The finches of Darwin were all the same species, but Darwin thought they would be interlinked different species

[Phi for All]

7 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

No you are mistaken. It is an Illusion to construct species Evolution from some proven different races of the same species. Microevolution is not Makroevolution like you Claim.

I have the wealth of accumulated human scientific knowledge to help me trust in the best supported explanations for various phenomena. What do you have, some Iron Age mumbo jumbo guesswork you've chosen to put your faith in, rather than trust? You sound as though you think the universe is 6000 years old.

[Maestro99]

Nobody ever witnessed the Transformation of a fish into a Walking Amphibic creature. Why did your precious Makroevolution suddenly stop? Where are the many inbetween species which must be found in the geological structures?

Charles Darwin was a smart man for his time but for modern science his theories are not plausible anymore.

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

This really says it all about your "approach".

Hey!! I'm sipping coffee over here! You can't be this clever on the weekends. That's when I brew the good stuff, and I don't need to be spitting it all over my screen.

[joigus]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Hey!! I'm sipping coffee over here! You can't be this clever on the weekends. That's when I brew the good stuff, and I don't need to be spitting it all over my screen.

Thank you, you're pretty funny yourself. I'm sorry about the coffee stains.

Mind you, he's written "Nothing" with a capital.  

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, joigus said:

He must have watched a couple of documentaries about intelligent design.

One of the funny things about deniers on this topic is you cannot tell whether it’s an actual creationist just too dumb to know how ridiculous they sound or if instead it’s someone just trolling and trying to get a rise out of the community / time how quickly they can get banned 

I find neither terribly relevant or interesting. 6 to one, half dozen to another 

[joigus]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

One of the funny things about deniers on this topic is you cannot tell whether it’s an actual creationist just too dumb to know how ridiculous they sound or if instead it’s someone just trolling and trying to get a rise out of the community / time how quickly they can get banned 

Good point. I think betting might be involved too. I've thought of that myself.  

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Nobody ever witnessed the Transformation of a fish into a Walking Amphibic creature.

We can see that dolphins and whales still, to this day, have pelvic bones where legs had developed, which is strong evidence they walked on land. Other factors also support this. So far, your only argument is your incredulity (which is basically you saying "Since I can't believe this happened, it didn't"). All of your arguments so far have been refuted many, MANY times by many people. Even the Pope acknowledges that evolution is a fact. You have no support for your arguments, and this is a science discussion forum.

[joigus]

29 minutes ago, iNow said:

There’s no species called “dog.”

 

Good try. +1

But he's proved you wrong because...

30 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

called CANIS FAMILIARIS

He's got a Latin name for those things. Who could argue with that?   

And at this point I leave.

[Maestro99]

10 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We can see that dolphins and whales still, to this day, have pelvic bones where legs had developed, which is strong evidence they walked on land. Other factors also support this. So far, your only argument is your incredulity (which is basically you saying "Since I can't believe this happened, it didn't"). All of your arguments so far have been refuted many, MANY times by many people. Even the Pope acknowledges that evolution is a fact. You have no support for your arguments, and this is a science discussion forum.

That is an indication for the Inteligent design. Not for Evolution of any kind.

Whales are way to massive to walk around on land. Theire bones would brake like biscuits.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Maestro99

[iNow]

4 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Whales are way to massive to walk around on land. Theire bones would brake like biscuits.

* too

* break 

*their

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

I asked a Question. So Darwin thought that finches with different mouth shapes are a different species?

This has been answered. He found several different species. Then he observed that they had different shaped beaks. Then he came up with an explanation for why their beaks were different. 

This explanation has been repeatedly confirmed by more evidence.

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

Are the many different races of dogs different species according to Darwin?

I don't know if he had an opinion on it.

But it can certainly be argued that, for example, chihuahuas and Great Danes should be different species. It is just convention, that we regard them all as one.

Remember, this is an arbitrary man-made distinction, so where we draw the boundaries between species is flexible and changes with more information. There are populations that were thought to be one species but, after DNA analysis, they have been categorised as two species. And the reverse has happened as well.

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

The truth is there is no such Thing as Evolution. It was never witnessed ever in the nature.

Evolution very obviously happens in nature and is witnessed all the time. It has been known about for thousands of years. It is daft to deny that.

What Wallace and Darwin did is propose an explanation for how evolution happens. That explanation has been shown to be correct. 

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

they are not different species and you know it very well. they are the same species. called finches. They are only different races. Like dog races which are all the same species called DOG

"Finch" is not a species. The birds known as finches are made up of several genera and hundreds of species.

There is no species called "DOG".

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

There is Nothing to understand. What you call as Evolution is just Microevolution and not Makroevolution which is needed to explain Species Transformation into another species.

Both microevolution and macroevolution occur. That is an observable fact. New species arise from evolution. That is an observable fact.

The theory of evolution (and genetics) explain how and why this happens.

You can keep denying it, but the evidence is strongly against you.

56 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Nobody ever witnessed the Transformation of a fish into a Walking Amphibic creature.

Actually, we do have evidence in the fossil record (and in living species) of exactly this happening.

56 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Charles Darwin was a smart man for his time but for modern science his theories are not plausible anymore.

Why do you keep focussing on Darwin and ignoring the evidence?

 

27 minutes ago, Maestro99 said:

Whales are way to massive to walk around on land. Theire bones would brake like biscuits.

And who said whales walk on land? If you are resorting to stupid fallacies like this, you don't have much of an argument.

 

1 hour ago, Maestro99 said:

The truth is there is no such Thing as Evolution. It was never witnessed ever in the nature.

Yes it has. The world is a truly amazing place. You should take your nose out of that Book and learn about it.

Quote

Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

Quote

We often think of speciation as a slow process. All the available evidence supports the idea that different species evolved from common ancestors, and yet, new species don't pop up around us on a daily basis. For many biologists, this implies that speciation happens so slowly that it's hard to observe on human timescales — that we'd need to track a population for millennia or more to actually see it split into two separate species. However, new research suggests that speciation may be easier to observe than we thought. We just need to know where to look.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

Quote

It is true that present-day "before our eyes" speciation is rare, because speciation typically requires many thousands of years. Nonetheless, biologists can cite examples of present-day species that appear to be in the process of splitting and species that have split very recently in geologic history [Coyne2009, pg. 5-8, 168-189]. Some examples include:

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/speciation.php

Quote

We present evidence that European flounders in the Baltic Sea exhibiting different breeding behaviors are a species pair arising from a recent event of ecological speciation. The two lineages diverged within less than 3,000 generations. This is the fastest event of speciation ever reported for any marine vertebrate. Extraordinarily rapid speciation driven by natural selection can therefore happen even in the marine environment.

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/23/6074

Quote

This FAQ discusses several instances where speciation has been observed. It also discusses several issues related to speciation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[Phi for All]

Update: Our good Christian friend here decided to use his reasoning power to post a juvenile, foul-mouthed private reply instead of supporting his ignorant arguments. A disappointing specimen of homo incredulous ignoramus.

[Arete]

No one has ever turned into their cousin, or given birth to their nephew, so therefore no one is related to their cousins, nieces or nephews /s. 

If an organism spontaneously evolved into a distantly related species (fish into amphibians, flies into elephants, etc) our current understanding of evolution would be proven drastically wrong. The assumption of evolutionary theory is SHARED ANCESTRY. I.e. in the above example, that you and your cousin share the same grandparents, not that you can turn into each other or swap lineages. The  evidence for shared ancestry is pretty darn strong - as an example, you share approximately 50% of your genes with a banana. That means you share metabolic pathways, cellular structures, developmental pathways, and many other life history traits that all strongly suggest that you share a distant ancestor.