paid by the discovery institute who's whole perpose is to take gullible people like yourself and exploit them for their own ends.

 

Your really just to be given sympathy.  Luskins and his ilk are genuinely evil. They earn a good living from the gullible just delibrately deceiving them

 

The creationists are welcome to submit their manuscripts for publication, to be evaluated by real scientists. There's a reason all this stuff links back to creationist websites.

[Pinkiebee]

Just now, DarianF said:

 

The creationists are welcome to submit their manuscripts for publication, to be evaluated by real scientists. There's a reason all this stuff links back to creationist websites.

This is what I find most strange about the whole affair 

 

People who are of a conspiratorial mind and extremely sceptical of what they are told make by far the best scientist if they have the intellect to actualy go out and disprove established dogma.  We would be nowhere as a species if they didnt exist.

 

For the rest of us. Insisting that claims are explained is a very healthy state of mind. But you do need the concentration span to get to the end of the explination.  Which does seem a bit lacking.

 

But then some people doubt everything from one sub set of the population but lap up every word issued by another subset with no skepticism at all.

 

This leaves them extremly vulnerable to being exploited. Yet they seem incapable of seeing their victimisation. In fact they seem to  embrace  it