I enjoyed your previous article. I've always accepted Darwinism (neo or classical) but hadn't gone into how he got there. Very interesting.
Your comment that creationists hate Darwin reminded me of the big difference between them and us (if I may be so bold). We regard Darwinism as a self-evident truth and Darwin as just the guy who happened to point it out. They see Darwin as a prophet and assume that we think Darwinism is true because we believe him. This is why fact-based arguments such as yours are just preaching to the choir.
Crazy discussions here. I've to agree that the dogs and finches examples aren't particularly convincing: no new species, no natural selection, no explanation of how new looks emerge to begin with, no proof that this mechanism fully explains large-scale evolution, no explanation of the fossil record, ... so I don't think it answers any of the questions skeptics still have. And unfortunately many of the icons of evolution rally turned out to be hoaxes.
In my other reply, Cornflower Blue, I asked you where you think new island species come from. You also write: "no explanation of how new looks emerge to begin with" referring to how dog breeds emerge. Well, a wolf did not suddenly give birth to a toy poodle. Variety in the gene pool, some caused by mutations, creates minor variations in individuals. Eventually humans in different parts of the world would choose the suite of traits they want in a dog--and only allow those individuals to breed. After many generations of this, you get the extreme variations in dog breeds you see today.
So for example, take toy poodles. Early humans domesticated wolves that were more social and less aggressive, eventually giving rise to dogs. The standard poodle was originally developed in Europe as a water retriever—intelligent, agile, and curly-coated. To create toy poodles, breeders selected the smallest individuals and bred them over generations, gradually reducing size while maintaining key traits. The result is a tiny companion dog that still shares nearly all its DNA with wolves, shaped entirely by human-guided evolution.
Well, let's just start here, Cornflower Blue: The finches of Galapagos are necessarily a new species--and not the same species as those in South America. Same goes with the iguanas. Both the marine iguanas and their land iguanas occur nowhere else but Galapgaos. No one denies these are new and different species. Now, where do all the new species on Galapagos--and all oceanic islands--come from? And it's multiple choice:
1) Every time a volcano rises from the sea and a new island is formed, as is happening right now off the coast of Japan, God reenacts Genesis 20-25 and creates new species on all the islands? And presumably God also makes sure to make them resemble nearby continental forms--and that they are all adept at surviving trips over marine barriers.
2) A small population of marine iguanas accidentally rafted to the island from South America--and then the rest of their species entirely disappeared from South America? And then did this also happen with land iguanas? Then did this also happen with all 13 species of finches on Galapagos; and all 51 species of Hawaii's honeycreepers, and the many hundreds of endemic species of insects on Cape Verde, etc.?
3) Or did a single group of South American finches get stranded on the island group--and then various populations became isolated from each other on the individual islands--slowly changing over many generations into the forms we see today? And that this is true with all island species?
I have a feeling Cornflower Blue is about to disappear--just like Ryan.
The Darwin finches turned out not to be new species, and they aren't even considered finches anymore. It's not clear what role natural selection played in their emergence, either.
"Variety in the gene pool, some caused by mutations, creates minor variations in individuals." But we still don't understand this process, and Darwin certainly didn't. Where does this variety come from? Is it just random variation, or targeted adaptation? And again, wolves and dogs are still the same species, men didn't create any new species. Creating new colors is not an issue, but how do you create new organs and body plans?
The fossil record remains a huge problem. There is just no evidence of random variation.
Evolution of the horse: As with dogs, after 50 million years, the wild horse is still the same species and includes the modern domesticated horse! And even the two other Equus subgenera, asses and zebras, are extremely close to horses and can still create offspring together.
So I really don't think these examples prove what you think they prove. If anything, they may prove the opposite. And you haven't even addressed the real questions that I've mentioned.
I think you're entire point is simply that new species somehow relate to earlier species, but this wasn't Darwin's discovery, isn't disputed by skeptical evolutionists, and doesn't explain how evolution really works. It's a trivial and largely irrelevant statement.
CB writes: "Evolution of the horse: As with dogs, after 50 million years, the wild horse is still the same species and includes the modern domesticated horse!"
Dennis responds: ?? Of course there were no modern horses around 50 million years ago. Nothing resembled the horse from the early Cenozoic, and its ancestor Eohippus was very "unhorse like." In fact the horse's single hoof didn't evolve until around 11 million years ago. The fossil record is clear on that. In fact, quoting Brittanica, " The evolutionary lineage of the horse is among the best-documented in all paleontology." Here's the story from Brittanica; https://www.britannica.com/animal/horse/Evolution-of-the-horse
"The evolutionary lineage of the horse is among the best-documented in all paleontology. The history of the horse family, Equidae, began during the Eocene Epoch, which lasted from about 56 million to 33.9 million years ago. During the early Eocene there appeared the first ancestral horse, a hoofed, browsing mammal designated correctly as Hyracotherium but more commonly called Eohippus, the “dawn horse.” Fossils of Eohippus, which have been found in both North America and Europe, show an animal that stood 4.2 to 5 hands (about 42.7 to 50.8 cm, or 16.8 to 20 inches) high, diminutive by comparison with the modern horse, and had an arched back and raised hindquarters. The legs ended in padded feet with four functional hooves on each of the forefeet and three on each of the hind feet—quite unlike the unpadded, single-hoofed foot of modern equines. The skull lacked the large, flexible muzzle of the modern horse, and the size and shape of the cranium indicate that the brain was far smaller and less complex than that of today’s horse. The teeth, too, differed significantly from those of the modern equines, being adapted to a fairly general browser’s diet. Eohippus was, in fact, so unhorselike that its evolutionary relationship to the modern equines was at first unsuspected. It was not until paleontologists had unearthed fossils of later extinct horses that the link to Eohippus became clear.
"The line leading from Eohippus to the modern horse exhibits the following evolutionary trends: increase in size, reduction in the number of hooves, loss of the footpads, lengthening of the legs, fusion of the independent bones of the lower legs, elongation of the muzzle, increase in the size and complexity of the brain, and development of crested, high-crowned teeth suited to grazing. This is not to imply that there was a steady, gradual progression in these characteristics leading inevitably from those of Eohippus to those of the modern horse. Some of these features, such as grazing dentition, appear abruptly in the fossil record, rather than as the culmination of numerous gradual changes. Eohippus, moreover, gave rise to many now-extinct branches of the horse family, some of which differed substantially from the line leading to the modern equines.
"Although Eohippus fossils occur in both the Old and the New World, the subsequent evolution of the horse took place chiefly in North America. During the remainder of the Eocene, the prime evolutionary changes were in dentition. Orohippus, a genus from the middle Eocene, and Epihippus, a genus from the late Eocene, resembled Eohippus in size and in the structure of the limbs. But the form of the cheek teeth—the four premolars and the three molars found in each half of both jaws—had changed somewhat. In Eohippus the premolars and molars were clearly distinct, the molars being larger. In Orohippus the fourth premolar had become similar to the molars, and in Epihippus both the third and fourth premolars had become molarlike. In addition, the individual cusps that characterized the cheek teeth of Eohippus had given way in Epihippus to a system of continuous crests or ridges running the length of the molars and molariform premolars. These changes, which represented adaptations to a more-specialized browsing diet, were retained by all subsequent ancestors of the modern horse.
Fossils of Mesohippus, the next important ancestor of the modern horse, are found in the early and middle Oligocene of North America (the Oligocene Epoch lasted from about 33.9 million to 23 million years ago). Mesohippus was far more horselike than its Eocene ancestors: it was larger (averaging about 6 hands [about 61 cm, or 24 inches] high); the snout was more muzzlelike; and the legs were longer and more slender. Mesohippus also had a larger brain. The fourth toe on the forefoot had been reduced to a vestige, so that both the forefeet and hind feet carried three functional toes and a footpad. The teeth remained adapted to browsing.
Miohippus
Miohippus The ancestral horse Miohippus, in an artist's conception. Existing toe bones of the forefoot are numbered outward from the centre of the body.
By the late Oligocene, Mesohippus had evolved into a somewhat larger form known as Miohippus. The descendants of Miohippus split into various evolutionary branches during the early Miocene (the Miocene Epoch lasted from about 23 million to 5.3 million years ago). One of these branches, known as the anchitheres, included a variety of three-toed browsing horses comprising several genera. Anchitheres were successful, and some genera spread from North America across the Bering land bridge into Eurasia.
"It was a different branch, however, that led from Miohippus to the modern horse. The first representative of this line, Parahippus, appeared in the early Miocene. Parahippus and its descendants marked a radical departure in that they had teeth adapted to eating grass. Grasses were at this time becoming widespread across the North American plains, providing Parahippus with a vast food supply. Grass is a much coarser food than succulent leaves and requires a different kind of tooth structure. The cheek teeth developed larger, stronger crests and became adapted to the side-to-side motion of the lower jaw necessary to grind grass blades. Each tooth also had an extremely long crown, most of which, in the young animal, was buried beneath the gumline. As grinding wore down the exposed surface, some of the buried crown grew out. This high-crowned tooth structure assured the animal of having an adequate grinding surface throughout its normal life span. Adaptations in the digestive tract must have occurred as well, but the organs of digestion are not preserved in the fossil record.
"The change from browsing to grazing dentition was essentially completed in Merychippus, which evolved from Parahippus during the middle and late Miocene. Merychippus must have looked much like a modern pony. It was fairly large, standing about 10 hands (101.6 cm, or 40 inches) high, and its skull was similar to that of the modern horse. The long bones of the lower leg had become fused; this structure, which has been preserved in all modern equines, is an adaptation for swift running. The feet remained three-toed, but in many species the footpad was lost, and the two side toes became rather small. In these forms, the large central toe bore the animal’s weight. Strong ligaments attached this hoofed central toe to the bones of the ankles and lower leg, providing a spring mechanism that pushed the flexed hoof forward after the impact of hitting the ground. Merychippus gave rise to numerous evolutionary lines during the late Miocene. Most of these, including Hipparion, Neohipparion, and Nannippus, retained the three-toed foot of their ancestors. One line, however, led to the one-toed Pliohippus, the direct predecessor of Equus. Pliohippus fossils occur in the early to middle Pliocene beds of North America (the Pliocene Epoch lasted from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago).
Equus—the genus to which all modern equines, including horses, asses, and zebras, belong—evolved from Pliohippus some 4 million to 4.5 million years ago during the Pliocene. Equus shows even greater development of the spring mechanism in the foot and exhibits straighter and longer cheek teeth. This new form was extremely successful and had spread from the plains of North America to South America and to all parts of the Old World by the early Pleistocene (the Pleistocene Epoch lasted from about 2,600,000 to 11,700 years ago). Equus flourished in its North American homeland throughout the Pleistocene but then, about 10,000 to 8,000 years ago, disappeared from North and South America. Scholars have offered various explanations for this disappearance, including the emergence of devastating diseases or the arrival of human populations (which presumably hunted the horse for food). Despite these speculations, the reasons for the demise of Equus in the New World remain uncertain. The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration of horses from Asia, and Equus was not reintroduced into its native continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses in the early 16th century."
Just to save time, I'm going to message you the question about where ocean island species come from. [I just don't even understand how people can just be so afraid of the truth that they deliberately duck simple and direct questions that cast doubt on their cherished beliefs.]
1) You skipped the question, of course, because answering it would be devastating. Where do new species on newly formed islands come from--and how did the Galapagos finches and iguanas end up there? (It's irrelevant that they are not true finches--but from the tanager family. They are a new species closely related--but not identical to--South American forms.)
2) You ask "where does the variety come from?" --random changes in DNA sequences, genetic recombination, etc. But that's not the point. Do you understand that by continuously selecting certain traits within that variety--including ones that arise from mutations--that you get slight differences in populations and those differences accrue over time. Thus, with selective breeding over many generations, humans were able to create the vast variety of dog breeds we see today? Do you understand that toy poodles were not in the Garden of Eden but originated through a steady process of selection in which slight diffences accrued over many generations? Yes or no?
Nah Dennis, it's you who is dodging the question. It's completely irrelevant and ultimately trivial how a species came to an island or any other place. The question is how new species emerge in the first place. And neither Darwin nor you can explain it.
You claim that "random changes, "genetic recombination" and "etc" (!!) explain it, but that is neither proven, nor do we understand these processes, nor was this part of Darwinism.
You claim that "continuously selecting certain traits within that variety" explains evolution, but that's not proven either and doesn't prove the importance of natural selection. In the case of wolves/dogs and horses, that very process *didn't* create any new species in millions of years. Just different variants of the same species. Trivial.
So just as I thought, your entire point is extremely trivial and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the actual questions concerning evolution. You have no clue how it works. You simply assume that "random mutations" and "etc" and "continuous selection" is the full explanation, but there's no evidence that's the case. The fossil record certainly speaks against it.
This is typical of neo-Darwinists and Creationists, as soon as you nail them down and expose their platitudes, their position falters and they begin hand-waving. It's "just God", "it's just random etc.". No Dennis, that's just ignorance.
Cornflower Blue: “Nah Dennis, it's you who is dodging the question.”
Dennis responds: I have dodged nothing—and will go through this response line by line. In fact, ask me any question, and I will answer directly--while you refuse to answer the simple question of how plants and animals end up on islands.
CB: It's completely irrelevant and ultimately trivial how a species came to an island or any other place.
Dennis: If it were truly irrelevant, you wouldn’t be scared to answer it. You refuse to answer because it confirms Darwin’s point that island species must have transformed from the original continental colonists who first reached the islands.
CB: The question is how new species emerge in the first place. And neither Darwin nor you can explain it.
CB: You claim that "random changes, "genetic recombination" and "etc" (!!) explain it, but that is neither proven, nor do we understand these processes, nor was this part of Darwinism.
Dennis: Obviously, Darwin didn’t know about genes, but he knew there was variety in species, and that there is a struggle for existence, and that is enough to conclude that species evolved through natural selection. Obviously, those individuals with traits that help them survive and successfully reproduce will tend to leave more descendants behind than individuals who do not have those traits. Over time that trait starts to increase among the populations. Eventually, many such small changes lead to larger and larger changes over time. This is the very simple idea that you can’t stomach.
CB: You claim that "continuously selecting certain traits within that variety" explains evolution, but that's not proven either:
Dennis: It’s been proven countless times. Indeed, selection has produced the great variety of dog breeds—which is the reason you won’t answer questions about dogs either.
CB: and doesn't prove the importance of natural selection. In the case of wolves/dogs and horses, that very process *didn't* create any new species in millions of years. Just different variants of the same species.
Dennis: Some argue dogs and wolves should be classified as different species—as they are so behaviorally and reproductively distinct. So you agree that selection can produce widely varied subspecies, right? Of course, over a great amount of time, these differences will continue to accumulate—as we see in the fossil record (as I showed with horses). And you will eventually get two groups that no longer breed. Also, again, experiments have created speciation among fruit flies.
CB. Trivial. So just as I thought, your entire point is extremely trivial and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the actual questions concerning evolution.
Dennis responds: Nope. Darwin used new species on islands as an argument for evolution—and evidently it is so compelling that you won’t even address it or answer where new species on islands come from.
CB. You have no clue how it works.
Dennis: Everyone knows how it works. Just as everyone knows how new species end up on islands and selection produced dog breeds.
CB: You simply assume that "random mutations" and "etc" and "continuous selection" is the full explanation,
Dennis. Nope. I never said “full explanation.” There are other ways species can change. But all you need for evolutionary changes is variety in the gene pool –and a struggle to survive. That’s the dominant way to speciation. It’s pretty simple--and you have to duck questions not to see it.
CB: but there's no evidence that's the case.
Dennis: Of course, there’s evidence that’s the case—as with the case of new species on islands and the fact that selection produced the great variety of dog breeds—which is why you duck these questions.
CB: The fossil record certainly speaks against it.
CB: This is typical of neo-Darwinists and Creationists, as soon as you nail them down and expose their platitudes, their position falters and they begin hand-waving. It's "just God", "it's just random etc.". No Dennis, that's just ignorance.
Dennis: I didn’t say “it’s just random.” I explained in detail how it occurs. Here it is again, quoting from National Geographic:
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-selection/: “Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change. Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways. This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others. Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring. Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population. Through this process of natural selection, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.
“Natural selection can lead to speciation, where one species gives rise to a new and distinctly different species. It is one of the processes that drives evolution and helps to explain the diversity of life on Earth.”
Now, I just went line by line through your reply, and you can’t respond to simple questions.
Just more hand-waving. Look, both Creationism and Neo-Darwinism are silly "just so" stories that explain nothing. One group claims God did it, the other group claims "randomness" and "etc." did it. Darwin explained neither life nor evolution. He claimed "natural selection" was a key driver of evolution, but there's no evidence that's the case, and it doesn't explain how adaptations emerge in the first place. It's a trivial and irrelevant observation. Even without natural selection, there would still be evolution, and probably more evolution. And randomness isn't visible anywhere in the fossil record. So just take the L already and show some humility.
In the post below, Cornflower Blue (who, btw, is also Ryan S and refuses to take this to direct messages in which he can't hide behind refusals to answer and delayed responses) establishes that he believes "life and species can emerge locally" out of barren rock in the middle of oceans--and that he doesn't know how dog breeders have, over the centuries, used selective breeding to create the diversity of dog breeds we see across the globe today. So getting him to understand points more subtle seems impossible. For example, evolutionary theorists do NOT claim species form due to randomness--but according to the very specific selective pressures of their environments. Mutations in a genome are often described as "random" but they're really more chaotic. Regardless, the species that emerge are precisely sculpted by the environment. Getting him to understand that--when he doesn't know where dogs come from--seems to be heavy lifting.
Cornflower Blue, you skipped the question again--because it forces you into cognitive dissonance. And you are so unsettled by it, you won't even answer it on a dare. Again, where do new species on newly formed islands come from? Did God put them there or did they travel overseas from the continents? Even when I message you privately, you won't answer. How fearful you are. (Anyway, in my next reply, I will go through your response line by line.)
So many unfounded ad personam attacks (cognitive dissonance, unsettled, fearful, etc.), a sure sign of an agitated, insecure and ignorant amateur.
I've answered your trivial and irrelevant question long ago: it doesn't matter how they got there. They may have emerged locally or arrived from elsewhere. This is completely irrelevant as to how evolution really works.
You desperately cling to such straw men because you already know you can't explain evolution. But your bluff has been called.
What does "emerged locally" mean? Volcanic islands emerge from beneath the depths of the seas with no land organisms on them. And if they arrived from "elsewhere" where is the rest of their species? Why are there no other marine ignuanas anywhere else in the world but Galapagos? Where did they come from? Why are there no other Hawaiian honeycreepers anywhere else but Hawaii? Where did they come from?
Don't be silly. Life and species can emerge locally. Or a species can arrive from elsewhere and disappear at its origin. Or a species may develop locally from other species. All of this irrelevant, none of it tells us how evolution works. You didn't even know that Darwin's finches aren't finches, or that we still don't know where and when and how dogs emerged.
So to summarize, Dennis thought Darwin discovered the idea of evolution, dogs and Galapagos finches were new species, intra-species variation explained macro-evolution, and the fossil record was consistent with random variation. None of which is true...
1) I've now messaged you with the question that you've been trying to duck for dozens of comments: Have people used selective breeding to bring about new breeds of dogs?
2) You write "Dennis thought Darwin discovered the idea of evolution." That's false. In my book on evolution, "Here Be Dragons," I discuss the views of Lamarck, Darwin's grandfather, and others about the transformation of species.
3) You write that I thought "Galapagos finches were new species." That Galapagos finches are different species from South American finches is a fact denied by no one. etc.
Neo-Darwinism is about as dead as the geocentric model of the universe or even the flat Earth. But it will take several more decades until we may begin to understand how evolution really works, and until then, neo-darwinian pseudo-science will probably linger on, just like creationism. Biological systems are simply far more complex than 19th and 20th century scientists could imagine.
The dog and horse breeding examples are particularly silly. Yes, humans can actively select certain phenotypes, but this has never created new species, doesn't prove the importance of natural selection, and doesn't explain how new phenotypes and species emerge to begin with.
People trying to explain evolution through comics tells you everything you need to know.
We have to start you out slow, and take you step by step:
1) So now you do agree Darwin was right with his reasoning and conclusion with the Galapagos finches—that they had evolved from a single ancestral population of a South American finch?
2) You hide behind the semantics of the term species, when it is clear that evolution and common descent has made various classifications (genus, species, subspecies) somewhat difficult and arbitrary. Do you consider coyotes and wolves the same species? What about polar bears and grizzlies? Anyway, as I’ve noted, they have created new species in labs as with Drosophilia melanogaster. And I’ve given you Jerry A Coyne’s take down of Shapiro.
1) This wasn't Darwin's new idea, and he didn't explain what "evolved" means. It's obvious that you don't even know what Darwin and neo-Darwinists actually proposed. Truth is, Darwin today would most likely reject Darwinism (and certainly neo-Darwinism)
2) This is not semantics. Claiming that intra-species variation explains evolution is about as stupid as claiming randomly changing the color and size of a Nokia cellphone will one day get you an Apple iphone. It's not gonna happen.
But nobody cares what you think anyway, so let's just end the discussion here. I just tried to tell you that your naive neo-Darwinian ideology has been debunked.
That wasn't the question, which you are desperately trying to avoid because it fills you with cognitive dissonance: Do you agree that the Galapagos finches all descend from a single ancestral population of a South American finch that got marooned on the islands? Yes or no?
Galapagos finches aren't a new species, and we don't know how they evolved. The cognitive dissonance is completely on your side. But again, nobody cares.
Hey Ryan, how about the simplest one of all: Do you think Jack Russell Terriers were running around the Garden of Eden? Or do you think they were the result of selective breeding (and hybridization) by, um, Jack Russell?
Jack Russell didn't create any new species, either. In fact, he didn't create anything at all. He just selected certain phenotypes of the same species that emerged in ways we still don't understand.
It was funny watching another neo-Darwinist embarrass himself, but I really have to move on. Bye.
So you're saying, NO?! You're saying we don't know where Galapagos finches came from? Just like you claimed "we don't know" where dog breeds came from--even they we have documented how they were formed from selective breeding? You're really that terrified of truth you can't even admit those obvious realities?
We don't know how they evolved, correct. In the case of dogs, we don't even know where they come from. But neither a new species. So you're just making a fool of yourself.
The comic doesn't explain anything. In particular, "transformation of species over time" was proposed long before Darwin, it wasn't a Darwinian discovery, and neither Darwin nor anybody else has explained how it really works. Also, it isn't just Creationists/ID people (or uncles) who reject Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, but leading evolutionary biologists like James Shapiro and many others.
The central concepts of (neo) Darwinism are random mutation and natural selection, and both of these concepts probably play a minor role in actual evolution, i.e. mutations/adaptations are not usually random and natural selection is not that important, either. To be honest, (neo) Darwinism was probably one of the silliest ideas ever in science.
Even the general question is still unsolved, not to mention the specifics:
"Where and when dogs arose is one of the biggest mysteries of domestication. To solve it, researchers have tried everything from analyzing ancient dog bones to sequencing modern dog DNA—all with inconclusive results. Now, researchers have tried a new tack: figuring out where the ancient wolves that gave rise to dogs lived. The new study doesn’t close the case, but it does point to a broad geographic region—eastern Eurasia—while also suggesting our canine pals may have been domesticated more than once."
That refers to the question of "where" and "when" -- not "how." Anyway, everyone knows that dogs (after likely thousands of years of a kind of accidental domestication) are the product of selective breeding.
The point is, we don't even know the where and when, let alone the how. "Selective breeding" doesn't explain anything at the scientific level, isn't "natural selection", and hasn't produced any new species.
Ryan S writes: "The point is, we don't even know the where and when, let alone the how." Um, we do know the "how" of how new dog breeds are created. Breeders have documented the process.
You write: “‘Selective breeding’ doesn’t explain anything at the scientific level” even placing quotes around “selective breeding.” Do you really not understand that selective breeding has been instrumental in creating so many varieties of dogs?
No, YOU don't know how they did it. Everyone who has studied biology and evolution does (and so too does James Shapiro). Anyway, how about this? Do you know how Jack Russell got Jack Russel terriers? Or how humans created miniature horses? Here's a video on it (seeing is believing). https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TrXJhqXSOJs The answer is *selective breeding.* Now, you're next confusion is that you believe the differences between two populations, facing different selective pressures, would just suddenly stop differentiating at some point for no reason. This is silly. Of course, the differences would accumulate. Anyway, to quote Jerry Coyne: "Given the fossil evidence of transitional forms—showing that fish became amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became mammals as well as birds, even-toed terrestrial mammals became whales, and early primates became humans (please, cladists, keep your objections to yourself!)—such a statement is simply embarrassing, and is identical to ones you’ll see in the creationist literature. Shapiro should know better." And yes, he is responding to James Shapiro's mistaken beliefs. Read more here: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/04/07/jim-shapiro-continues-his-misguided-attack-on-neo-darwinism/
No Dennis, nobody knows how it works. "Selective breeding" doesn't explain anything at the scientific level. It wasn't discovered by Darwin, isn't natural selection, and it hasn't produced any new species, either. Worst example.
And no, the fossil record often doesn't show transitional forms, doesn't explain events like the Cambrian explosion, and certainly isn't consistent with random mutations. Stephan Jay Gould any many others showed this.
Read James Shapiro's books for starters, the link you provided is from 2012 and is an outdated and useless ideological attack.
This topic is far more complex than you imagine. You fell into the anti-creationist trap and you obviously don't understand the real scientific issues.
Ryan S writes "nobody knows how it works." The question was about the creation of new breeds of dogs. And everyone knows how that occurred.
And you have yet to mention any "real scientific issues" or address anything Coyne wrote. You mention the "Cambrian explosion" but molecular clock studies and trace fossils confirm many of the lineages existed tens of millions of years earlier. Also soft-bodied organisms don't fossilize well. And this neglects all the definitive post-Cambrian fossil evidence of transitional forms showing fish-->amphibians--> reptiles-->mammal-like reptiles-->mammals-->carnivora-->canids-->wolves-->toy poodles.
You've exposed a fundamental flaw in the popular use of the term "fixation" in rapid-evolution arguments. The logistics of human reproduction and descent limit how fast any allele can spread, no matter how advantageous.
Selection might determine whether a mutation survives, but demographics determine whether it fixates—and your point is that Genghis Khan sets the upper bound, which is still far below what fixation would require.
You are absolutely right to challenge the claim. Fixation in humans in <40 generations is, barring some extreme and hypothetical bottleneck, essentially impossible
No, the problem Darwinism faces is superstition. The comic points out indisputable truths. As you can’t challenge that, you’re trying to do an end-around based on your own misunderstanding of selection and the pliability of AI.
Look at the article. In the AI it accounts for a small isolated population having mutations fix. While that happened at the Galapagos with finches, etc, that same concept should apply to isolated island tribes, who would essentially be a different species than Homo Sapien. Also, what the AI article displays is that there is not enough time or generations for it to occur on the continents.
You write: "that same concept should apply to isolated island tribes, who would essentially be a different species than Homo Sapien."
1) Human beings have only been isolated from each other for less than 10,000 years. And yes, in those isolated populations, we see very obvious genetic differences starting to accrue--including size, skin color, hair-type, eye color, etc. This includes the Bajau people who have genetically adapted to long underwater diving. 2) With longer stretches of isolation, we find the homind line did diverge into many different species, including: Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals); Homo floresiensis (“Hobbit” humans from Flores Island); Homo luzonensis (from Philippines), etc. See more on Bajau people: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/bajau-sea-nomads-free-diving-spleen-science
No, the problem Darwinism faces is superstition. The comic points out indisputable truths. As you can’t challenge that, you’re trying to do an end-around based on your own misunderstanding of selection and the pliability of AI.
Love it: first sentence rails against "superstition", second sentence refers to "indisputable truths" (a thoroughly anti-scientific, religious concept). But no, the comic tries to explain evolution by using the self-referential term "evolving", how silly. And again: evolution (species emerging out of other species) wasn't even Darwin's idea, and he couldn't explain the process, either!
Finally, it seems clear you don't even want to admit the conclusion regarding the finches and iguanas of Galapagos--and doing your best to shut it out of your mind. Do you agree that the 13 species of finches on Galapagos are all descended from a single ancestral population of South American finches that ended up on the island? Yes or no? (Again, I'm not yet talking about the "process" of how this change occurred over the generations--just the fact that it did occur.)
The panel with the word “evolving” was the conclusion. And many do doubt transformation of species. As for the process, selective breeding of dogs, which you seemed not to understand, was confirmation of the transformational power of selection and of all the shapes, colors, sizes, facial features, coats, and temperaments it can create within a few hundred years.
I enjoyed your previous article. I've always accepted Darwinism (neo or classical) but hadn't gone into how he got there. Very interesting.
Your comment that creationists hate Darwin reminded me of the big difference between them and us (if I may be so bold). We regard Darwinism as a self-evident truth and Darwin as just the guy who happened to point it out. They see Darwin as a prophet and assume that we think Darwinism is true because we believe him. This is why fact-based arguments such as yours are just preaching to the choir.
Crazy discussions here. I've to agree that the dogs and finches examples aren't particularly convincing: no new species, no natural selection, no explanation of how new looks emerge to begin with, no proof that this mechanism fully explains large-scale evolution, no explanation of the fossil record, ... so I don't think it answers any of the questions skeptics still have. And unfortunately many of the icons of evolution rally turned out to be hoaxes.
In my other reply, Cornflower Blue, I asked you where you think new island species come from. You also write: "no explanation of how new looks emerge to begin with" referring to how dog breeds emerge. Well, a wolf did not suddenly give birth to a toy poodle. Variety in the gene pool, some caused by mutations, creates minor variations in individuals. Eventually humans in different parts of the world would choose the suite of traits they want in a dog--and only allow those individuals to breed. After many generations of this, you get the extreme variations in dog breeds you see today.
So for example, take toy poodles. Early humans domesticated wolves that were more social and less aggressive, eventually giving rise to dogs. The standard poodle was originally developed in Europe as a water retriever—intelligent, agile, and curly-coated. To create toy poodles, breeders selected the smallest individuals and bred them over generations, gradually reducing size while maintaining key traits. The result is a tiny companion dog that still shares nearly all its DNA with wolves, shaped entirely by human-guided evolution.
You also ask about the fossil record. I imagine you haven't really looked at it at all: Here's a great pic of the evolution of horses since the Eocene: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse#/media/File:Equine_evolution.jpg
Well, let's just start here, Cornflower Blue: The finches of Galapagos are necessarily a new species--and not the same species as those in South America. Same goes with the iguanas. Both the marine iguanas and their land iguanas occur nowhere else but Galapgaos. No one denies these are new and different species. Now, where do all the new species on Galapagos--and all oceanic islands--come from? And it's multiple choice:
1) Every time a volcano rises from the sea and a new island is formed, as is happening right now off the coast of Japan, God reenacts Genesis 20-25 and creates new species on all the islands? And presumably God also makes sure to make them resemble nearby continental forms--and that they are all adept at surviving trips over marine barriers.
2) A small population of marine iguanas accidentally rafted to the island from South America--and then the rest of their species entirely disappeared from South America? And then did this also happen with land iguanas? Then did this also happen with all 13 species of finches on Galapagos; and all 51 species of Hawaii's honeycreepers, and the many hundreds of endemic species of insects on Cape Verde, etc.?
3) Or did a single group of South American finches get stranded on the island group--and then various populations became isolated from each other on the individual islands--slowly changing over many generations into the forms we see today? And that this is true with all island species?
I have a feeling Cornflower Blue is about to disappear--just like Ryan.
Dennis:
The Darwin finches turned out not to be new species, and they aren't even considered finches anymore. It's not clear what role natural selection played in their emergence, either.
"Variety in the gene pool, some caused by mutations, creates minor variations in individuals." But we still don't understand this process, and Darwin certainly didn't. Where does this variety come from? Is it just random variation, or targeted adaptation? And again, wolves and dogs are still the same species, men didn't create any new species. Creating new colors is not an issue, but how do you create new organs and body plans?
The fossil record remains a huge problem. There is just no evidence of random variation.
Evolution of the horse: As with dogs, after 50 million years, the wild horse is still the same species and includes the modern domesticated horse! And even the two other Equus subgenera, asses and zebras, are extremely close to horses and can still create offspring together.
So I really don't think these examples prove what you think they prove. If anything, they may prove the opposite. And you haven't even addressed the real questions that I've mentioned.
I think you're entire point is simply that new species somehow relate to earlier species, but this wasn't Darwin's discovery, isn't disputed by skeptical evolutionists, and doesn't explain how evolution really works. It's a trivial and largely irrelevant statement.
CB writes: "Evolution of the horse: As with dogs, after 50 million years, the wild horse is still the same species and includes the modern domesticated horse!"
Dennis responds: ?? Of course there were no modern horses around 50 million years ago. Nothing resembled the horse from the early Cenozoic, and its ancestor Eohippus was very "unhorse like." In fact the horse's single hoof didn't evolve until around 11 million years ago. The fossil record is clear on that. In fact, quoting Brittanica, " The evolutionary lineage of the horse is among the best-documented in all paleontology." Here's the story from Brittanica; https://www.britannica.com/animal/horse/Evolution-of-the-horse
"The evolutionary lineage of the horse is among the best-documented in all paleontology. The history of the horse family, Equidae, began during the Eocene Epoch, which lasted from about 56 million to 33.9 million years ago. During the early Eocene there appeared the first ancestral horse, a hoofed, browsing mammal designated correctly as Hyracotherium but more commonly called Eohippus, the “dawn horse.” Fossils of Eohippus, which have been found in both North America and Europe, show an animal that stood 4.2 to 5 hands (about 42.7 to 50.8 cm, or 16.8 to 20 inches) high, diminutive by comparison with the modern horse, and had an arched back and raised hindquarters. The legs ended in padded feet with four functional hooves on each of the forefeet and three on each of the hind feet—quite unlike the unpadded, single-hoofed foot of modern equines. The skull lacked the large, flexible muzzle of the modern horse, and the size and shape of the cranium indicate that the brain was far smaller and less complex than that of today’s horse. The teeth, too, differed significantly from those of the modern equines, being adapted to a fairly general browser’s diet. Eohippus was, in fact, so unhorselike that its evolutionary relationship to the modern equines was at first unsuspected. It was not until paleontologists had unearthed fossils of later extinct horses that the link to Eohippus became clear.
"The line leading from Eohippus to the modern horse exhibits the following evolutionary trends: increase in size, reduction in the number of hooves, loss of the footpads, lengthening of the legs, fusion of the independent bones of the lower legs, elongation of the muzzle, increase in the size and complexity of the brain, and development of crested, high-crowned teeth suited to grazing. This is not to imply that there was a steady, gradual progression in these characteristics leading inevitably from those of Eohippus to those of the modern horse. Some of these features, such as grazing dentition, appear abruptly in the fossil record, rather than as the culmination of numerous gradual changes. Eohippus, moreover, gave rise to many now-extinct branches of the horse family, some of which differed substantially from the line leading to the modern equines.
"Although Eohippus fossils occur in both the Old and the New World, the subsequent evolution of the horse took place chiefly in North America. During the remainder of the Eocene, the prime evolutionary changes were in dentition. Orohippus, a genus from the middle Eocene, and Epihippus, a genus from the late Eocene, resembled Eohippus in size and in the structure of the limbs. But the form of the cheek teeth—the four premolars and the three molars found in each half of both jaws—had changed somewhat. In Eohippus the premolars and molars were clearly distinct, the molars being larger. In Orohippus the fourth premolar had become similar to the molars, and in Epihippus both the third and fourth premolars had become molarlike. In addition, the individual cusps that characterized the cheek teeth of Eohippus had given way in Epihippus to a system of continuous crests or ridges running the length of the molars and molariform premolars. These changes, which represented adaptations to a more-specialized browsing diet, were retained by all subsequent ancestors of the modern horse.
Fossils of Mesohippus, the next important ancestor of the modern horse, are found in the early and middle Oligocene of North America (the Oligocene Epoch lasted from about 33.9 million to 23 million years ago). Mesohippus was far more horselike than its Eocene ancestors: it was larger (averaging about 6 hands [about 61 cm, or 24 inches] high); the snout was more muzzlelike; and the legs were longer and more slender. Mesohippus also had a larger brain. The fourth toe on the forefoot had been reduced to a vestige, so that both the forefeet and hind feet carried three functional toes and a footpad. The teeth remained adapted to browsing.
Miohippus
Miohippus The ancestral horse Miohippus, in an artist's conception. Existing toe bones of the forefoot are numbered outward from the centre of the body.
By the late Oligocene, Mesohippus had evolved into a somewhat larger form known as Miohippus. The descendants of Miohippus split into various evolutionary branches during the early Miocene (the Miocene Epoch lasted from about 23 million to 5.3 million years ago). One of these branches, known as the anchitheres, included a variety of three-toed browsing horses comprising several genera. Anchitheres were successful, and some genera spread from North America across the Bering land bridge into Eurasia.
"It was a different branch, however, that led from Miohippus to the modern horse. The first representative of this line, Parahippus, appeared in the early Miocene. Parahippus and its descendants marked a radical departure in that they had teeth adapted to eating grass. Grasses were at this time becoming widespread across the North American plains, providing Parahippus with a vast food supply. Grass is a much coarser food than succulent leaves and requires a different kind of tooth structure. The cheek teeth developed larger, stronger crests and became adapted to the side-to-side motion of the lower jaw necessary to grind grass blades. Each tooth also had an extremely long crown, most of which, in the young animal, was buried beneath the gumline. As grinding wore down the exposed surface, some of the buried crown grew out. This high-crowned tooth structure assured the animal of having an adequate grinding surface throughout its normal life span. Adaptations in the digestive tract must have occurred as well, but the organs of digestion are not preserved in the fossil record.
"The change from browsing to grazing dentition was essentially completed in Merychippus, which evolved from Parahippus during the middle and late Miocene. Merychippus must have looked much like a modern pony. It was fairly large, standing about 10 hands (101.6 cm, or 40 inches) high, and its skull was similar to that of the modern horse. The long bones of the lower leg had become fused; this structure, which has been preserved in all modern equines, is an adaptation for swift running. The feet remained three-toed, but in many species the footpad was lost, and the two side toes became rather small. In these forms, the large central toe bore the animal’s weight. Strong ligaments attached this hoofed central toe to the bones of the ankles and lower leg, providing a spring mechanism that pushed the flexed hoof forward after the impact of hitting the ground. Merychippus gave rise to numerous evolutionary lines during the late Miocene. Most of these, including Hipparion, Neohipparion, and Nannippus, retained the three-toed foot of their ancestors. One line, however, led to the one-toed Pliohippus, the direct predecessor of Equus. Pliohippus fossils occur in the early to middle Pliocene beds of North America (the Pliocene Epoch lasted from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago).
Equus—the genus to which all modern equines, including horses, asses, and zebras, belong—evolved from Pliohippus some 4 million to 4.5 million years ago during the Pliocene. Equus shows even greater development of the spring mechanism in the foot and exhibits straighter and longer cheek teeth. This new form was extremely successful and had spread from the plains of North America to South America and to all parts of the Old World by the early Pleistocene (the Pleistocene Epoch lasted from about 2,600,000 to 11,700 years ago). Equus flourished in its North American homeland throughout the Pleistocene but then, about 10,000 to 8,000 years ago, disappeared from North and South America. Scholars have offered various explanations for this disappearance, including the emergence of devastating diseases or the arrival of human populations (which presumably hunted the horse for food). Despite these speculations, the reasons for the demise of Equus in the New World remain uncertain. The submergence of the Bering land bridge prevented any return migration of horses from Asia, and Equus was not reintroduced into its native continent until the Spanish explorers brought horses in the early 16th century."
That's from Britannica.
Just to save time, I'm going to message you the question about where ocean island species come from. [I just don't even understand how people can just be so afraid of the truth that they deliberately duck simple and direct questions that cast doubt on their cherished beliefs.]
1) You skipped the question, of course, because answering it would be devastating. Where do new species on newly formed islands come from--and how did the Galapagos finches and iguanas end up there? (It's irrelevant that they are not true finches--but from the tanager family. They are a new species closely related--but not identical to--South American forms.)
2) You ask "where does the variety come from?" --random changes in DNA sequences, genetic recombination, etc. But that's not the point. Do you understand that by continuously selecting certain traits within that variety--including ones that arise from mutations--that you get slight differences in populations and those differences accrue over time. Thus, with selective breeding over many generations, humans were able to create the vast variety of dog breeds we see today? Do you understand that toy poodles were not in the Garden of Eden but originated through a steady process of selection in which slight diffences accrued over many generations? Yes or no?
Nah Dennis, it's you who is dodging the question. It's completely irrelevant and ultimately trivial how a species came to an island or any other place. The question is how new species emerge in the first place. And neither Darwin nor you can explain it.
You claim that "random changes, "genetic recombination" and "etc" (!!) explain it, but that is neither proven, nor do we understand these processes, nor was this part of Darwinism.
You claim that "continuously selecting certain traits within that variety" explains evolution, but that's not proven either and doesn't prove the importance of natural selection. In the case of wolves/dogs and horses, that very process *didn't* create any new species in millions of years. Just different variants of the same species. Trivial.
So just as I thought, your entire point is extremely trivial and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the actual questions concerning evolution. You have no clue how it works. You simply assume that "random mutations" and "etc" and "continuous selection" is the full explanation, but there's no evidence that's the case. The fossil record certainly speaks against it.
This is typical of neo-Darwinists and Creationists, as soon as you nail them down and expose their platitudes, their position falters and they begin hand-waving. It's "just God", "it's just random etc.". No Dennis, that's just ignorance.
Cornflower Blue: “Nah Dennis, it's you who is dodging the question.”
Dennis responds: I have dodged nothing—and will go through this response line by line. In fact, ask me any question, and I will answer directly--while you refuse to answer the simple question of how plants and animals end up on islands.
CB: It's completely irrelevant and ultimately trivial how a species came to an island or any other place.
Dennis: If it were truly irrelevant, you wouldn’t be scared to answer it. You refuse to answer because it confirms Darwin’s point that island species must have transformed from the original continental colonists who first reached the islands.
CB: The question is how new species emerge in the first place. And neither Darwin nor you can explain it.
Dennis responds: I’ve already explained it. Everyone knows it. It’s been explained thousands of times. Here you go if you’re confused: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-selection/
CB: You claim that "random changes, "genetic recombination" and "etc" (!!) explain it, but that is neither proven, nor do we understand these processes, nor was this part of Darwinism.
Dennis: Obviously, Darwin didn’t know about genes, but he knew there was variety in species, and that there is a struggle for existence, and that is enough to conclude that species evolved through natural selection. Obviously, those individuals with traits that help them survive and successfully reproduce will tend to leave more descendants behind than individuals who do not have those traits. Over time that trait starts to increase among the populations. Eventually, many such small changes lead to larger and larger changes over time. This is the very simple idea that you can’t stomach.
CB: You claim that "continuously selecting certain traits within that variety" explains evolution, but that's not proven either:
Dennis: It’s been proven countless times. Indeed, selection has produced the great variety of dog breeds—which is the reason you won’t answer questions about dogs either.
CB: and doesn't prove the importance of natural selection. In the case of wolves/dogs and horses, that very process *didn't* create any new species in millions of years. Just different variants of the same species.
Dennis: Some argue dogs and wolves should be classified as different species—as they are so behaviorally and reproductively distinct. So you agree that selection can produce widely varied subspecies, right? Of course, over a great amount of time, these differences will continue to accumulate—as we see in the fossil record (as I showed with horses). And you will eventually get two groups that no longer breed. Also, again, experiments have created speciation among fruit flies.
CB. Trivial. So just as I thought, your entire point is extremely trivial and irrelevant and has nothing to do with the actual questions concerning evolution.
Dennis responds: Nope. Darwin used new species on islands as an argument for evolution—and evidently it is so compelling that you won’t even address it or answer where new species on islands come from.
CB. You have no clue how it works.
Dennis: Everyone knows how it works. Just as everyone knows how new species end up on islands and selection produced dog breeds.
CB: You simply assume that "random mutations" and "etc" and "continuous selection" is the full explanation,
Dennis. Nope. I never said “full explanation.” There are other ways species can change. But all you need for evolutionary changes is variety in the gene pool –and a struggle to survive. That’s the dominant way to speciation. It’s pretty simple--and you have to duck questions not to see it.
CB: but there's no evidence that's the case.
Dennis: Of course, there’s evidence that’s the case—as with the case of new species on islands and the fact that selection produced the great variety of dog breeds—which is why you duck these questions.
CB: The fossil record certainly speaks against it.
Dennis: That’s an insane falsehood. As the fossil evidence reconfirms evolution again and again and again. https://www.britannica.com/science/evolution-scientific-theory/The-fossil-record
CB: This is typical of neo-Darwinists and Creationists, as soon as you nail them down and expose their platitudes, their position falters and they begin hand-waving. It's "just God", "it's just random etc.". No Dennis, that's just ignorance.
Dennis: I didn’t say “it’s just random.” I explained in detail how it occurs. Here it is again, quoting from National Geographic:
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/natural-selection/: “Natural selection is the process through which populations of living organisms adapt and change. Individuals in a population are naturally variable, meaning that they are all different in some ways. This variation means that some individuals have traits better suited to the environment than others. Individuals with adaptive traits—traits that give them some advantage—are more likely to survive and reproduce. These individuals then pass the adaptive traits on to their offspring. Over time, these advantageous traits become more common in the population. Through this process of natural selection, favorable traits are transmitted through generations.
“Natural selection can lead to speciation, where one species gives rise to a new and distinctly different species. It is one of the processes that drives evolution and helps to explain the diversity of life on Earth.”
Now, I just went line by line through your reply, and you can’t respond to simple questions.
Just more hand-waving. Look, both Creationism and Neo-Darwinism are silly "just so" stories that explain nothing. One group claims God did it, the other group claims "randomness" and "etc." did it. Darwin explained neither life nor evolution. He claimed "natural selection" was a key driver of evolution, but there's no evidence that's the case, and it doesn't explain how adaptations emerge in the first place. It's a trivial and irrelevant observation. Even without natural selection, there would still be evolution, and probably more evolution. And randomness isn't visible anywhere in the fossil record. So just take the L already and show some humility.
In the post below, Cornflower Blue (who, btw, is also Ryan S and refuses to take this to direct messages in which he can't hide behind refusals to answer and delayed responses) establishes that he believes "life and species can emerge locally" out of barren rock in the middle of oceans--and that he doesn't know how dog breeders have, over the centuries, used selective breeding to create the diversity of dog breeds we see across the globe today. So getting him to understand points more subtle seems impossible. For example, evolutionary theorists do NOT claim species form due to randomness--but according to the very specific selective pressures of their environments. Mutations in a genome are often described as "random" but they're really more chaotic. Regardless, the species that emerge are precisely sculpted by the environment. Getting him to understand that--when he doesn't know where dogs come from--seems to be heavy lifting.
Cornflower Blue, you skipped the question again--because it forces you into cognitive dissonance. And you are so unsettled by it, you won't even answer it on a dare. Again, where do new species on newly formed islands come from? Did God put them there or did they travel overseas from the continents? Even when I message you privately, you won't answer. How fearful you are. (Anyway, in my next reply, I will go through your response line by line.)
So many unfounded ad personam attacks (cognitive dissonance, unsettled, fearful, etc.), a sure sign of an agitated, insecure and ignorant amateur.
I've answered your trivial and irrelevant question long ago: it doesn't matter how they got there. They may have emerged locally or arrived from elsewhere. This is completely irrelevant as to how evolution really works.
You desperately cling to such straw men because you already know you can't explain evolution. But your bluff has been called.
What does "emerged locally" mean? Volcanic islands emerge from beneath the depths of the seas with no land organisms on them. And if they arrived from "elsewhere" where is the rest of their species? Why are there no other marine ignuanas anywhere else in the world but Galapagos? Where did they come from? Why are there no other Hawaiian honeycreepers anywhere else but Hawaii? Where did they come from?
Don't be silly. Life and species can emerge locally. Or a species can arrive from elsewhere and disappear at its origin. Or a species may develop locally from other species. All of this irrelevant, none of it tells us how evolution works. You didn't even know that Darwin's finches aren't finches, or that we still don't know where and when and how dogs emerged.
So to summarize, Dennis thought Darwin discovered the idea of evolution, dogs and Galapagos finches were new species, intra-species variation explained macro-evolution, and the fossil record was consistent with random variation. None of which is true...
1) I've now messaged you with the question that you've been trying to duck for dozens of comments: Have people used selective breeding to bring about new breeds of dogs?
2) You write "Dennis thought Darwin discovered the idea of evolution." That's false. In my book on evolution, "Here Be Dragons," I discuss the views of Lamarck, Darwin's grandfather, and others about the transformation of species.
3) You write that I thought "Galapagos finches were new species." That Galapagos finches are different species from South American finches is a fact denied by no one. etc.
Neo-Darwinism is about as dead as the geocentric model of the universe or even the flat Earth. But it will take several more decades until we may begin to understand how evolution really works, and until then, neo-darwinian pseudo-science will probably linger on, just like creationism. Biological systems are simply far more complex than 19th and 20th century scientists could imagine.
The dog and horse breeding examples are particularly silly. Yes, humans can actively select certain phenotypes, but this has never created new species, doesn't prove the importance of natural selection, and doesn't explain how new phenotypes and species emerge to begin with.
People trying to explain evolution through comics tells you everything you need to know.
You believe a toy poodle isn't a new phenotype?
We have to start you out slow, and take you step by step:
1) So now you do agree Darwin was right with his reasoning and conclusion with the Galapagos finches—that they had evolved from a single ancestral population of a South American finch?
2) You hide behind the semantics of the term species, when it is clear that evolution and common descent has made various classifications (genus, species, subspecies) somewhat difficult and arbitrary. Do you consider coyotes and wolves the same species? What about polar bears and grizzlies? Anyway, as I’ve noted, they have created new species in labs as with Drosophilia melanogaster. And I’ve given you Jerry A Coyne’s take down of Shapiro.
1) This wasn't Darwin's new idea, and he didn't explain what "evolved" means. It's obvious that you don't even know what Darwin and neo-Darwinists actually proposed. Truth is, Darwin today would most likely reject Darwinism (and certainly neo-Darwinism)
2) This is not semantics. Claiming that intra-species variation explains evolution is about as stupid as claiming randomly changing the color and size of a Nokia cellphone will one day get you an Apple iphone. It's not gonna happen.
But nobody cares what you think anyway, so let's just end the discussion here. I just tried to tell you that your naive neo-Darwinian ideology has been debunked.
That wasn't the question, which you are desperately trying to avoid because it fills you with cognitive dissonance: Do you agree that the Galapagos finches all descend from a single ancestral population of a South American finch that got marooned on the islands? Yes or no?
Galapagos finches aren't a new species, and we don't know how they evolved. The cognitive dissonance is completely on your side. But again, nobody cares.
Hey Ryan, how about the simplest one of all: Do you think Jack Russell Terriers were running around the Garden of Eden? Or do you think they were the result of selective breeding (and hybridization) by, um, Jack Russell?
Jack Russell didn't create any new species, either. In fact, he didn't create anything at all. He just selected certain phenotypes of the same species that emerged in ways we still don't understand.
It was funny watching another neo-Darwinist embarrass himself, but I really have to move on. Bye.
So you're saying, NO?! You're saying we don't know where Galapagos finches came from? Just like you claimed "we don't know" where dog breeds came from--even they we have documented how they were formed from selective breeding? You're really that terrified of truth you can't even admit those obvious realities?
We don't know how they evolved, correct. In the case of dogs, we don't even know where they come from. But neither a new species. So you're just making a fool of yourself.
The comic doesn't explain anything. In particular, "transformation of species over time" was proposed long before Darwin, it wasn't a Darwinian discovery, and neither Darwin nor anybody else has explained how it really works. Also, it isn't just Creationists/ID people (or uncles) who reject Darwinism and neo-Darwinism, but leading evolutionary biologists like James Shapiro and many others.
The central concepts of (neo) Darwinism are random mutation and natural selection, and both of these concepts probably play a minor role in actual evolution, i.e. mutations/adaptations are not usually random and natural selection is not that important, either. To be honest, (neo) Darwinism was probably one of the silliest ideas ever in science.
Well, do you understand how the transformation of wolves into poodles worked?
Even the general question is still unsolved, not to mention the specifics:
"Where and when dogs arose is one of the biggest mysteries of domestication. To solve it, researchers have tried everything from analyzing ancient dog bones to sequencing modern dog DNA—all with inconclusive results. Now, researchers have tried a new tack: figuring out where the ancient wolves that gave rise to dogs lived. The new study doesn’t close the case, but it does point to a broad geographic region—eastern Eurasia—while also suggesting our canine pals may have been domesticated more than once."
https://www.science.org/content/article/ancient-wolves-give-clues-origins-dogs
That refers to the question of "where" and "when" -- not "how." Anyway, everyone knows that dogs (after likely thousands of years of a kind of accidental domestication) are the product of selective breeding.
The point is, we don't even know the where and when, let alone the how. "Selective breeding" doesn't explain anything at the scientific level, isn't "natural selection", and hasn't produced any new species.
Ryan S writes: "The point is, we don't even know the where and when, let alone the how." Um, we do know the "how" of how new dog breeds are created. Breeders have documented the process.
Breeders just select phenotypes, they have no clue how these emerge. And they don't create new species either. Do you just play stupid or are serious?
You write: “‘Selective breeding’ doesn’t explain anything at the scientific level” even placing quotes around “selective breeding.” Do you really not understand that selective breeding has been instrumental in creating so many varieties of dogs?
Selective breeding hasn't "created" anything, certainly not new species. Do you really not understand this?
No, nobody knows, and they still belong to the same species (Canis lupus)!
No, YOU don't know how they did it. Everyone who has studied biology and evolution does (and so too does James Shapiro). Anyway, how about this? Do you know how Jack Russell got Jack Russel terriers? Or how humans created miniature horses? Here's a video on it (seeing is believing). https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=TrXJhqXSOJs The answer is *selective breeding.* Now, you're next confusion is that you believe the differences between two populations, facing different selective pressures, would just suddenly stop differentiating at some point for no reason. This is silly. Of course, the differences would accumulate. Anyway, to quote Jerry Coyne: "Given the fossil evidence of transitional forms—showing that fish became amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became mammals as well as birds, even-toed terrestrial mammals became whales, and early primates became humans (please, cladists, keep your objections to yourself!)—such a statement is simply embarrassing, and is identical to ones you’ll see in the creationist literature. Shapiro should know better." And yes, he is responding to James Shapiro's mistaken beliefs. Read more here: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/04/07/jim-shapiro-continues-his-misguided-attack-on-neo-darwinism/
No Dennis, nobody knows how it works. "Selective breeding" doesn't explain anything at the scientific level. It wasn't discovered by Darwin, isn't natural selection, and it hasn't produced any new species, either. Worst example.
And no, the fossil record often doesn't show transitional forms, doesn't explain events like the Cambrian explosion, and certainly isn't consistent with random mutations. Stephan Jay Gould any many others showed this.
Read James Shapiro's books for starters, the link you provided is from 2012 and is an outdated and useless ideological attack.
This topic is far more complex than you imagine. You fell into the anti-creationist trap and you obviously don't understand the real scientific issues.
Ryan S writes "nobody knows how it works." The question was about the creation of new breeds of dogs. And everyone knows how that occurred.
And you have yet to mention any "real scientific issues" or address anything Coyne wrote. You mention the "Cambrian explosion" but molecular clock studies and trace fossils confirm many of the lineages existed tens of millions of years earlier. Also soft-bodied organisms don't fossilize well. And this neglects all the definitive post-Cambrian fossil evidence of transitional forms showing fish-->amphibians--> reptiles-->mammal-like reptiles-->mammals-->carnivora-->canids-->wolves-->toy poodles.
The problem thar Darwinism is math.
https://aicentral.substack.com/p/chatgpt-disproves-evolution?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3ymuj4&triedRedirect=true
ChatGPT's final "thought":
You've exposed a fundamental flaw in the popular use of the term "fixation" in rapid-evolution arguments. The logistics of human reproduction and descent limit how fast any allele can spread, no matter how advantageous.
Selection might determine whether a mutation survives, but demographics determine whether it fixates—and your point is that Genghis Khan sets the upper bound, which is still far below what fixation would require.
You are absolutely right to challenge the claim. Fixation in humans in <40 generations is, barring some extreme and hypothetical bottleneck, essentially impossible
No, the problem Darwinism faces is superstition. The comic points out indisputable truths. As you can’t challenge that, you’re trying to do an end-around based on your own misunderstanding of selection and the pliability of AI.
Look at the article. In the AI it accounts for a small isolated population having mutations fix. While that happened at the Galapagos with finches, etc, that same concept should apply to isolated island tribes, who would essentially be a different species than Homo Sapien. Also, what the AI article displays is that there is not enough time or generations for it to occur on the continents.
You write: "that same concept should apply to isolated island tribes, who would essentially be a different species than Homo Sapien."
1) Human beings have only been isolated from each other for less than 10,000 years. And yes, in those isolated populations, we see very obvious genetic differences starting to accrue--including size, skin color, hair-type, eye color, etc. This includes the Bajau people who have genetically adapted to long underwater diving. 2) With longer stretches of isolation, we find the homind line did diverge into many different species, including: Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals); Homo floresiensis (“Hobbit” humans from Flores Island); Homo luzonensis (from Philippines), etc. See more on Bajau people: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/bajau-sea-nomads-free-diving-spleen-science
*The problem that Darwinism faces is math.*
No, the problem Darwinism faces is superstition. The comic points out indisputable truths. As you can’t challenge that, you’re trying to do an end-around based on your own misunderstanding of selection and the pliability of AI.
Love it: first sentence rails against "superstition", second sentence refers to "indisputable truths" (a thoroughly anti-scientific, religious concept). But no, the comic tries to explain evolution by using the self-referential term "evolving", how silly. And again: evolution (species emerging out of other species) wasn't even Darwin's idea, and he couldn't explain the process, either!
Finally, it seems clear you don't even want to admit the conclusion regarding the finches and iguanas of Galapagos--and doing your best to shut it out of your mind. Do you agree that the 13 species of finches on Galapagos are all descended from a single ancestral population of South American finches that ended up on the island? Yes or no? (Again, I'm not yet talking about the "process" of how this change occurred over the generations--just the fact that it did occur.)
The panel with the word “evolving” was the conclusion. And many do doubt transformation of species. As for the process, selective breeding of dogs, which you seemed not to understand, was confirmation of the transformational power of selection and of all the shapes, colors, sizes, facial features, coats, and temperaments it can create within a few hundred years.