No, fruit glies are one case out of literally thousands. And it is you who have brought absolurely nothing more than "no, you didn't".
No. I gave you cases where new species were created. "Species" is a well defined noun. If members of two populations can not successfully mate to bear offspring that can succesxfully mate, the populations are of a different species.
Yes, there are plenty of others here, possibly even yourself, who have more knowledge on the specifics of biology. I merely find the theory of evolution relatively convincing. Just as I feel convinced that atoms exist despite not truly seeing them for myself. It is all just a matter of reasoning based on information available really. The same way a person "knows" their life is real and not a virtual simulation or a delusion. Anyway, if you have, or know of evidence for alternatives, I'd be interested in learning about them. It would make this thread more interesting in my opinion.
Agree. So if that's the case, then WillReadMore's posted the proof with this one: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/. From the article: "For example, there were the two new species of American goatsbeards (or salsifies, genus Tragopogon) that sprung into existence in the past century. In the early 1900s, three species of these wildflowers - the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius) - were introduced to the United States from Europe. As their populations expanded, the species interacted, often producing sterile hybrids. But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species." If this is not proof, I don't know what is.
This thread is reminding me of the old joke. "I was into BDSM, necrophilia and bestiality. At least until I realized that all I was doing was beating a dead horse."
There are almost no professional scientists who do not accept the theory of evolution. The scientific community regards creationists as people who don't know what they are talking about. Evolution vs. creation isn't even an issue in the scientific journals.
Not true by any stretch of your imagination. I'm leaps and bounds ahead of you in the knowledge of paleontology. I can even spell it correctly. You're nipping at the heels does nothing to make your point. Of course you don't provide the link you had to use a search engine to find. At least put up where you found it. At any rate, it's doubtful that any kinship in these "transition" fossil can honestly be linked. They're probably the same fossils used over and over over the decades that still show they don't know. The information that links them together needs to be manipulated to bring any semblance to kinship. Please for the umpteenth time, provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Heck, put up the information! You talk but you have yet to provide any evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. If they've improved then put them up. Good grief. Why all this unnecessary cutting and running? What won't you just provide the evidence?[/QUOTE]
Put up the evidence and stop running from the fact that you really don't have any evidence. Is that too hard to ask? Just put the evidence.
Get off it. You know exactly what is necessary. I've been asking for evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. C'mon, Grow up. Put the evidence and stop running from the issue like a scalded cat.
Wrong. There are not "literally thousands" of cases. If there were you'd have provided the evidence. Instead you talk but don't walk. Please put up the evidence. Your lack of providing evidence show you to be wrong.
Why not just admit that there is no possible evidence that you would accept. That shouldn't be too hard for you since you think you are an expert. Heck, my bet is you can't even come up with what you think is a definition of evolution that has any specificity. And when challenged you can't even come up with an alternative explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.
It is you who are too afraid to say what would constitute acceptable evidence. It is also you who is incapable of coming up with a better theory than evolution.
No you didn't. I'm glad you've finally realized what a species is. Of course I've known what a species is.
How does something with an incredibly large lack of evidence convince you? If evolution was on trial I doubt there would be enough evidence to convict it. Atoms have been seen. Evolution hasn't and there's very little evidence to say it has. I have no other theory. I'm simply asking for evidence and nobody has been able to produce any. The one thing that the pro evolution crowd refuse to admit is that there is no evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species, which is what evolution is supposed to be all about.
All fossils are transitions. There are none that aren't. "Transition" is just not a designation for a particular fossil. You can certainly search for fossils that show steps between two fossils laying on a table somewhere, but those two fossils are just as much "transition" fossils as every other fossil that has been or will be found. Suggesting there are fossils that are "transition" fossils and those that are not implies that there are static species. But, that isn't what evidence suggests. Even modern humans are evolving. Maybe when people ask for "transitions" they are really just asking for a more complete fossil record to be found. But, finding fossils is fantastically difficult. Fossils found are a minuscule trace of life that has lived on earth. Difficulty in finding fossils does not imply that such life never existed.
Did you not read the article? They are a allopolyploid species, a hybrid. Here's something about the T.dubius. You can find the same info on the others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragopogon_dubius By the way, science doesn't prove anything. It never has and never will.
From the article (emphasis mine): "While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species." An allopolyploid species is still a new species. allopolyploid just describes how species came into existence. Ok, so forget proof. Here is the evidence you requested. Do you accept this evidence or do you have an argument against it, and what is it?
