Natural selection and genetic variance are commonly used as the observable evidence of evolution. However, this body of evidence only proves that variance exists within a species. From here evolutionists take a major leap of faith to presume that over time a species will change into a different species due to environmental conditions that favor a certain trait or traits than others. No species has ever been observed changing into another one. Indeed environmental conditions may favor specific traits within in a species and a characteristic like color or size may well become dominant over time, but this in no way suggests that it will eventually transform into a separate species. It merely proves that different characteristics should exist within populations that are removed from other populations. Two members of different populations would still be perfectly capable of reproducing with one another no matter how long they have been separated. In fact, natural selection could be used to explain why genetic variance exists within populations that share dominant characteristics but in no way can it be supposed that it results in species transformation. Just look at the diversity within the human race. Small, tall, white, black, 1200cc brain capacity, 1400cc brain capacity- all perfectly able to reproduce with one another and all the same species. The oldest human populations on Earth are scientifically accepted as West African groups. These groups have dominant traits that all members share and are biologically similar in appearance and physical makeup yet among themselves the highest degree of genetic variance in the human race is found. They are not changing into a different species. They carry a genetic code that proves species evolution does not occur.
>>2
It's ok if you can't disprove anything that I brought up.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-04 16:39
>>3
It's ok if all you can do is refactor someone elses article, sheeple.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-04 17:06
>>4
Like you do with evolution? You people have never seen any of the evidence you toss around and can't even keep a straight definition of what it even means. Whenever someone brings up criticisms of it, you dismiss it saying 'Oh, well we have all these bones, you see' and 'If you give it enough time'. It's just a bunch of faith in things you have never seen any evidence of. Bottom line is that no one has even seen a new species develop. Evolution is a sham being held up by faith.
"Two members of different populations would still be perfectly capable of reproducing with one another no matter how long they have been separated." [citation needed]
"They carry a genetic code that proves species evolution does not occur." No, it doesn't.
You haven't disproved anything twat. You've just quoted some retard's opinion with no supporting evidence.
>>5 Bottom line is that no one has even seen a new species develop.
Of course not, that would take way too long for any human to see. We have lots of examples of situations that can only be reasonably explained by new species developing into each other though. Case in point: the several different species of mockingbirds found by Charles Darwin on the Galapagos islands, some 1000 kilometers removed from the South American mainland.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-04 17:49
'A discussion of speciation requires a definition of what constitutes a species. This is a topic of considerable debate within the biological community. There are a variety of different species concept currently in use by biologists.'
So you guys can make up any definition you want to fit the criteria of what you are talking about now? You can't even get a proper definition of what constitutes a species!
Please reserve discourse on natural selection to EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE threads.
Thank you, and have a nice day.
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-04 19:46
>>9
What is the EVOLUTIONARY ADVANTAGE of disproving evolution?
Name:
Anonymous2010-01-04 20:12
>Bottom line is that no one has even seen a new species develop.
Well, we see bacteria/virii evolve pretty often actually. I vaguely recall some dude breeding colonies of some microscopic worms (or something else, I forgot) and he successfully observed evolution in the course of only 30 years or so.
Natural selection and genetic variance are commonly used as the observable evidence of evolution.
ok, it's bad to start an argument with a falsehood. those are the mechanisms of evolution, not the evidence of its existance. the well documented divergance of species over time is the empirical proof. enjoy your (borrowed) disingenious straw man. as for the rest, stopped reading.