New species of sparrow

But did they determine its average wingspeed while carrying a coconut?

Cepetit, I want to be able to +1 your comment. =)

Looks like yet another example of sympatric speciation. Wasn't there something recently about speciation in lizards brought about by hybridization?

Wouldn't the Italian Sparrow actually be evidence that the House and Spanish Sparrow where not actually separate species?

"William Amos, professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Cambridge, explained: "I think the best definition we have is the one that says that different species are those that, under natural conditions, tend not to interbreed.""

I guess this board will now become a debate on the subjective meaning, significance and acceptable magnitude of the word "tend."

How scientific.

fittest meme said: Wouldn't the Italian Sparrow actually be evidence that the House and Spanish Sparrow where not actually separate species?

William Amos, professor of evolutionary genetics at the University of Cambridge, explained: "I think the best definition we have is the one that says that different species are those that, under natural conditions, tend not to interbreed."

I guess this board will now become a debate on the subjective meaning, significance and acceptable magnitude of the word "tend." How scientific.

Better yet, fittest meme, why don't you explain to us how this all really an example of the work of an ineffable, imperceptible, incomprehensible Intelligent Designer, aka GOD as described in the Bible, and not at all an example of speciation through hybridization.

Holy Crow!

Karen S. said: Holy Crow!

Fittest Meme -

Glad to see you're back. Last time, we were having a discussion.

First, we noted that these are separate things - 1) Evidence for "design" 2) Evidence for evolution of cellular life and viruses 3) Models of abiogenesis 4) Arguments for broad theism/deism versus atheism and 5) Within theism, evidence for superiority of some sect(s) over others.

We agreed to tackle these one at a time, with an emphasis on 1 and 2, without subject changing.

I think we got through number 1 pretty well. You did convince me, to be honest, that you have no evidence for "design". To summarize - you can't specifically say who the designer is, what the designer did, mechanistically how the designer did it, or when the designer did it. You claimed that rocks and dirt are not designed at one point, but then contradicted yourself by saying that the designer designed the entire universe, which includes rocks and dirt. False analogies to the designs of known designers, e.g. computer programs designed by humans or hives designed by insects, are not valid, because in these cases, every single thing I asked - who designed, what was designed, mechanistically how, when, what is an example of what they did not design - can be answered with ease.

So, no evidence for design. Feel free to provide answers to my questions above or new arguments for design if you have them, if not, let's move on.

Can your provide a reasonable summary of what the theory of evolution deals with, the major mechanisms it proposes, and the evidence supporting it?

It should be noted by all readers how quickly we went from a discussion of speciation to one of religion. It should also be noted who did the topic changing.

Let's get back to the topic of the posted article. I'm simply pointing out that hybridization is evidence against speciation not for it.

The posted article does not provide evidence of a new species. Instead it demonstrates that regardless of the morphological, behavioral, or ecological differences between House, Spanish and Italian Sparrows they will and can have occasional "cross-cultural hook-ups" that results in reproductively viable off-spring.

And like Dr. Amos says: "as soon as you have interbreeding, all those barriers [between those groups of animals] break down."

Readers should also note that quotes from Dr. Amos are right from the posted article.

fittest meme said: The posted article does not provide evidence of a new species. Instead it demonstrates that regardless of the morphological, behavioral, or ecological differences between House, Spanish and Italian Sparrows they will and can have occasional "cross-cultural hook-ups" that results in reproductively viable off-spring.

fittest meme said: Let's get back to the topic of the posted article. I'm simply pointing out that hybridization is evidence against speciation not for it.

Fittest Meme -

Well, it's a bit rude of you to refuse to pick up our former conversation, but let's stick to speciation.

1) You are not using the term "species" in a mainstream way. Populations that can hybridize are not necessarily regarded as being the same species on that basis alone.

2) What is your definition of species?

3) What would you regard as a valid example of speciation?

fittest meme said: It should be noted by all readers how quickly we went from a discussion of speciation to one of religion. It should also be noted who did the topic changing.

Let's get back to the topic of the posted article. I'm simply pointing out that hybridization is evidence against speciation not for it.

The posted article does not provide evidence of a new species. Instead it demonstrates that regardless of the morphological, behavioral, or ecological differences between House, Spanish and Italian Sparrows they will and can have occasional "cross-cultural hook-ups" that results in reproductively viable off-spring.

And like Dr. Amos says: "as soon as you have interbreeding, all those barriers [between those groups of animals] break down." Readers should also note that quotes from Dr. Amos are right from the posted article.

harold said: Fittest Meme - Well, it's a bit rude of you to refuse to pick up our former conversation, but let's stick to speciation. 1) You are not using the term "species" in a mainstream way. Populations that can hybridize are not necessarily regarded as being the same species on that basis alone.

2) What is your definition of species?

3) What would you regard as a valid example of speciation?

JOhn Wilkins, a philosopher of biology, has written extensively on species concepts, including a recent book.

A number of his posts on speciation are here. I commend them to fittest meme's attention.

meme wrote:

"Let’s get back to the topic of the posted article. I’m simply pointing out that hybridization is evidence against speciation not for it."

As was pointed out to you previously, hybridization per se isn't the issue. Gene flow is the issue, that's why the qualifier is needed. If the level of hybridization does not result in significant gene flow, then genetic divergence will necessarily occur, thus creating genetic discontinuity. Since the hybrid does not backcross to the parental species, essential there is no gene flow, so the species are reproductively isolated. Therefore, they will diverge over time until absolute reproductive isolation evolves and hybridization no longer occurs.

In any event, this is an example of speciation in action. It is exactly what one would expect if species evolve over time. It is not what is expected if species are created fixed and perfect.

DS said:

meme wrote: "Let’s get back to the topic of the posted article. I’m simply pointing out that hybridization is evidence against speciation not for it."

As was pointed out to you previously, hybridization per se isn't the issue. Gene flow is the issue, that's why the qualifier is needed. If the level of hybridization does not result in significant gene flow, then genetic divergence will necessarily occur, thus creating genetic discontinuity. Since the hybrid does not backcross to the parental species, essential there is no gene flow, so the species are reproductively isolated. Therefore, they will diverge over time until absolute reproductive isolation evolves and hybridization no longer occurs. In any event, this is an example of speciation in action. It is exactly what one would expect if species evolve over time. It is not what is expected if species are created fixed and perfect.

harold asked Fit: 2) What is your definition of species?

Looks like it is out of print, but I thought that Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: Speciation - The Making of Species by Menno Schilthuizen did an especially good job of explaining why it is so hard to define a species and, if I remember right, why distinct species can sometimes interbreed.

That's Captain Jack Sparrow...

(in honor of today, of course)

fittest meme said: Let's get back to the topic of the posted article. I'm simply pointing out that hybridization is evidence against speciation not for it. The posted article does not provide evidence of a new species. Instead it demonstrates that regardless of the morphological, behavioral, or ecological differences between House, Spanish and Italian Sparrows they will and can have occasional "cross-cultural hook-ups" that results in reproductively viable off-spring.

"Second, and perhaps equally important - it is not reproducing with the Spanish sparrow, even though the two birds live side-by-side."

JimNorth said:

fittest meme said: Let's get back to the topic of the posted article. I'm simply pointing out that hybridization is evidence against speciation not for it. The posted article does not provide evidence of a new species. Instead it demonstrates that regardless of the morphological, behavioral, or ecological differences between House, Spanish and Italian Sparrows they will and can have occasional "cross-cultural hook-ups" that results in reproductively viable off-spring.

Uhm...you lie. Another quote from the article states:

"Second, and perhaps equally important - it is not reproducing with the Spanish sparrow, even though the two birds live side-by-side."

The "it" refers to the Italian sparrow.

Fittest Meme -

Well, it’s a bit rude of you to refuse to pick up our former conversation, but let’s stick to speciation.

1) You are not using the term “species” in a mainstream way. Populations that can hybridize are not necessarily regarded as being the same species on that basis alone.

2) What is your definition of species?

3) What would you regard as a valid example of speciation?

Yo, FM.

Are horses and donkeys separate species? Is it "no" because they can hybridize, or "yes" because mules are sterile?

But wait! Female mules are occasionally, but rarely, fertile! So by your confusing non-definition of "species", they MUST be the same species. But then since they are almost always NOT fertile, then it must be the case that MOST horses and donkeys are separate species, but that SOME are the same species. And the only way to tell is to mate them, produce a jenny, see if she's fertile, then you'll know if her particular two parents were the same species or not. But whatever you discover, it won't apply to all horses and donkeys!

fittest meme said: It should be noted by all readers how quickly we went from a discussion of speciation to one of religion. It should also be noted who did the topic changing.

fittest meme said:

JimNorth said:

fittest meme said: Let's get back to the topic of the posted article. I'm simply pointing out that hybridization is evidence against speciation not for it. The posted article does not provide evidence of a new species. Instead it demonstrates that regardless of the morphological, behavioral, or ecological differences between House, Spanish and Italian Sparrows they will and can have occasional "cross-cultural hook-ups" that results in reproductively viable off-spring.

Uhm...you lie. Another quote from the article states:

"Second, and perhaps equally important - it is not reproducing with the Spanish sparrow, even though the two birds live side-by-side."

The "it" refers to the Italian sparrow.

No lie. The fact that the researcher hasn't seen evidence of them cross breeding doesn't mean they won't or they can't. The fact that the House Sparrow and the Spanish Sparrow did sets a precedent showing that what we often think of and call separate species (thinking that they don't interbreed) are actually just separate populations of the same species. Here's a prediction that some young enterprising scientist may want to take on. If researchers were to breed Spanish Sparrows with Italian Sparrows I predict they would get viable off-spring (that is the off-spring would be able to produce off-spring of their own). Maybe you'd like to put a wager on the outcome.

fittest meme said: No lie. The fact that the researcher hasn't seen evidence of them cross breeding doesn't mean they won't or they can't.

fittest meme said: No lie. The fact that the researcher hasn't seen evidence of them cross breeding doesn't mean they won't or they can't.

Matt G said: Looks like yet another example of sympatric speciation.

fittest meme said: ...viable off-spring (that is the off-spring would be able to produce off-spring of their own).

Fittest Meme -

Well, it’s a bit rude of you to refuse to pick up our former conversation, but let’s stick to speciation.

1) You are not using the term “species” in a mainstream way. Populations that can hybridize are not necessarily regarded as being the same species on that basis alone.

2) What is your definition of species?

3) What would you regard as a valid example of speciation?

Just Bob said:

fittest meme said: ...viable off-spring (that is the off-spring would be able to produce off-spring of their own).

IANAS, but I'm sure the word "viable" means "capable of living", not "capable of having babies"--that would be "fertile". Or do you have the special FM definition for "viable", as you do for "species"?

Fittest Meme,

Just wanna wish you congrats on a PT gauntlet well run your last time at bat.

Kudos for your utter patience and ability to keep your balance in this most slippery of mud wrestling pens.

Look forward to more of your postings.

By the way, IIRC at least one contributor here says even though there's no hard and fast rule on species, he does know a species when he sees one.

I wonder if you will be able to pin down a PT regular on this question. A WWF belt is waiting for you upon victory.

Just Bob said: Yo, FM. Are horses and donkeys separate species? Is it "no" because they can hybridize, or "yes" because mules are sterile? But wait! Female mules are occasionally, but rarely, fertile! So by your confusing non-definition of "species", they MUST be the same species. But then since they are almost always NOT fertile, then it must be the case that MOST horses and donkeys are separate species, but that SOME are the same species. And the only way to tell is to mate them, produce a jenny, see if she's fertile, then you'll know if her particular two parents were the same species or not. But whatever you discover, it won't apply to all horses and donkeys!

fittest meme said: Good correction. "Fertile" would have been a better choice of words than viable.

John Harshman said:

Matt G said: Looks like yet another example of sympatric speciation.

There is no evidence that speciation was sympatric. In fact the article suggests allopatric speciation during geographic isolation of the hybrid population from others.

Paul Burnett said: Oh, good - you're back. Please tell us your definitions of "species" and "kinds."

fittest meme said

Just Bob said: Now consider the entire range of domestic dogs. I will assume that you agree that they’re all the same species (correct me if I’m wrong). Then how is it that they CAN’T all interbreed? Simply because of morphological (size) differences, the largest can’t mate with the smallest. So does that make them separate species? It would by your definition of inability to successfully mate.

Bob, I think maybe you haven’ been following this conversation from the start. I agree that all dogs and wolves are part of one species. According to the definition of species I would propose, morphological, behavioral, ecological, or geographical barriers on their own are not evidence of distinct species. All of these barriers are temporary in the generational frame of reference we must deal with as we discuss true molecular changes to DNA that (through mutation) would provide a chemical (or genetic? . . I’m not really sure what the best word is here) reproductive barrier. In my proposed parlance “species” would be those populations which which were genetically isolated while “sub-species” or “population” would be those isolated by only morphological, ecological, behavioral or geographical barriers. If people prefer to use “species” to describe those separated by temporary barriers only, then some other designation such as “kind” (which may be to charged a word to use here) would be required to distinguish those animals that could not produce viable offspring even when subjected to in vitro fertilization. I think the designation is important because it would contribute to better communications and allow for less confusion between the theory of macroevolution (the origin of distinct “species”) and the known phenomena of microevolution (the origin of distinct “sub-species” or populations within a species).

Homoploid hybrid speciation is thought to require unusual circumstances to yield reproductive isolation from the parental species, and few examples are known from nature. Here, we present genetic evidence for this mode of speciation in birds. Using Bayesian assignment analyses of 751 individuals genotyped for 14 unlinked, nuclear microsatellite loci, we show that the phenotypically intermediate Italian sparrow (Passer italiae) does not form a cluster of its own, but instead exhibits clear admixture (over its entire breeding range) between its putative parental species, the house sparrow (P. domesticus) and the Spanish sparrow (P. hispaniolensis). Further, the Italian sparrow possesses mitochondrial (mt) DNA haplotypes identical to both putative parental species (although mostly of house sparrow type), indicating a recent hybrid origin. Today, the Italian sparrow has a largely allopatric distribution on the Italian peninsula and some Mediterranean islands separated from its suggested parental species by the Alps and the Mediterranean Sea, but co-occurs with the Spanish sparrow on the Gargano peninsula in southeast Italy. No evidence of interbreeding was found in this sympatric population. However, the Italian sparrow hybridizes with the house sparrow in a sparsely populated contact zone in the Alps. Yet, the contact zone is characterized by steep clines in species-specific male plumage traits, suggesting that partial reproductive isolation may also have developed between these two taxa. Thus, geographic and reproductive barriers restrict gene flow into the nascent hybrid species. We propose that an origin of hybrid species where the hybrid lineage gets geographically isolated from its parental species, as seems to have happened in this system, might be more common in nature than previously assumed.

So... a hybrid of two distinct species CAN BE fertile. Infertility of hybrids, then, is NOT what determines whether two species are separate. Then what does?

If you're proposing a clearer, inflexible definition of species, which admits no disputes or gray areas, then let's have it.

Oh, and I noticed your weasel words: "I think it is pretty clear (by mainstream definition) that horses and donkeys are separate species." My question was, are they separate species by YOUR definition. That is what you're promoting, after all. Now if we could only get you to state it.

fittest meme said:

Just Bob said: Yo, FM. Are horses and donkeys separate species? Is it "no" because they can hybridize, or "yes" because mules are sterile? But wait! Female mules are occasionally, but rarely, fertile! So by your confusing non-definition of "species", they MUST be the same species. But then since they are almost always NOT fertile, then it must be the case that MOST horses and donkeys are separate species, but that SOME are the same species. And the only way to tell is to mate them, produce a jenny, see if she's fertile, then you'll know if her particular two parents were the same species or not. But whatever you discover, it won't apply to all horses and donkeys!

Considering that all male mules are sterile and that only on very rare occasions have male hoses been able to fertilize female mules I think it is pretty clear (by mainstream definition) that horses and donkeys are separate species. Two mules cannot produce another mule. It is also known that horses and donkeys have a different number of chromosomes (horses 64 and donkeys 62). I agree, the horse, donkey, mule relationship is and interesting one to study more on. The cross between House and Spanish Sparrows on the other hand, obviously produced fertile offspring of both sexes. This fact alone seem to make JimNorth's claim of analogy somewhat of a stretch.

fittest meme said:

Paul Burnett said: Oh, good - you're back. Please tell us your definitions of "species" and "kinds."

Maybe you missed my post on this about a week ago on the BILL#4 Thread.

DS said: Since the hybrid does not backcross to the parental species, essential(ly) there is no gene flow, so the species are reproductively isolated.

Therefore, they will diverge over time until absolute reproductive isolation evolves and hybridization no longer occurs.

In any event, this is an example of speciation in action. It is exactly what one would expect if species evolve over time. It is not what is expected if species are created fixed and perfect.

fittest meme said:

DS said: Since the hybrid does not backcross to the parental species, essential(ly) there is no gene flow, so the species are reproductively isolated.

From the paper as quoted by JimNorth: " . . .the Italian sparrow hybridizes with the house sparrow in a sparsely populated contact zone in the Alps."

Therefore, they will diverge over time until absolute reproductive isolation evolves and hybridization no longer occurs.

You are presenting your hypothesis as if it were inevitable fact. At what point on the scale from "essential" to "absolute" reproductive isolation would you say Australian Aborigines are reproductively isolated from Swedish Scandinavians?

the paper does not state that the Italian and the Spanish sparrows are the same species, even.

Dear Lord this argument is childish. Fittest meme has apparently discovered that "species" are not an easy thing, and is trying somehow to use this against evolutionary biology. There is an enormous literature wrestling with the problem of how to define species, how to recognize species, and how species evolve. Entire disciplines -- population biology, taxonomy and systematics, among others -- have studied this problem for decade after decade. Instead of dancing around arguing over the role of hybridization in species, why not focus in on the fact that the recognition of species in all states of transition in the natural world was an enormous problem for Christians, as they challenged the notion that creation is perfect and stable. Rather than evolutionary biology having difficulty with the origin of species (the term, after all, is actually inherited from the Platonic concept that animals are static, as consonant with the creationist model), why not target the way that modern creationists are forced to create the pseudo-science of "baraminology" to spin the natural observations and attempt to reconcile the flagrant contradictions between the logical mandates of the Genesis account, Christian Theology, and nature itself. Evolutionary biology predicts that we should see hybridization and gradients of separation among populations. Creationism predicts stasis.

Harold is correct to focus on the most fundamental question -- what is Fittest Meme's definition of species? The tripe that this troll is tossing out is nothing more than distraction until it actually answers the core question.

mplavcan said: Dear Lord this argument is childish. Fittest meme has apparently discovered that "species" are not an easy thing, and is trying somehow to use this against evolutionary biology. There is an enormous literature wrestling with the problem of how to define species, how to recognize species, and how species evolve.

Harold is correct to focus on the most fundamental question -- what is Fittest Meme's definition of species? The tripe that this troll is tossing out is nothing more than distraction until it actually answers the core question.

What about domestic dogs and dingoes? That's still a battleground. I believe that this is pretty much universally considered as an example of allopatric speciation in progress, and that the real dispute is whether it has progressed far enough for the dingo to be considered a separate species. The majority opinion would seem to be no, but watch this space.

This discussion could lead to the conclusion that sameness of species is non-transitive relation?

Henry

apokryltaros said: fittest meme's definition of "species" is rather childish, simply being a "genetically isolated population." He then sloppily solves the problem of interbreeding by claiming that two populations that can interbreed are "subspecies," nevermind that the actual definition of "subspecies" is actually rather different. Of course, fittest meme only wants us to assume that he magically knows better than all of the evil, stupid materialistic scientists.

mplavcan said: As I said, (fittest meme) needs to answer the question. His 6th grade Biology book is not an adequate source.

mplavcan said: Dear Lord this argument is childish. Fittest meme has apparently discovered that "species" are not an easy thing, and is trying somehow to use this against evolutionary biology. There is an enormous literature wrestling with the problem of how to define species, how to recognize species, and how species evolve. Entire disciplines -- population biology, taxonomy and systematics, among others -- have studied this problem for decade after decade. Instead of dancing around arguing over the role of hybridization in species, why not focus in on the fact that the recognition of species in all states of transition in the natural world was an enormous problem for Christians, as they challenged the notion that creation is perfect and stable. Rather than evolutionary biology having difficulty with the origin of species (the term, after all, is actually inherited from the Platonic concept that animals are static, as consonant with the creationist model), why not target the way that modern creationists are forced to create the pseudo-science of "baraminology" to spin the natural observations and attempt to reconcile the flagrant contradictions between the logical mandates of the Genesis account, Christian Theology, and nature itself. Evolutionary biology predicts that we should see hybridization and gradients of separation among populations. Creationism predicts stasis. Harold is correct to focus on the most fundamental question -- what is Fittest Meme's definition of species? The tripe that this troll is tossing out is nothing more than distraction until it actually answers the core question.

One thing is for sure, FM's definition needs to compete with John Wilkins compilation of 26 species concepts. Wilkin's covered all the bases there.

Need a usable definition of species? Well, Wilkins is the man to see. Just tell 'im what you need and he'll work out the kinks.

apokryltaros said:

mplavcan said: Dear Lord this argument is childish. Fittest meme has apparently discovered that "species" are not an easy thing, and is trying somehow to use this against evolutionary biology. There is an enormous literature wrestling with the problem of how to define species, how to recognize species, and how species evolve.

fittest meme is arrogant enough to assume that such literature does not exist.

Robert Byers said: I welcome this (discussion about speciation) as creationism needs to see creatures change quickly to account for diversity within a few centuries etc after the fall or the flood.

Paul Burnett said: For instance, were all 40 known species of sparrows on Noah's Ark? Or was there just one generic "sparrow"? Or was there just one generic "bird" kind?

Fittest Meme -

I've asked you multiple times 1) what your definition of species is and, equally importantly, 2) what you would accept as an example of speciation.

Obviously, lacking answers to those basic questions, your contribution to this thread is meaningless and absurd.

You're simply attempting to set up a goal post moving strategy. You'll simply deny that speciation can occur, and, refusing to define what you would accept as an example of species or speciation, you'll just deny even the most obvious example (which, incidentally, I'd agree that these sparrows aren't).

Please either answer these questions, or admit that you can't, admit that you had no interest in intelligent discussion and merely felt a panicked urge to deny at the mention of the word 'species', and leave. Sorry if that sounds impatient, but I've asked these really obviously necessary questions at least four times now, and you've cherry picked everything else and ignored them.

Perhaps you're terrified to answer my questions, because you know that if you do so, you'll either have to accept some example of speciation, or be shown to have deliberately mis-defined the terms solely in an effort to deny all speciation.

This is a written forum, so the fact that other people also respond to my posts is irrelevant - you can still answer.

meme wrote:

"At what point on the scale from “essential” to “absolute” reproductive isolation would you say Australian Aborigines are reproductively isolated from Swedish Scandinavians?"

At the point when gene flow ceases to swamp out divergence due to mutation, selection and drift. Then genetic divergence will necessarily occur and complete reproductive isolation will inevitably evolve. This is unlikely to happen in any modern human population, due to the high incidence of interracial matings and high rates of migration.

But then again, humans are demonstrably related to chimps, so speciation has obviously happened in the past and obviously continues to occur today. The same is true for all other lineages. Unless of course you have an alternative explanation for all of the genetic data and all of the other data sets as well.

Steve P. said: Lordy, Lordy, mplavcan cant wrap his head around the possibility that 'species aren't an easy thing' because maybe it just isn't happening?

harold said: Fittest Meme - I've asked you multiple times 1) what your definition of species is and, equally importantly, 2) what you would accept as an example of speciation. I've asked these really obviously necessary questions at least four times now, and you've cherry picked everything else and ignored them.

fittest meme, harold is directly implying that your definition of "species" and "subspecies" are totally useless. Hence his re-asking of what your definition is.

1. Regarding my definition of species please refer to my post above which was copied from the discussion you were a part of last week.

2. As an example of speciation I would accept anything that actually is evidence of speciation.

So far every example presented has been revealed to be microevolution within a species. In fact, the evidence has shown that what had been previously thought of as separate species (Polar Bears and Grizzlies, Galapagos Finches, Various Sparrows) actually interbreed. Other than these examples all that has been presented is the inference of speciation as if it were fact.

Furthermore, for speciation to have any faculty in Darwinian Evolution it must be coupled with the demonstration of genetic information being added to provide novel and competitively advantageous features to the organism. So, even if you could demonstrate some sub-population of a species separating itself permanently through the reduction of genetic material, such an event would not support your theory. An argument of such a nature would be a “rabbit-trail” that would not provide value to the purpose of our discussion.

I’m not going to re-hash this any more here. I’ve addressed these questions much more completely in previous posts on this thread and the BILL #4 thread. I’d suggest you go back and read these.

apokryltaros said: fittest meme, harold is directly implying that your definition of "species" and "subspecies" are totally useless. Hence his re-asking of what your definition is.

meme wrote:

"As an example of speciation I would accept anything that actually is evidence of speciation. So far every example presented has been revealed to be microevolution within a species. In fact, the evidence has shown that what had been previously thought of as separate species (Polar Bears and Grizzlies, Galapagos Finches, Various Sparrows) actually interbreed. Other than these examples all that has been presented is the inference of speciation as if it were fact."

Of course I presented him with the example of humans and chimps weeks ago. He has completely ignored it. I wonder why?

Fittest meme is batting .000 so far.

He can't provide any evidence for design.

He is intellectually or psychologically incapable of dealing with the evidence for evolution, or fairly stating what science actually proposes.

He wants to refute claims of speciation, but won't define species or say what he would accept as a valid example of speciation.

The definition of "species" is a valid area of controversy. Granted, the controversy is almost entirely semantic. Humans and chimpanzees are separate species now, unequivocally, in every possible way. Yet at one time, there almost certainly was a population that was ancestral to humans that could still interbreed with a population that was ancestral to modern chimpanzees. Typically, speciation is a somewhat gradual process. There's no clear magic line. In fact there's substantial dialog about whether various populations of modern chimpanzees are unique species. But for reasons of taxonomy, preservation efforts, and so on, we need to make determinations from time to time. Lions and tigers hybridize pretty easily in captivity but are considered separate species.

However, someone who won't explain what they mean by species or what they would accept as speciation cannot make a meaningful contribution to the discussion.

eric said: No, this is exactly wrong. If descent with modification never leads to speciation, then it ought to be a very easy thing to tell species apart. There should be no gray areas if the biblical 'kinds' concept is correct. But reality has gray areas. It has interrelated critters where it is hard to tell whether they are different species, or one is merely a sub-species or variation of the other. Such gray areas is what one would predict if species evolved. Because the process of speciation, taking many many generations, would naturally mean that some of those generations have a mix of properties one might classify as indicating 'variation' and one might classify as indicating 'separate species.' How many times do we have to repeat this before you will acknowledge it? It is your model that would predict clear-cut, significant, differences between even the most closely and most recently 'related' species. Which, observationally, nature doesn't have. Our model predicts that the closer and more recently related two species are, the less such significant differences will exist. Which is exactly what we observe.

Of course, Talk Origins has a good discussion of speciation, along with definitions and many examples of observed speciation:

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

Now obviously non of these examples will be good enough for a creationist, probably because some limited gene flow is theoretically possible in some cases, or because there was some human interference in some cases, or something. But then again, if no gene flow were possible, a creationist would just deny that speciation had ever occurred anyway.

You just can't convince the unconvinceable. You can quote me on that.

fittest meme said: 2. As an example of speciation I would accept anything that actually is evidence of speciation.

for speciation to have any faculty in Darwinian Evolution it must be coupled with the demonstration of genetic information being added to provide novel and competitively advantageous features to the organism

What the IDers have failed to take into account on hybrids is that even when two species interbreed and produce fertile hybrids will the hybrids have the same chance IN THE WILD to reproduce. Hybrids between white-tailed and mule deer are as far as I know fertile. The trouble occurs when the hybrids begin to run and the gait is a an inefficient cross between the two. Would such a creature be able to survive to breed in the wild? Love birds present the same sort of problem in how they carry nesting materials. The hybrids get confused and it takes them much longer to build a nest. So just because two species hybridize in a hybrid zone and the hybrids are fertile does not mean the hybrids have the same possibility of survival to breed. The IDers also did not take into account hybrid breakdown in subsequent generations. Just because two species can hybridize does not therefore mean they are not two species.

DS said: Of course, Talk Origins has a good discussion of speciation, along with definitions and many examples of observed speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Now obviously non of these examples will be good enough for a creationist, probably because some limited gene flow is theoretically possible in some cases, or because there was some human interference in some cases, or something. But then again, if no gene flow were possible, a creationist would just deny that speciation had ever occurred anyway. You just can't convince the unconvinceable. You can quote me on that.

4a. There’s at least one HUGE reason why the ‘evolution can’t create information’ claim of ID must be wrong: because it requires information to travel back in time.

You can't bake a cake.

Sure I can. I've baked lots, they're right there.

I didn't see you bake those.

OK watch, I'll bake one right her in front of you. I'm putting it in the oven right now.

That's not a cake and it's never going to be cake.

Sure it is. All you have to do is wait for a while and you'll see. It will look more and more like a cake.

You're deluded. I've never seen a cake pop out of thin air before. You have to think in terms of black and white, not gray.

But that was your idea!

Harold,

I absolutely agree. You're doing a great job. Keep up the good work.

harold said: If by "add information" we mean a mutation that adds nucleotides to a genome, that happens all the time, e.g. insertions and gene duplication.

Mutations add them to, subtract them from, or miscopy them in genomes all the time.

eric said: Fittest Meme seems to have adopted a Dembski-like concept of information, where whether an insertion or duplication counts as "information" depends on how it changes development.

dumb creationist troll: By the way, IIRC at least one contributor here says even though there’s no hard and fast rule on species, he does know a species when he sees one.

4a. There’s at least one HUGE reason why the ‘evolution can’t create information’ claim of ID must be wrong: because it requires information to travel back in time.

creationist troll lying: 2. As an example of speciation I would accept anything that actually is evidence of speciation.

And oh, BTW:

If the fundie death cults were true, they wouldn't have to lie all the time.

That is what drove me out of xianity after many decades. A religion that is defended by nothing by lies and pathological liars wasn't very likely to be true.

Perhaps "fittest meme" would care to comment on ring species. I find these to be the most compelling evidence for evolution and speciation there is. Better, even, than the fossil record, because we have living examples.

Looking at just two or three variations on a theme isn't really sufficient. While two points may define a straight line, no one (except creationists) ever suggested that evolution moves in a straight line. It takes a true spectrum of variation to show evolution, and ring species provide exactly that living spectrum. Looking at just two or three elements in the ring, one can always point and say, "See? They interbreed, hence they are the same species." Looking at the endpoints of the ring shows how far the divergence has truly progressed.

bbc.co.uk: The researchers studied populations of Italian and Spanish sparrows that share the same habitat in the south-east of Italy. The bird is already listed as a distinct species by many bird guides They took blood samples from the birds in order to extract DNA. "By examining the genetics, we have shown conclusively that the Italian sparrow is of mixed origin - it is a hybrid of the house sparrow and the Spanish sparrow," Dr Saetre told BBC Nature. "Second, and perhaps equally important - it is not reproducing with the Spanish sparrow, even though the two birds live side-by-side." If the birds had been breeding, the scientists say that they would have found genetic "intermediates" - birds with genes from both species. "But we didn't find this, so we think [the two species] have formed some kind of reproductive barrier to each other," Prof Saetre said.

Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".[8]

Considering that all male mules are sterile and that only on very rare occasions have male hoses been able to fertilize female mules I think it is pretty clear (by mainstream definition) that horses and donkeys are separate species. Two mules cannot produce another mule. It is also known that horses and donkeys have a different number of chromosomes (horses 64 and donkeys 62). I agree, the horse, donkey, mule relationship is and interesting one to study more on.

By one common definition of a species, they fulfill all criteria and are…a new species.

fittest meme said: Actually Eric if your not squinting so hard to try to make things fit into an evolutionary framework there are fewer grey areas than you think. [...] If seems to me that if evolutionary theory requires that we predict and accept "grey areas" we ought to question it's usefulness for science.

raven said:

creationist troll lying: 2. As an example of speciation I would accept anything that actually is evidence of speciation.

The fundie xian troll is lying and it knows it and we know it. The creationists would just move the goal posts, play wack a mole, and lie some more. Then they show up a few hours or days later and lie again. Creationism is a lie and all creationists are liars.

TL wrote:

"————— * Neanderthals vs modern humans comes to mind; species or subspecies? And of course biologists strive to keep as valid as possible taxonomic naming and phylogenetic relationships, for practical reasons."

Well, they are completely reproductively isolated, at least now they are.

Scott F said: Harold, I believe that "fittest meme" did provide a definition of species earlier in this thread. IIRC, his definition is that two life forms are different species if the differences in their genome are sufficient that they cannot produce fertile offspring. Biblically speaking (which "meme" did not do explicitly), a "species" would breed "true" to its "kind".

Considering that all male mules are sterile and that only on very rare occasions have male hoses been able to fertilize female mules I think it is pretty clear (by mainstream definition) that horses and donkeys are separate species. Two mules cannot produce another mule. It is also known that horses and donkeys have a different number of chromosomes (horses 64 and donkeys 62). I agree, the horse, donkey, mule relationship is and interesting one to study more on.

So, it is clear that the horse, donkey, mule relationship is "interesting" as far as "meme" is concerned. Meme, So, if creationism is correct, and all "kinds" or "species" were created separate and unique, why then do such "interesting" relationships as the horse, donkey, and mule even exist in the first place? Why is it even possible in principle for two animals to produce a "viable" yet "infertile" offspring? Evolution has a very simple explanation for this conundrum. What is the creationist (or intelligent design) answer to this question? And this is a far more interesting and practical question than the arbitrary definition of "species". This is a process question, rather than a question of mere definition.

It's simple. What he demands is exactly the same thing that Behe demands. A complete, mutations by mutation, eyewitness account of the entire process fro beginning to end. Nothing else will be good enough. And since the process can take hundreds of thousands of years, that isn't going to happen. Observing different stages in the process isn't going to help. Observing the end result of the process isn't going to help. Recreating the process artificially isn't going to help. And any speciation that is actually observed in a short period of time isn't going to help. All of that can be defined or rationalized away. That's why he won't pin down his definition of species. That's why he won't say what evidence would be good enough. I suspect that even an detailed record of hundreds of thousands of years would not be good enough.

The important thing to remember is that the concept of evidence consistent with a hypothesis is alien to such a mind. That's why he can't explain any of the evidence for speciation or macroevolution. All he his is "ain't good enough". That's not good enough.

DS -

Exactly. The objective is to deny. If I recall correctly, Behe had to be more or less pinned down in a court of law to even be that specific.

fittest meme said: Actually Eric if your not squinting so hard to try to make things fit into an evolutionary framework there are fewer grey areas than you think. There are separate species and there is variation within species.

Where there are actual grey areas it's our job to pursue the truth and explain the confusion,

If seems to me that if evolutionary theory requires that we predict and accept "grey areas" we ought to question it's usefulness for science.

Steve P. said: Lordy, Lordy, mplavcan cant wrap his head around the possibility that 'species aren't an easy thing' because maybe it just isn't happening? Why do mplavcan and company feel the uncontrollable urge to shave the pieces to fit the evolutionary pic they have in their heads? Please, don't wear that intellectual costume jewelry like a chunky gold necklace from your hip-hop muse. Besides, it doesn't match your shoes.

Steve P. said: One thing is for sure, FM's definition needs to compete with John Wilkins compilation of 26 species concepts. Wilkin's covered all the bases there. Need a usable definition of species? Well, Wilkins is the man to see. Just tell 'im what you need and he'll work out the kinks.

eric said:

fittest meme said: Actually Eric if your not squinting so hard to try to make things fit into an evolutionary framework there are fewer grey areas than you think. There are separate species and there is variation within species.

And, as Scott F. pointed out, there are ring species The ability to interbreed is not a transitive property. If A can breed with B and B with C, that does not necessarily mean A can breed with C. Special creation would predict that interbreeding is a transitive property. Thus there is prima facie evidence it is wrong.

Where there are actual grey areas it's our job to pursue the truth and explain the confusion,

Explain the truth of ring species to me, oh wise one.

If seems to me that if evolutionary theory requires that we predict and accept "grey areas" we ought to question it's usefulness for science.

I would say a methodology that recognizes black as black, white as white, and gray as gray, is much more useful than one that insists gray doesn't exist.

harold said: This reminds of a point I forgot to make earlier. "Information" is defined by the observer.

Science Avenger said: It seems clearer to me with every concrete example that the ID notion of "information" as a contextless objective fact about the universe is sheer nonsense, question-begging to forcefit reality to the image they want.

So here's where we are: FM, you want living things to be unambiguously divided into separate and easily defined species (or maybe "kinds"). But nature is way to messy to make that possible.

Sorry.

eric said:

Science Avenger said: It seems clearer to me with every concrete example that the ID notion of "information" as a contextless objective fact about the universe is sheer nonsense, question-begging to forcefit reality to the image they want.

To pile on, IDers will also claim that (1) information is a conserved quantity and that (2) mutation can only decrease information, not increase it. Here's a bit of information, creos: those two claims are inconsistent.

harold said: “Information” is defined by the observer.

Let's go back to dog shit. For some reason reading stuff by creationists always makes me think of canine feces. One of the trolls, awhile back, mockingly offered the example of a dog turd as something with no "information." I don't remember who it was, and I don't care to relive old threads looking for dog shit deposited by a troll (but it sounds like something AC would say).

To the most unobservant, it at least carries the information that a dog was there.

To the slightly more observant layman, it can inform him of the relative size of the animal, the recency of the visit, and possibly even the likely pooper--something like "Hey, Joe is walking his damn mutt in MY yard again!"

To a veterinarian, who after all ASKS for stool samples because of their "information" content, a dog pile can reveal (IANAV) huge amounts of information, depending on how much analysis she wants to subject it to: the presence or absence of intestinal worms. and their species; intestinal flora populations; details about the dog's diet; details about its general health from blood in the stool, hormones, bile, etc.; drugs it has been given; and with DNA analysis of shed intestinal cells--well, any "information" that DNA can reveal: gender, breed, identity of the specific animal, who its parents were or weren't, genetic diseases, etc.

The "information" content of anything is indeed defined by the observer.

Just Bob said: harold said: “Information” is defined by the observer. Let's go back to dog shit. For some reason reading stuff by creationists always makes me think of canine feces. One of the trolls, awhile back, mockingly offered the example of a dog turd as something with no "information." I don't remember who it was, and I don't care to relive old threads looking for dog shit deposited by a troll (but it sounds like something AC would say). To the most unobservant, it at least carries the information that a dog was there. To the slightly more observant layman, it can inform him of the relative size of the animal, the recency of the visit, and possibly even the likely pooper--something like "Hey, Joe is walking his damn mutt in MY yard again!" To a veterinarian, who after all ASKS for stool samples because of their "information" content, a dog pile can reveal (IANAV) huge amounts of information, depending on how much analysis she wants to subject it to: the presence or absence of intestinal worms. and their species; intestinal flora populations; details about the dog's diet; details about its general health from blood in the stool, hormones, bile, etc.; drugs it has been given; and with DNA analysis of shed intestinal cells--well, any "information" that DNA can reveal: gender, breed, identity of the specific animal, who its parents were or weren't, genetic diseases, etc. The "information" content of anything is indeed defined by the observer.

And of course, this is the source of the coding information in DNA as well.

And the DNA in all the bacteria shed in the feces.

Damn, that Joe guy don't know shit!

harold said: No. I'm sorry Scott. I greatly enjoy your comments but I call bullshit here (that you underestimate FM's degree of bullshit, that is).

mplavcan said:

Steve P. said: Lordy, Lordy, mplavcan cant wrap his head around the possibility that 'species aren't an easy thing' because maybe it just isn't happening? Why do mplavcan and company feel the uncontrollable urge to shave the pieces to fit the evolutionary pic they have in their heads? Please, don't wear that intellectual costume jewelry like a chunky gold necklace from your hip-hop muse. Besides, it doesn't match your shoes.

Ummmmmmm.....I guess this means that you have no idea of what you are talking about. How, exactly, does the extensive data from the population biology, genetic, and systematic literature fit with a "creation" model? Do feel free to be specific on this point, and avoid the childish attempt at mockery.

Steve P. said:

mplavcan said:

Steve P. said: Lordy, Lordy, mplavcan cant wrap his head around the possibility that 'species aren't an easy thing' because maybe it just isn't happening? Why do mplavcan and company feel the uncontrollable urge to shave the pieces to fit the evolutionary pic they have in their heads? Please, don't wear that intellectual costume jewelry like a chunky gold necklace from your hip-hop muse. Besides, it doesn't match your shoes.

Ummmmmmm.....I guess this means that you have no idea of what you are talking about. How, exactly, does the extensive data from the population biology, genetic, and systematic literature fit with a "creation" model? Do feel free to be specific on this point, and avoid the childish attempt at mockery.

Ummm, isn't sarcasm, mockery, ridicule included in PT posters' bag of preferred rhetorical devices? I am shocked, I say shocked, that you would take issue with it. Oh, and your strawmen device. What compels you to use such a dull tool? In fact, the 'evidence' support stasis. That's why the sparrows are not speciating, but exhibiting variation according to environmental changes. These sparrows are not on an elephant trek in the evolutionary mountains on their way to Novelty, Nepal. Rather, they like Joe's Garage (can't resist the voice of the Central Scrutinizer, apparently). They go in for tune up's quite often. Need to 'keep' fit, rather that get 'fitter'. See the difference?

Like our entire current batch of trolls, Steve P. can only taunt and make snarky remarks.

And, like the rest of the trolls posting here, he is still unable to articulate a single concept in science or in his ID/creationist pseudo-science.

He still owes us many answers; including that little concept exam on entropy. But since he is snarking about nothing on a thread about sparrows, he apparently thinks we have forgotten.

In fact, the 'evidence' support stasis. That's why the sparrows are not speciating, but exhibiting variation according to environmental changes.

I've only just found this, and have yet to read the piece in detail, but even before I do read the details, am I correct in surmising that this sparrow arose via a similar process to Heliconius heurippa? Only this species was determined in a recent paper, to have been the product of a hybridisation event between Heliconius melpomene and Heliconius cydno, followed by assortative mating fixing the hybrids as a separate species. The authors of the paper in question not only found genetic evidence that the genome of H. heurippa was a mosaic from H. melpomene and H. cydno, but they went on to reproduce the hybridisation event in the laboratory, determine empirically that their laboratory hybrids not only looked like wild-type H. heurippa but were fully reproductively compatible therewith, and then demonstrated that assortative mating arose within the hybrids. That's a nice paper I recommend to everyone here: Here's the citation:

Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Now it would be a lot harder to reproduce the same results with sparrows, but boy, that would be one scintillating paper to read if any scientists did reproduce those results via laboratory hybridisation!

Steve P. said: In fact, the 'evidence' support stasis. That's why the sparrows are not speciating, but exhibiting variation according to environmental changes. These sparrows are not on an elephant trek in the evolutionary mountains on their way to Novelty, Nepal.

Double post: just downloaded the paper. Bingo. It looks exactly like the mechanism involved in the H. heurippa paper, at least at first glance.

calilasseia said: I've only just found this, and have yet to read the piece in detail, but even before I do read the details, am I correct in surmising that this sparrow arose via a similar process to Heliconius heurippa? Only this species was determined in a recent paper, to have been the product of a hybridisation event between Heliconius melpomene and Heliconius cydno, followed by assortative mating fixing the hybrids as a separate species. The authors of the paper in question not only found genetic evidence that the genome of H. heurippa was a mosaic from H. melpomene and H. cydno, but they went on to reproduce the hybridisation event in the laboratory, determine empirically that their laboratory hybrids not only looked like wild-type H. heurippa but were fully reproductively compatible therewith, and then demonstrated that assortative mating arose within the hybrids. That's a nice paper I recommend to everyone here: Here's the citation: Speciation By Hybridisation In Heliconius Butterflies by Jesús Mavárez, Camilo A. Salazar, Eldredge Bermingham, Christian Salcedo, Chris D. Jiggins and Mauricio Linares, Nature, 441: 868-871 (15th June 2006) [Full paper downloadable from here] Now it would be a lot harder to reproduce the same results with sparrows, but boy, that would be one scintillating paper to read if any scientists did reproduce those results via laboratory hybridisation!

I appreciate the comment. However, I was seeing you and FM go back and forth trying to nail down “definitions”, with no obvious success

Scott F. -

I hope it's clear that no significant disagreement with or criticism of you is intended in the slightest by my comment above.

Shorter version - the troll wanted to mindlessly deny this example of speciation, while disguising the fact that he would deny any example, regardless of evidence, and disguising the reason why he would deny any example, regardless of evidence.

(As an aside, the paper itself should be read critically by sincere readers, and valid critiques or clarifications of parts or all of it may well arise. That would be true of any valid paper. But that's unrelated to the trolling.)

Rapid Chromosome Evolution in Recently Formed Polyploids in Tragopogon (Asteraceae) Polyploidy, frequently termed “whole genome duplication”, is a major force in the evolution of many eukaryotes. Indeed, most angiosperm species have undergone at least one round of polyploidy in their evolutionary history. Despite enormous progress in our understanding of many aspects of polyploidy, we essentially have no information about the role of chromosome divergence in the establishment of young polyploid populations. Here we investigate synthetic lines and natural populations of two recently and recurrently formed allotetraploids Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus (formed within the past 80 years) to assess the role of aberrant meiosis in generating chromosomal/genomic diversity. That diversity is likely important in the formation, establishment and survival of polyploid populations and species. Applications of fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) to natural populations of T. mirus and T. miscellus suggest that chromosomal rearrangements and other chromosomal changes are common in both allotetraploids. We detected extensive chromosomal polymorphism between individuals and populations, including (i) plants monosomic and trisomic for particular chromosomes (perhaps indicating compensatory trisomy), (ii) intergenomic translocations and (iii) variable sizes and expression patterns of individual ribosomal DNA (rDNA) loci. We even observed karyotypic variation among sibling plants. Significantly, translocations, chromosome loss, and meiotic irregularities, including quadrivalent formation, were observed in synthetic (S0 and S1 generations) polyploid lines. Our results not only provide a mechanism for chromosomal variation in natural populations, but also indicate that chromosomal changes occur rapidly following polyploidisation. These data shed new light on previous analyses of genome and transcriptome structures in de novo and establishing polyploid species. Crucially our results highlight the necessity of studying karyotypes in young (less than 150 years old) polyploid species and synthetic polyploids that resemble natural species. The data also provide insight into the mechanisms that perturb inheritance patterns of genetic markers in synthetic polyploids and populations of young natural polyploid species. K. Yoong Lim1, Douglas E. Soltis2, Pamela S. Soltis3, Jennifer Tate4, Roman Matyasek5, Hana Srubarova5, Ales Kovarik5, J. Chris Pires6, Zhiyong Xiong6, Andrew R. Leitch1*

terenzioiltroll said: "Hey, Steve, how did you enjoyed your golf match, today?" "You are deluded, I was not playing golf! I was just throwing small balls down faraway holes in the ground with long sticks."

Science Avenger said:

terenzioiltroll said: "Hey, Steve, how did you enjoyed your golf match, today?" "You are deluded, I was not playing golf! I was just throwing small balls down faraway holes in the ground with long sticks."

And with a drunken Irishman apparently, who no doubt was responsible for that last post of his.

harold said: Scott F. - I hope it's clear that no significant disagreement with or criticism of you is intended in the slightest by my comment above.

Steve P. said: In fact, the 'evidence' support stasis.

Scott F said:

Steve P. said: In fact, the 'evidence' support stasis.

Ah, right. "Evidence". All the evidence points to stasis, and the fixity of species. You do realize that that view of reality is over 2,500 years old? You do realize that in 2,500 years we've gathered just a tinsy tiny bit more "evidence" than what was available to the ancient Greeks? You do realize that's why they call it "The Dark Ages"? Let's see... The "evidence" shows that in the past there were dinosaurs and no mammals. Now the "evidence" shows that there are mammals, but no dinosaurs. Stasis. Fixity. That's the ticket. It's so blindingly obvious, even a Cave Man could do it! Please use your "stasis" to explain the "evidence" of ring species. Prizes will be awarded for the greatest flexibility in bending over backwards, the greatest speed in shifting goal posts, and the fastest reflexes in dodging direct questions.

The Jumbuck said: If you draw a line in a page it is like a single kind. If you draw a circle, it is still a kind [...]

The Jumbuck said: All the populations in a ring species are at the same Baramin level. Neither has more complex specified information than the other, and hence, they are all the same kind as per Genesis 1. If you draw a line in a page it is like a single kind. If you draw a circle, it is still a kind, but this time a ring species. Understand?

I'm going to regret this, I'm sure, but here goes.

Name me one single "kind" or "baramin" and all the species within it (let's stick with large mammals). Then tell me if you're prepared to defend the supercharged evolution of all those species from the pair of that "kind" after the Flood. And maybe using creationist genetics, you could describe the original pair from the Ark.

I think felines would be instructive, but if you have another favorite "kind", please, astound us with the answers from the extensive research programs of creation science.

"The only constant in Nature is that Nature constantly changes."

Steve P., Jumbuck, Athiest-o-clast, and other creationists need to define their versions of species. One that reflects reality and does not eminate from the nebulous regions of their rectum.

Query - why have no modern organisms ever been uncovered in the fossil record? Why are Italian sparrows not found with dinosaurs? Why don't rabbits forage in the pre-cambrian foliage? If the species are fixed, we should see Homo sapiens fishing on the coast of Pangean seas. We don't.

Best answer based on the data: Evolutionary theory can explain these mysteries, your comfy chair religion cannot.

creationist troll lying: Neither has more complex specified information than the other,

The Jumbuck said: All the populations in a ring species are at the same Baramin level. Neither has more complex specified information than the other, and hence, they are all the same kind as per Genesis 1. If you draw a line in a page it is like a single kind. If you draw a circle, it is still a kind, but this time a ring species. Understand?

phhht said:

The Jumbuck said: All the populations in a ring species are at the same Baramin level. Neither has more complex specified information than the other, and hence, they are all the same kind as per Genesis 1. If you draw a line in a page it is like a single kind. If you draw a circle, it is still a kind, but this time a ring species. Understand?

But Bumjuck, suppose there are three species, A, B, and C. A can breed with B and B can breed with C, but C cannot breed with A. Are A, B, and C all the same kind or not?

phhht said:

phhht said:

The Jumbuck said: All the populations in a ring species are at the same Baramin level. Neither has more complex specified information than the other, and hence, they are all the same kind as per Genesis 1. If you draw a line in a page it is like a single kind. If you draw a circle, it is still a kind, but this time a ring species. Understand?

But Bumjuck, suppose there are three species, A, B, and C. A can breed with B and B can breed with C, but C cannot breed with A. Are A, B, and C all the same kind or not?

Understand?

Say, Jumbuck. How do you explain SINEs?

Say Jumbuck, can you give a run-down of pre- and post mating reproductive isolating mechanisms, and how that fits in with "baramins"?

You guys are f*ckin' dense. I mean, dense.

If you have 26 concepts of species, how in hell can there ever not be speciation! A jury-rigging if ever there was one.

Please, stay withing the safe confines of this board. Its scary out there.

Steve P. said: You guys are f*ckin' dense. I mean, dense. If you have 26 concepts of species, how in hell can there ever not be speciation! A jury-rigging if ever there was one. Please, stay withing the safe confines of this board. Its scary out there.

Steve P. said: You guys are f*ckin' dense. I mean, dense. If you have 26 concepts of species, how in hell can there ever not be speciation! A jury-rigging if ever there was one. Please, stay withing the safe confines of this board. Its scary out there.

Please, stay withing the safe confines of this board. You are scary.

raven said:

Please, stay withing the safe confines of this board. You are scary.

Steve P. absolutely has to stay within the safe confines of his toxic and kooky religion. It's scary for his type out in the daylight of the real world.