We respect your right to privacy. You can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Your cookie preferences will apply across our website.
Evolution is often spoken of factually, but in fact only changing the properties (as opposed to the nature) of descendants is directly observed; this is nothing new, breeding has been done for thousands of years. Evolution is the theory that this can eventually lead to new species. Yet speciation has never been directly observed, only inferred. All the examples of it being observed, are based on mating preference, not innate incompatibility; by this standard, Ethiopians and Greeks of ancient times were different species, since they did not mate with each other.
Also, abiogenesis has never been replicated, which is strange. If RNA can happen by accident why can't that process be replicated in experiment?
>>8100563
>Yet speciation has never been directly observed,
Yes it has. It's actually fairly common in insects.
>>8100599
Nope.
>This is a simplified model of speciation by geographic isolation, but it gives an idea of some of the processes that might be at work in speciation. In most real-life cases, we can only put together part of the story from the available evidence.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_42
>>8100607
>In most real-life cases, we can only put together part of the story from the available evidence.
>In most real-life cases
>most
Do you enjoy shooting yourself in the foot?
Why the fuck is it that out of a kajillion well established theories people keep memeing about this one in particular?.
You dont see people memeing about planet formation theories or cosmic inflation but you see evolution bs every day.
>>8100630
Comes with the territory (human origins).
To quote the opposed party: "I didn't come from no monkey, I's created by (insert name here)."
>>8100630
evolution is considered to be something ongoing, so more should be able to produced. The planet isn't being reformed every day.
>>8100563
>the properties (as opposed to the nature)
define both.
now that you've done that, realize that both change.
>>8100563
>but in fact only changing the properties (as opposed to the nature) of descendants is directly observed; this is nothing new, breeding has been done for thousands of years. Evolution is the theory that this can eventually lead to new species. Yet speciation has never been directly observed, only inferred.
I have here a pic for you for just such an occasion
>Also, abiogenesis has never been replicated, which is strange. If RNA can happen by accident why can't that process be replicated in experiment?
it might have something to do with that process taking place over the course of a hundred million years across the oceans of an entire planet. to put it another way:
>Also, the formation of continental crust has never been replicated, which is strange. If granitic cratons can happen by accident why can't that process be replicated in experiment?
>>8100658
Yes, it is, dipshit-man.
>>8100563
>why can't that process be replicated
why doesn't my lemonade stand succeed against Walmart?
>>8100630
>You dont see people memeing about planet formation theories
Young-Earth Creationism tackles evolution AND planet formation theories 2-for-1.
What does the reality of genetic engineering tell us about evolution?
>>8100676
>Meanwhile, another population of reds is micro-evolving to yellow via orange
>Then all the red, orange and purple letters die off
>Then some blue letters start claiming evolution is invalid because "I didn't come from no yellow!"
>And most of the other blues go "well yeah, you actually did"
>And then one spergy blue steps forward and goes "actually, both blue and yellow evolved from a common ancestor, perhaps green or red."
>All the other blues ignore him and continue being retarded brainlets for the remainder of their lives
>>8100748
that was quoite clever m9
>>8100563
>Evolution is often spoken of factually, but in fact only changing the properties (as opposed to the nature) of descendants is directly observed
That is evolution. Also, there is no relevant distinction between "properties" and "nature".
>this is nothing new, breeding has been done for thousands of years.
Proving evolution is factual.
>Evolution is the theory that this can eventually lead to new species.
No, it's not. Speciation is a result of evolution, not evolution itself. It's not even necessary for evolution to be true. But now that you've admitted evolution is a fact, how could it not lead to speciation? What stops one species from becoming another? Magic?
>All the examples of it being observed, are based on mating preference, not innate incompatibility; by this standard, Ethiopians and Greeks of ancient times were different species, since they did not mate with each other.
It has nothing to do with species not happening to mate with each other, it's that two different species are genetically incapable of reproducing with each other. If you're not a troll you must be mentally retarded. You can't come up with a coherent argument. No one actually trying to reason their way through things would be able to come up with such a sophistic argument as "evolution only changes properties but not nature". So you are either a troll or trying to reach a conclusion you already believe in while ignoring any and all evidence that disagrees.
>If RNA can happen by accident why can't that process be replicated in experiment?
If winning the lottery in 1856 happened randomly why can't you win the lottery in 1856 in a laboratory?
>>8102782
No it wasn't, and I'm the guy whose post you responded to
>>8102839
shut up fool, you made a gud joke
>>8100630
Is this a serious question?
Religion.
