Moderator: Moderators
all the time, but none of that "evidence" have been shown anywhere here ...
Maybe we can see the real thing behind all these verbiage ...The Barbarian wrote: ↑Tue May 31, 2022 8:50 amYes. The key is if they reproduce in nature. For example, we can induce lions and tigers to breed in zoos, but they never do it in nature. Likewise, many birds that will have nothing to do with each other in nature, can be induced to breed in captivity. Remember when I pointed out that if evolution is true, then specieation is not a binary thing, but will have all sorts of intermediate cases? This is why. Polar bears are likely a few tens of thousands of years old, having evolved from brown bears during the last glaciation. They freely interbreed with brown bears when in the same area. The rising temps in the Arctic are leading to more of these hybrids and could lead to the extinction of polar bears by breeding themselves out of existence.Eloi wrote: ↑Mon May 30, 2022 3:25 pm
I have heard of animals that belong to (supposedly) different species within the same genus (according to the classification given to them by specialists) and that under certain circumstances mated and had offspring. Were they really different species as nature dictates?
We can't know everything. But we can know some things. And the list of things we know is expanding rapidly.
Notice that Darwin, who knew a fraction of what we know about it, accurately predicted the nature of speciation.
For a scientist, the key is to know how it works. Engineers are the guys who use it to change things.
(...)
The evolution of new species is an observed and documented fact.
You should proofread your posts.How a real ANOTHER SPECIES can the new animal be?
Are you under the impression that "cow" and "whale" are species designations?What are the real conditions for something like REAL new species coming out of previous species to occur naturally? Like: What real relationship can there be between a cow and a whale, other than an imaginary magical story?
Yes it has. Would you like to see it?
More of the same ... Boring.
Can you please post like an actual adult (assuming you are one)?
FYI, you're on a debate forum, where everything you post is up for rebuttal. Someone merely replying to your posts is not "stalking".For someone else, other than the stalker:
First, "normal ape" and "ape-man" are not taxonomic categories. Second, paleoanthropologists generally classify specimens (as I understand it).I'm going to repeat the question I asked elsewhere, although I'm going to relate it to the issue here: what criteria do taxonomists use to classify a bone as normal ape, ape-man, or human?
It's a rather technical and complex subject, so it doesn't lend itself to such a simplistic summary. The Smithsonian page I linked above is written for laypeople, so you should find it easy to read and understand.Obviously, if they classify the bones arbitrarily, they will give rise to any false conclusion or even a new hoax. Can any of you reply in a few simple words, without sending the forumers to read other web-pages?
PS: You always have the option to make summaries of your favorite web pages... Surely there are thousands of web pages for all tastes.
Moderator WarningLet me see if I catch the interest of any of the defenders of evolutionism on the forum (apart from the stalker).
The real realationship is one of shared ancestry and there's only so many ways to say it. The representation of that is simple, but the actual data analysis supporting it is mathematically complex. Trying to explain it involves a balancing act between "that's too simple, how can you know that" at one end and "I can't imagine that, so you're making it up" at the other. As several of us have been telling you in various ways, you'll have to either meet us halfway by learning enough about the mathematical models to understand them or else trust us. If you won't do either, then we're going to keep having conversations that alternate between, "I have no idea what that means," and, "that's just a fairy tale."
It has been repeatedly, in multiple ways by multiple commenters across many years. I've offered some of the evidence myself. For this comment, I generated a phylogenetic tree of a number of primates from data that are publicly available. I started a thread this winter to explain how to use the software and generate phylogenetic trees from NIH GenBank data. I kind of lost motivation and petered out in the middle, but if you'd like to install the software, follow along, and maybe suggest some experiments we could try, I'd be willing to pick it back up.
