₦airaland Forum

seunH:
The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming

Huamns are not just apes, humans are animals. A little effort to observe a human cell under the microscope and analyze our metabolism bears all the hallmark of an animal by classification. Futher analysis to anatomical features puts us in mammalian and ape categories. We cannot say otherwise because we don't like how it sounds.

Sincerely sir, you argue like a religious person (someone whose mind is already made up and is blinded by faith)
You said humans are a type of Ape that evolved from a parent stock of Ape like creatures, is a statement of fact, I defined what a scientific fact is and asked you to correlate the above statement in line with the definition I gave, rather you are telling me human are animals based on metabolic analysis

can you differentiate the erythromycyte of a goat, gorilla and Huamns if I present the images from a microspe? If no, it means I know what I am saying you are the present presenting religous argument.

you told me this because you don't understand speciation after several attempts to explain it to you.

You keep hanging on the word speciation as if it's rocket science. I tried to explain it layman's term, you said I didn't understand it and that's the only thing you've been hanging on. Now let me say it in pigin English. Finches na type of bird, Galapagos finches na type of finch, tell us how new type of bird take evolve, and stop playing with words

That's because you don't think it's speciation until a bacteria turns to a goat.

it is, evolution is the only reasonable explanation for that unless you want to insert magic into it.

So because I saw bones of different of similar shapes and sizes within a specific geological period, voila!!! Evolution has been proven despite alternative evidence I gave, which I doubt you understood due to preconceived thoughts. As I said earlier sir, you argue religiously with faith

God did not do it, the only reasonable explanation with evidence is evolution

no sir, you don't understand speciation. You didn't learn that part properly in school. I have biochemist friends who don't understand evolution like you do. So being an anatomist is not a guarantee that you know evolution. You at still struggling to understand speciation. You want a bacteria to be me a dog before you call it speciation.

Straw man's fallacy, infact you seem to be the one confused about speciation, that's why you contradicted yourself in your last post. Now let's agree to disagree that I do understand speciation. Now I ask, please explain in layman's terms how a new organism (capable of interbreeding with each other but not with parent stock) can originate via evolution? simple!!!

You need peoroe education in philosophy. How's that strawman?

read about it first. You can learn if you are allergic to reading. Arguing cannot make you Learn, you have to get information from credible sources and you can only do that by reading. So go read what I posted. It doesn't hurt

My dear senior, let me burst your bubble, those creatures you listed above were fully formed with functional systems, well adapted to their environment, capable of independent existence without any evidence of disability in the course of transition to another specie. [ /quote] creatures don't exist, nothing was created. No evidence for that

[quote]mentioned where I said mutations leads to new individuals. That's not science

This statement you made made me doubt if you understand the theory of evolution at all. So if mutation does not give rise to genetic diversity, how will natural selection isolate well adapted genes to "drive evolution". I guess you typed that out of impulse to reply and I'll assume I didn't see that.

again, mention where I stated that mutation leads to new individuals, you haven't done thtat. Quote a post where I said that.

You are the person who doesn't understand evolution. You have sciolistic view on it and you dont understand the mechanism obviously and most of all you are not willing to listen.
You do not understand taxonomy as well why you cannot differentate a species from a family.
You inferred that finch becomes another species of finch is not soeciation because you lack the basic understanding that finch is a common name for a specific family of bird and not a species.

I think the above statement should be redirected to you sir as proven above, you don't seem to understand the theory of evolution that why you are hanging on speciation as if it's the only thing I wrote. If you understood evolution, you wouldn't doubted me when I told you that, mutation is going to be one of the drivers if evolution is "to supposedly lead to new individuals"

You are the same person who doesn't understand that rat is not a species but a family of animals with various species. Even after so many attempt to explain to you, you either didn't read my post or you don't understand.
Finch is not a species, saying that finches are still finches even when they are different species hence not speciation is not scientific. You can read up on that.

same same, straw man's fallacy.


And yes the origin of human is not a mystery, it's well documented that we evolved from prehistoric apes.

THEN REPEAT IT UNDER A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT AND LET THIS ARGUMENT DIE A NATURAL DEATH

Sincerely sir I'm getting bored, you are not used to be challenged when you attempt to bamboozle people with scientific theories you don't really have a firm grasp at. For the record I believe in evolution as a scientist. But evolution capable of bringing about new individuals like rats (your favorite specie !!! ), humans, insects etc is a joke taken too far and it requires faith, just as you are exhibiting

I think if you drop you ego, I can lecture you on evolution. You don't understand it and I ma dame sure about this

A001:
No, axioms are self-evident truths.

That's what God is exactly is, Axiom

Anieke77:
yes

OK, go on

gabrielto:
So what happened to the other apes that still live amongst us? Slow evolution ? Don’t read to reply but read to understand

which of the apes? Humans?

nathdim:
Me trying hard not to laugh at adults who still believe all these tales ����

I swear

Anieke77:
My dear op may God open your eyes

can you prove that God exist?

penearth:
He betrayed Jesus not as to fulfill scripture because he committed suicide. If actually to fulfill a structure Judas could have repented and saved but he committed suicide meaning a plan by d devil to distroy the ministry

Both Jesus and Judas iscariot didn't exist. The story is myth

kamtrix:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iKlWBNqCd8
This is a short video in the 20+ video serious on YouTube, QUESTIONS WE ASK ABOUT CHRISTIANITY. Please do spare us a minute to watch this.

They aren't real, Adam isn't real so they cannot be real

They are mostly not real.
Especially Adam and eve

A001:
God isn't really an axiom because his/her/its existence isn't an established scientific fact.

But this is exactly what an Axiom is, something that people believe to be true but is not necessarily true and hasn't been proven to be true.

A 600 year old man builds an ark made of wood that is sea-worthy.

A virgin bears a child without FERTILIZATION. NO y-chromosome required. She literally did parthenogenesis.

A man lives in a fish, when we obviously do not have a fish large enough to swallow a human whole.

A man walks on water, I don't get it, density doesn't exist?

A man is risen from the dead after 3days, well.

A serpent can speak. This one is the funniest


These are the kind of things you only read in book of myths and allegories like Harry Potter.

An Axiom is a statement or principle that is generally accepted to be true, but need not be so:
1. It is a widely held axiom that governments should not negotiate with terrorists.
2. God exist and He created heaven and earth. While this might be accept to be true but its not necessarily true because it cannot and hasn't been proven. But for the purpose of argument, people accept it to be true.

A theorem is a formula, proposition, or statement in mathematics or logic deduced or to be deduced from other formulas or propositions. 2 : an idea accepted or proposed as a demonstrable truth often as a part of a general theory : proposition the theorem that the best defense is offense.
God doesn't fall in this category because it becomes a problem when you ask theist to demonstrate with evidence their God in action. You start hearing all sort of fallacies and excuses.

So God is an Axiom and not a theorem.

seunH:
"Humans are apes, we didn't just evolve from apes, we are apes. That's not a claim, it's a fact"

You are a scientist and I believe you understand the meaning of "fact". But in case you have forgotten let me assist you sir, " A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly, verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means and is accepted as true". Now with all sincerity devoid of any preconceived thought, can the above be said about evolution of man from Apes as a fact. Be truthful to yourself, you have nothing to lose sir.

I do, Huamns are not just apes, humans are animals. A little effort to observe a human cell under the microscope and analyze our metabolism bears all the hallmark of an animal by classification. Futher analysis to anatomical features puts us in mammalian and ape categories. We cannot say otherwise because we don't like how it sounds.

"nope, we have evidence in galapafos finches that speciation is fact. We also have a lab experiment in lambda bacteriophage that proves this"

And I told you sir, that these same Galapagos finches are still finches capable of interbreeding with one another hence nothing new has been formed like saying s Chihuahua evolved from a Mongrel, same for the bacteriophage sir

you told me this because you don't understand speciation after several attempts to explain it to you.

"yes they are, do you want to explain why the fossil records are so consistent with radiometric saying and geological timelins and with the time the first modern human fossil has been recorded outside of the fact that we transitioned from them?"

That they are consistent within the geographical timeline, is not a slam dunk evidence that evolution occured, when even fossil record itself isn't a conclusive proof of evolution because everyday new fossils are been discovered. It should interest you sir, that even these so called radiometric dating is still a source of debate among scientist on its accuracy. So sir, you are building your argument on a shaky foundation

it is, evolution is the only reasonable explanation for that unless you want to insert magic into it.

"you being an anatomist doesn't make any difference here. You have genuinely shown that you don't understand the concept of speciation and claissification in biology. I also have a degree in biochemistry, masters in clinical biochemistry and a foreign certification in virology and evolutionary biology, it still doesn't make any sense if I do not understand the topic very well"

Being an Anatomist goes a long way sir, I'll tell you why. All what you know about paleantology, fossil records and comparative anatomy (comparison of skull of various species) etc is probably via Google or maybe you read it somewhere, you were not taught. And also sir, if an Anatomist does not declare a skull a human skull, even in the court of law, it stands no matter what the fossil records say. So I think to a reasonable aspect I have a say on this issue. It's like me arguing Miller's experiment with you, won't I look stupid. NB, you saying I don't understand the concept of speciation is laughable, then how was I able to survive in both Med and Vet school (Taxonomy and Biological classification is an important aspect of parasitology). You choose to play with words although you understood what I was implying.

no sir, you don't understand speciation. You didn't learn that part properly in school. I have biochemist friends who don't understand evolution like you do. So being an anatomist is not a guarantee that you know evolution. You at still struggling to understand speciation. You want a bacteria to be me a dog before you call it speciation.

"Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus read about them"

As I said sir, we shouldn't just Google answers, we should understand what we are googling, All the above creatures you wrote, were there fully formed or party formed, which was what I asked. Also we have had intermediate fossils which were later found to be distinct creatures, with due respect sir, go back to google.

read about it first. You can learn if you are allergic to reading. Arguing cannot make you Learn, you have to get information from credible sources and you can only do that by reading. So go read what I posted. It doesn't hurt

"No I said mutation can give rise to variation and genetic drift. I don't know where you brought individual into it, only reproduction can gives rise to new individuals"

With due respect sir, we are matured people and you understand what I mean, let's not play with words. Can genetic mutation give rise via reproduction of course to an entirely distinct individual different from the parent stock capable of interbreeding amongst themselves but not with parent stock.

mentioned where I said mutations leads to new individuals. That's not science

"this is not evolution, you are thinking about magic"
You're joking right? or you're just saying this for the sake of argument?

"I didn't say evolution occurred randomly, you made that up because evolution is not random. It's driven by natural selection"

Tell me this is a joke. With due respect sir, I'm beginning to doubt if you really understand what evolution is about or you're just googling and pasting answers
Evolution is driven by 2 mechanism, a) Genetic mutation, is it random? YES
b) Natural selection, is it random? CAPITAL YES. Any random event can induce natural selection e.g war, famine, disease outbreak, environmental pollution etc. HENCE EVOLUTION IS A RANDOM EVENT

"artificial process cannot escalate breeding of 50000 generations in the flies that you mentioned"

Take time sir to google what I wrote. Science has gone past waiting for insects or experimental animals to reproduce conventionally till they are 50,000 generations !!!! when we have Tissue culture, Histochemistry etc

"The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming"

A very religious statement lol. Then repeat it under a controlled environment nah, at least it would prevent extinction of endangered species.

My learned brother, let's shed preconceived thoughts, we would see life more clearly

You are the person who doesn't understand evolution. You have sciolistic view on it and you dont understand the mechanism obviously and most of all you are not willing to listen.
You do not understand taxonomy as well why you cannot differentate a species from a family.
You inferred that finch becomes another species of finch is not soeciation because you lack the basic understanding that finch is a common name for a specific family of bird and not a species.

You are the same person who doesn't understand that rat is not a species but a family of animals with various species. Even after so many attempt to explain to you, you either didn't read my post or you don't understand.
Finch is not a species, saying that finches are still finches even when they are different species hence not speciation is not scientific. You can read up on that.
And yes the origin of human is not a mystery, it's well documented that we evolved from prehistoric apes.

seunH:
Let's not deviate sir from our earlier submission, which is as summarized as follows;

You claim that evolution (Genetics mutation and Natural selection) explains the emergence of entirely new individuals i.e you and I, from Apes (Parent stock)

Humans are apes, we didn't just evolve from apes, we are apes. That's not a claim, it's a fact

I said No, that evolution (Genetic mutation and Natural selection) can not give rise to entirely new individuals, at most they can give rise to genetically distinct individuals but still related to their parent stock and can interbreed with their parents stock

nope, we have evidence in galapafos finches that speciation is fact. We also have a lab experiment in lambda bacteriophage that proves this.

You said fossil records of different apes and apelike creatures are evidence of evolution of human

yes they are, do you want to explain why the fossil records are so consistent with radiometric dating and geological time-line and with the time the first modern human fossil has been recorded outside of the fact that we transitioned from them?

I said No, that as an anatomist they don't point to anything and I gave instances of different dog breeds. I was like, if we were not alive and we saw their fossils we may claim they are different dog like creatures that gave rise to modern dogs not knowing they were all the same dogs of different breeds. Hence fossil records are not 100% accurate.

×you being an anatomist doesn't make any difference here. You have genuinely shown that you don't understand the concept of speciation and claissification in biology. I also have a degree in biochemistry, masters in clinical biochemistry and a foreign certification in virology and evolutionary biology, it still doesn't make any sense if I do not understand the topic very well.

×^I further added now, that if evolution were to be real, fossil records would also show intermediate fossils which had not yet evolved properly but died along the line. And I challenge you, to show me an intermediate fossil now, that was not yet properly formed

Tiktaalik, Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Pakicetids, Ambulocetus read about them.

You said genetic mutation can give rise to new individuals

No I said mutation can give rise to variation and genetic drift. I don't know where you brought individual into it, only reproduction can gives rise to new individuals.

I said No, that most genetic mutations are harmful, at most useless and arely useful hence not capable enough to give rise to new individuals

this is not evolution, you are thinking about magic. And mutations are not always harmful, especially those that occur in the gametes. They drive evolution

You said evolution occured randomly in nature without any supernatural intervention

I said, then why can't we repeat it with our modern technology and scientific advancement

I didn't say evolution occurred randomly, you made that up because evolution is not random. It's driven by natural selection.

You said the time is too short

I said our modern technology and scientific advances can initiate and complete processes that can take millions of years in an hour of which I gave examples

artificial process cannot escalate breeding of 50000 generations in the flies that you mentioned

I finally said, the origin of man and other creatures is still a mystery, we can only hypothesize, because in science what you cannot repeat severally in a controlled environment remains in the annals of hypothesis

The origin of man is not a mystery, we evolved from prehistoric apes just as other organisms evolved from other animals. The evidence is overwhelming

You said NO, that our origin is not a mystery and it's confirmed by science, which is via evolution

That is the summary of of discussion so far

yes exactly

elated177:
Meaningless rants and rambles.

Just because I humbly asked for evidence for your imaginary sky friend

Maynman:
Exactly what a believer will say. Run run, your faith is fragile.

a faith that gets threatened in the light of evidence
Very fragile

elated177:
Premium wailing and frustration. Continue to wail.

A convenient way to runaway from providing evidence

seunH:
But sir, you were the one who called them rats!!!!, you can cross check sir

how do I explain this to you now? Okay Toxonomy is from kingdom to phylum, to class to clade, to order, to family, to genus and then species.


For example, apes, ape is not a species, it's a "Family" of animals which included alot of genuses of organisms in the "order" primates which includes in tarsiers, lemurs, monkeys and great apes. In classification we move from kingdom, to phylum, to class, to order and then family. Ape is a family of animals from the order of primate, from the class of mammals, from the phylum of chordata and then kingdom animalia.

This also applies to rats. Rat is not a species, Rat is a "family" of several organisms. From kingdom animalia, to phylum chordata, to class mammalian and then order rodentia and then rat family. The family is rat and not the species.
The the family rats then have lot of genuses and the genuses have different species like whistar albino rats, naked mole rats, Norwegians rats, mice and even shrews.

These different genuses and species in the rat family cannot interbreed, just as different ape species cannot interbreed. On that basis, they are rats

seunH:
no they cannot, a mole rat cannot mate with Norwegian rat, a whistar albino rat cannot mate with a mice. Their chromosomes do not pair.

Let me lecture you a bit sir, because you're getting a little bit confused, with due respect.
A mole rat and a mice are called "rats' but that is not the speciation we are talking about in this context. The speciation in question here are the black rats, brown rats, albino rats, kangaroo rats, house rats etc Take note sir, these rats are genetically distinct, different "surnames" but can mate with each other hence that is what I'm talking about. When we say dogs in this context we don't mean dingos, wolves, foxes, coyotes etc we mean GSD, Great Danes, Bull mastiffs etc. So let's stay on course sir

But dingos, foxes, coyotes, wolves, jackals are all dogs. They evolved and have common ancestry just as gorrila, hamans, orangutans and chimpanzees which are all great apes.

All domestic dogs are the same species of dog, they just have wild range of variations that made them very distinct. It doednt mean that Dingo is not a dog, it's not just a domestic dog

seunH:
no they cannot, a mole rat cannot mate with Norwegian rat, a whistar albino rat cannot mate with a mice. Their chromosomes do not pair.

Let me lecture you a bit sir, because you're getting a little bit confused, with due respect.
A mole rat and a mice are called "rats' but that is not the speciation we are talking about in this context. The speciation in question here are the black rats, brown rats, albino rats, kangaroo rats, house rats etc Take note sir, these rats are genetically distinct, different "surnames" but can mate with each other hence that is what I'm talking about. When we say dogs in this context we don't mean dingos, wolves, foxes, coyotes etc we mean GSD, Great Danes, Bull mastiffs etc. So let's stay on course sir

lol,
The scientific name of naked mole rat is Heterocephalus glaber with 60 chromosomes.
The scientific name of Norwegian brown rat is Rattus norvegicus with 22 chromosomes.


On what scientific basis do you expect them to mate? They are not even the same genus. "Rat" is not a species, it's probably a family of animals and not a species

A001:
Your knowledge of biological science is commendable.

But I want you to think about this: The Earth is around 4.5 billion years old, the Homo Erectus epoch occurred approximately 2 million years before the modern man, and the Homo Sapiens era is about 280,000 years old.

The Age of Scientific Enlightenment is around 600 years old, and today, scientists can breed some organisms like microbes, rats, dogs, etc. as a result of the key advances made in some areas of biological sciences within the last 100 years.

If we can record much achievements in just a relatively short period of time, then we can't rule out the possibility that some human species in the past had bred many organisms, even including humans.

Do you honestly believe that homo erectuses, who lived much longer than the oldest modern man, wouldn't have achieved a lot more than what we've managed to achieve within just a few hundred years of scientific advancement?

Personally, I don't think so.

I think there have been much advanced races of humans that had make great inventions on this planet (the likes of the Egyptian pyramids) whose inventions had been completely destroyed by climate change that led to the extinction of older species or moved to other planets for space colonization programs.

You can't know all the progress made in genetics, molecular biology in the last 100 years, especially in areas like breeding and cloning of animals and plants, and then rule out the possibility of intelligent design in the origin of life on this planet.

(I predict that our science will still develop a lot in the future to that point, though it could take hundreds of years.)

Keep in mind that recorded history doesn’t cover even 10% of the history of Earth, which has existed for about 4.5 billion years.

If there had been older species of humans that lived with a life span at least one thousand years and could transfer their knowledge to their descendants, then it's possible our (glorious) sciences are still primitive compared to theirs.

Then, we can't even rule out the possibility of some past beings not having an average lifespan of millions of years since we know little about our solar system and very little about our galaxy (the Milky Way), let alone the universe.

We've not even explored the whole of Earth.

That's why I urge people to approach scientific concepts and principles, including evolution, with an open mind and caution.

I totally agree with you

seunH:
"Look at it like this, we have different species of rats, they cannot mate with earth other, they are sill rats"

My dear colleague, that is wrong sir, all species of rats (rat scientifically) can mate together to produce offspring. Infact when we come across species where mating is difficult we start reconsidering their specie

"We have different species of dogs, including the painted dogs, gray wolf's and domestics dogs, they cannot mate, they are still dogs.
We have different species of cats, they cannot mate, they are still cats"

My dear colleague, that is also wrong sir, remember it's my field�. That they are called "dogs" doesn't indicate they are our normal domestic dogs breeds. The specie were are referring to here is domestic breeds. It's like saying lions and domestic cats are same species because they are both called cats

"There's no amount of advancement that can make about 50,000 - 100,000 generations of flies possible in 50years. That's about the amount of generations you need to start seeing any effect of speciation."

My boss chief, it's possible sir, kindly google the terms I sent to you sir. You'll see the possibility, and it has even been done sir.

Bacteria is not a species, bacteria in taxonomy is a kingdom. So you got to still go down to phyla, classes, orders, family, genus before getting to species. Speciation deals with emergence of different species and not different genus, family or order etc. So your comment about bacteria still being bacteria is a misinterpretation of what speciation deals with. You are assuming that a bacteria has to become like amoeba in the kingdom protozoa or a dog in kingdom animalia for it to be called speciation. No that's not how it works

Sir, you did read what I posted properly, I said "bacteria of the specie"

Moreover, as I said earlier the specie we are talking about sir is not the taxonomical nomenclature sir, we are talking in context of evolution. We are talking about emergence of a distinct category of life with different characteristics capable of intrasexual activity within it category while incapable with it's parent stock

Speices do not have contexts. Speices is species and its what it is.

If a bacteria evolves into another Speices of bacteria, it's speciation. You do not expect a bacteria to evolve immediately into a dog, do you?
That would be magic in my opinion and it doesn't have a place in science.

It's called speciation and not genusiation, kingdomisiation or phylumiation

seunH:
"Look at it like this, we have different species of rats, they cannot mate with earth other, they are sill rats" My dear colleague, that is wrong sir, all species of rats (rat scientifically) can mate together to produce offspring. Infact when we come across species where mating is difficult we start reconsidering their specie

no they cannot, a mole rat cannot mate with Norwegian rat, a whistar albino rat cannot mate with a mice. Their chromosomes do not pair.

A housecat cannot mate with a lion, a cheetah cannot mate with a Jaguar, they have different pairs of chromosome.
It's the same way a chimpanzee cannot mate with a gorilla, an orangutan cannot mate with humans. They are all apes with different pairs of chromsomes.

A swan cannot mate with domestic duck, a goose cannot mate with a swan. They are all Anatida

A bee cannot mate with a honnet, they are both Hymenoptera.

You need to unlearn that idea

§We have different species of dogs, including the painted dogs, gray wolf's and domestics dogs, they cannot mate, they are still dogs.
We have different species of cats, they cannot mate, they are still cats. My dear colleague, that is also wrong sir, remember it's my field�. That they are called "dogs" doesn't indicate they are our normal domestic dogs breeds. The specie were are referring to here is domestic breeds. It's like saying lions and domestic cats are same species because they are both called cats

You don't know what a specie is.
We have over 40 species of wolf today, they cannot mate with each other not to even asuume that a wolves mates with a domestic dog. They are not different breeds, they are different species.

A gray wolf in north america and Europe cannot mate with white wolves in Asia or Dholes in India. They are different species but they are all wolves. They have different scientific names in terms of species.

You need to learn this rightly but I understand what you man by breeds, you are just confusing breeds with Species.

seunH:
My chief, when you go through my last post, you would see that the answer to the above is plain. Firstly sir for the sake of our readers, for you to say speciation has occured as in the above claim, we need the following;

seriously, I'm enjoying this sane conversation with you and I want to learn something new. I know what speciation is and I would obliged that you stop thinking that speciation means that a bacteria has not stop being a bacteria. bacteria is not a species hence we can't talk about speciation in that context.

1) Has the parent stock been identified? (life or fossil) i.e the original squirrel that gave rise to the two species

yes, it's literally in the article I shared with you.

2) Has genetic analysis been conducted on the two species to indicate initial similarities and subsequent genetic divergence

yes, you will see this also if you read the article I shared

3) Are the two species able to mate to produce a viable offspring?

it can't be called speciation if they can still interred to give birth to "non-sterile" offsprings

If the answer is no, sir then we are dealing with the same species.
Furthermore even from what you wrote sir, they are both still called "squirrels" nothing new.

My brother we are both scientist and we should not swallow what human beings like me and you wrote simply because they are whites, many times these things have been shown to be wrong and reviewed. Even this 98% similarities with chimps has been reviewed severally even at a time to 92%!!!!

I think you need to read that article that I shared

seunH:
My dear respected learned colleague, let me for the sake of readers explain speciation in this context. If a genetically mutated specie can still "mate" and produce offspring (provided their reproductive capacity was not damaged in the mutation) we can't tentatively say speciation has occured sir. In your example above sir, Galapagos finches are still finches irrespective of their beak form or body size etc and can still mate with one another, provided they are "finches"

We won't say they are another species if they can still mate with each. Look at it like this, we have different species of rats, they cannot mate with earth other, they are sill rats.
We have different species of dogs, including the painted dogs, gray wolf's and domestics dogs, they cannot mate, they are still dogs.
We have different species of cats, they cannot mate, they are still cats. Lions cannot mate with cheetah, they are both cats of different species.

It's the same way we have different species and new species of finches that cannot mate hence speciation.

In your number 2 point sir, advances in science and medicine has made it possible for several offspring to be created within a short period invitro/invivo studies and tissue culture sir.

There's no amount of advancement that can make about 50,000 - 100,000 generations of flies possible in 50years. That's about the amount of generations you need to start seeing any effect of speciation. The ideal way to experiment speciation is in microorganisms, they have the ability fo reproduce fast and Create new species within our lifetime.

On your third point sir, dog artificial dog breeding is not as recent as you think sir, it had been occuring since ages. GSD, Bull mastiffs, Great Danes etc are not recent breeds sir, they are as old as time immemorial.

artifical breeding of dogs is recent in the context of evolution considering that we didn't start domestication of animals until recently in respect to 4billion+ years of the age of earth. Now do the scaling

On your last point sir, those viruses and bacteria where speciation has been claimed to occur are still bacteria or viruses of the specie because they can still reproduce with each other. That's why you would see names like SARS COV 1, SARS COV 2. Inasmuch as they are genetic mutants of each other, they still retain their family name SARS COV because they are still the same specie. Your last statement has summarized all I've been saying sir. Thanks for the response

I think you have issues knowing what a species actually is.

Bacteria is not a species, bacteria in taxonomy is a kingdom. So you got to still go down to phyla, classes, orders, family, genus before getting to species. Speciation deals with emergence of different species and not different genus, family or order etc. So your comment about bacteria still being bacteria is a misinterpretation of what speciation deals with. You are assuming that a bacteria has to become like amoeba in the kingdom protozoa or a dog in kingdom animalia for it to be called speciation. No that's not how it works

For example, if you observe E. Coli form another species, we can call them E. Colus, that's speciation because it cannot exchange genetic material with its parent bacteria. It mustn't a case where E. Coli becomes a dog before you say speciation has happened. As long as a species cannot mate with its parents species, it's speciation and we have observed that happened

seunH:
.............This indicates that up till now, speciation still remains a mystery, how we came about, how a lion, house rat, cockroach or even housefly came about still remains a mystery. Please don't google pseudo scientific publication to back up what it's obvious because you should ask yourself, if man can induce new species, chimpanzees out closest relatives (98% genetic similarity) would have been induced to give rise to human being by shutting down the 2% difference and inducing a 2% similarity lolzzzzzz!!! but jokes apart we would have seen different specie to specie transformations to suit our needs especially in the cases of endangered species.
In conclusion, let us try and be open minded when dealing with scientific issues, so that we won't fall into the trap we are trying to avoid.

Thank you for your time (Note: I'm a Human Anatomist and a Veterinarian, Evolution and Genetics were compulsory courses when I was in school).

Please feel free to ask or comment on my post, no man is an island of knowledge!!!!

speciation is not a mystery. It has been observed.

Kaibab and Abert's squirrels - Separate squirrel species evolved after the Grand Canyon was formed, resulting in different squirrel species evolving on either side of the canyon. We have observed a new species of this squirrels recently

Read up this article on natgeographics https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/speciation/

seunH:
BUT.............
If we were observant, we would realize that inasmuch as evolution occured i.e Genetic mutation and Natural selection. It didn't give rise to a new specie (speciation), they were still elephants (both tuskless and tusked), they were still human beings (both AS and AA). This now lead to scientist, trying to manually induce genetic mutation which the view of bringing about speciation (a new specie). This would help especially preventing extinction of species and reviving extinct species.
However, I'm sad to report that the result had been disastrous. Most genetic mutations were observed to be harmful (even the AS example above i.e AS×AS=SS), at best useless, rarely useful. And even when achieved could not lead to a new specie.
Let me give you an example, dogs have the highest genetic diversity that we can easily relate to, but do you know that despite their diversity, a Great Dane can mate with a Chihuahua and give rise to viable offspring, why? because despite their genetic diversity (mutation), they are still dogs!!!. If we were not alive and we saw their fossils, we would have theorized that evolution took place by observing their bones which of course is false, because they are all dogs.
Another example is the Drosophila fly, it is one of the most laboratory studied fly for genetic analysis and is one of the insects most exposed to laboratory induced genetic mutation for more than 50 years, but yet a new specie has not been able to be "laboratory"created.
What does the above examples indicate............

good write up but we have observed speciation in the last 10 decades.
A good example of speciation which happened naturally is the galapagos finches. We have seen new species of these birds in recent years.
There has been successful experiment performed it drive speciation in bacteriophage lambda in a lab in university of Michigan. You do not expect speciation to happen in 50years within a population of orgnaims as complex as a fly. I don't think any biologist today would expect a species of flies under controlled environments to have enough offsprings to drive speciation in 50years, that's not how it works.

Speciation is difficult to achieve using higher organism most times it takes several generations for it to happen, so you obviously don't think you would see speciation in artifical breeds of dogs within few decades or humans , that's really not how it works. It's more feasible to see it happen in very simple organisms like viruses and bacteria because we didn't even know about DNA until in the last century.

We have an experiment currently been conducted called the E coli experiment, this has proven every aspect of evolution and the remaining is speciation, although we already have evidence for speciation.

Time is key

[quote author=DaInferno post=111988283][/quote]Even after reading it, you still ask the same questions that has been answered...
What does that tell you?

Karfi:
Yahoo doesn't need physics. Stop deceiving yourself. Will you buy my textbooks?

this one is gone.

elated177:
Premium wailing and frustration.

You can now take a walk. Go and continue to wail by opening more threads. You go wail tire.

You have not told me the category you belong to. Is it 1 or 2 or 3?

See believer feeling funky?
If you know how I see you people, you no go dey talk.
Like cows with empty skulls

Karfi:
School na scam

only an ill-informed Nigerian says this. How will you even get internet if people didn't go to school to study physics

Khaleepha5681:
You are minding stupids.

They are whom Obama called "Graduates without common sense". Obama gave an example with a US senator who trotted out a snow ball during floor speech,as an evidence that world/global warming is not true. Lol! in US!.

Ignorants keep mocking the hardworks of our scientists while they just sit down contributing nothing but ready to mock whatever science worked to discover. To be kind,these ignorants would be first to go extinct in near future.

Pendemics would keep coming out,and these fools would keep playing nonsense.

Scientists are the ones preventing faster evolution with their discoveries to ease life,if not,all these idiots would go extinct.

It amazes me