no new species?

[Dale]

just talking about this in real life

have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab

besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life

and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

[Dale]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

[RedAcer]

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from
existing life to have better traits in the environment used, how
do you know that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this
be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life",
life from living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

Can you propose a test so that we can discern the difference?

[Dale]

Post by RedAcer

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from
existing life to have better traits in the environment used, how
do you know that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this
be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life",
life from living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

Can you propose a test so that we can discern the difference?

not easily, time is too difficult to hold as a control variable, maybe
all a method of faith, the scientific process is a very good method of
faith, scientists don't seem to have a lot to say about
psychological/sociological/psychiatric benefits of spiritualism, even
though they date back to oldest written history (Sumeria) and even if
the spiritualism is metaphors, parables, etc., as long as there is a
benefit, has science proved that spirituality has no benefit?

can you propose a test that spirituality has no benefit? what about a
leader who abstracts his decisions based on a metaphor of what a Supreme
Being would do in his place?

[Dale]

Post by RedAcer

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from
existing life to have better traits in the environment used, how
do you know that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this
be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life",
life from living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

Can you propose a test so that we can discern the difference?

observe and categorize all existing life, watch for anything after that
comes up that fits the definition of a new taxonomical specie

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Dale

Post by RedAcer

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from
existing life to have better traits in the environment used, how
do you know that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this
be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life",
life from living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

Can you propose a test so that we can discern the difference?

observe and categorize all existing life, watch for anything after that
comes up that fits the definition of a new taxonomical specie

Did they have the London Underground 2,000 years ago, imbecile?

[Dale]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Dale

Post by RedAcer

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from
existing life to have better traits in the environment used, how
do you know that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this
be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life",
life from living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

Can you propose a test so that we can discern the difference?

observe and categorize all existing life, watch for anything after that
comes up that fits the definition of a new taxonomical specie

Did they have the London Underground 2,000 years ago, imbecile?

was it's essence around before it was instantiated?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Dale

Post by RedAcer

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from
existing life to have better traits in the environment used, how
do you know that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this
be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life",
life from living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

Why does the in-your-face moron keep repeating the same debunked
falsehoods?

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Dale

Post by RedAcer

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else
http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

Can you propose a test so that we can discern the difference?

observe and categorize all existing life, watch for anything after that
comes up that fits the definition of a new taxonomical specie

Did they have the London Underground 2,000 years ago, imbecile?

was it's essence around before it was instantiated?

What a fucking moron.

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale
was it's essence around before it was instantiated?

Oh good grief! You are espousing Plato's idealism, in which there is an ideal form somewhere and then it is instantiated as an object. FYI, while Platonism influenced the early church, modern Christianity has rejected it because the instantiated objects are only shadows of the "essence", and "goodness" resides in the "essence". However, the Biblical accounts of creation stress that theological point that Creation is "good". Also, the creation stories emphasize that Creation is real, while "instantiated" objects are not real, but only "shadows on the cave" of the "essence". Therefore, there can be no "essences" where good resides.

However, since we OBSERVE, in real time, the evolution of a new species, what was the "essence" to start with. There would have had to be the "essence" of the original species, and how do you get a new "essence" out of an existing "essence". If you can, the original wasn't an ESSENCE, was it? It would be a composite, not an essence.

[RedAcer]

Post by Dale

Post by RedAcer

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from
existing life to have better traits in the environment used, how
do you know that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this
be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life",
life from living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

Can you propose a test so that we can discern the difference?

observe and categorize all existing life,

Good luck with that.

Post by Dale
watch for anything after that
comes up that fits the definition of a new taxonomical specie

New species can take a long time to evolve.
get back to us in 100,000 years.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by RedAcer

Post by Dale

Post by RedAcer

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from
existing life to have better traits in the environment used, how
do you know that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this
be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life",
life from living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-musa-nanensis-wild-banana-thailand-03349.html

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

Can you propose a test so that we can discern the difference?

observe and categorize all existing life,

Good luck with that.

Post by Dale
watch for anything after that
comes up that fits the definition of a new taxonomical specie

New species can take a long time to evolve.
get back to us in 100,000 years.

On the other hand, they can evolver fairly quickly if they start off
as a small, reproductively isolated population - like the mosquitos in
the London Underground.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Tons of them. 126 just recently:

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>

or

<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>


And we've seen species change in the wild:

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>

or

<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

[Dale]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

[Dale]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

if its not on wikipedia ...

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

if its not on wikipedia ...

So what are you saying, Dale, that you can't be bothered to read
something that actually answers your questions? That makes it rather
pointless of you to ask them, doesn't it?

[Dale]

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

if its not on wikipedia ...

So what are you saying, Dale, that you can't be bothered to read
something that actually answers your questions? That makes it rather
pointless of you to ask them, doesn't it?

okay, I'll try and read it

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:44:29 -0400, the following appeared

Post by Dale

Post by Bob Casanova
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:37:43 -0400, the following appeared
in sci.skeptic, posted by raven1

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

You didn't read the second article, did you?

Dale? Read a reference? You're kidding, right?

if its not on wikipedia ...

...or even if it is.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

And there you go moving the goalposts.

[Dale]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/9753208/New-
species-found-walking-catfish-Beelzebub-bat-and-two-legged-lizard.html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1kp3MBF>
<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.
html>
or
<http://bit.ly/1940Ljw>

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

And there you go moving the goalposts.

didn't say the previous information wasn't valuable, just thought of a
new point

[raven1]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

[Dale]

Post by raven1

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Post by raven1

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

OK, you're rephrasing the question, I see. Newly found species are
ubiquitous; for specific examples of speciation, which are also
commonplace, please Google "observed speciation events".

[Dale]

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by raven1

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

OK, you're rephrasing the question, I see. Newly found species are
ubiquitous; for specific examples of speciation, which are also
commonplace, please Google "observed speciation events".

no thanks, ubiquitous proves my point since you can't say for sure

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Post by raven1

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

Practically every day.

Post by Dale
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

There are these magical things called "scientific journals" and
"books" in which people discovering new species write about them. They
even put those writings up on the Interwebs. Did you think about that
question for even a second before you asked it?

how do you know these species are new and not just newly found?

OK, you're rephrasing the question, I see. Newly found species are
ubiquitous; for specific examples of speciation, which are also
commonplace, please Google "observed speciation events".

no thanks, ubiquitous proves my point since you can't say for sure

It's not my job to do your homework for you, and I'm puzzled at what
you think "ubiquitous" means, or what point you think it proves.

[MarkA]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

This might be a little technical:

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

In brief, Lenski directly observed the evolution of a new species of E.
coli, under laboratory conditions.

[Dale]

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
In brief, Lenski directly observed the evolution of a new species of E.
coli, under laboratory conditions.

complete taxonomic definition? is it less than a specie change?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Dale

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
In brief, Lenski directly observed the evolution of a new species of E.
coli, under laboratory conditions.

complete taxonomic definition? is it less than a specie change?

What part of "Lenski directly observed the evolution of a new species
of E. coli, under laboratory conditions" was too hard to understand,
imbecile?

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
In brief, Lenski directly observed the evolution of a new species of E.
coli, under laboratory conditions.

He's not interested in an answer - his question about something that
is nothing to do with atheism, is meant to be a silver bullet.

But...

http://scottcgruber.hubpages.com/hub/The-London-Underground-Mosquito

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito

Evidence for this mosquito being a different species from C.
pipiens comes from research by Kate Byrne and Richard Nichols. The
species have very different behaviours,[1] are extremely difficult
to mate,[2] and with different allele frequencies consistent with
genetic drift during a founder event.[4] More specifically, this
mosquito, C. p. f. molestus, breeds all-year round, is cold
intolerant, and bites rats, mice, and humans, in contrast to the
above-ground species, which is cold tolerant, hibernates in the
winter, and bites only birds. When the two varieties were
cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive
isolation.

He could have Googled "observed instances of speciation" and he would
have got plenty.

Given his (and many of the other creationists and IDiots we get here)
regular presence on talk.origins, I wouldn't be surprised if he has
had this asked and answered over there, and is now repeating it here
as if it hadn't been.

So I checked - he posted it there yesterday.

He imagines we're ignorant of such things, but while we're not the
experts over there, we usually give the same answers although in less
detail.

Having been answered (or refuted) there, the creationists and IDiots
come here as if they hadn't, expecting to pull the wool over our eyes.

This is a practice I find just plain dishonest as well as very
revealing about them.

[Dale]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
In brief, Lenski directly observed the evolution of a new species of E.
coli, under laboratory conditions.

He's not interested in an answer - his question about something that
is nothing to do with atheism, is meant to be a silver bullet.
But...
http://scottcgruber.hubpages.com/hub/The-London-Underground-Mosquito
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito
Evidence for this mosquito being a different species from C.
pipiens comes from research by Kate Byrne and Richard Nichols. The
species have very different behaviours,[1] are extremely difficult
to mate,[2] and with different allele frequencies consistent with
genetic drift during a founder event.[4] More specifically, this
mosquito, C. p. f. molestus, breeds all-year round, is cold
intolerant, and bites rats, mice, and humans, in contrast to the
above-ground species, which is cold tolerant, hibernates in the
winter, and bites only birds. When the two varieties were
cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive
isolation.
He could have Googled "observed instances of speciation" and he would
have got plenty.
Given his (and many of the other creationists and IDiots we get here)
regular presence on talk.origins, I wouldn't be surprised if he has
had this asked and answered over there, and is now repeating it here
as if it hadn't been.
So I checked - he posted it there yesterday.
He imagines we're ignorant of such things, but while we're not the
experts over there, we usually give the same answers although in less
detail.
Having been answered (or refuted) there, the creationists and IDiots
come here as if they hadn't, expecting to pull the wool over our eyes.
This is a practice I find just plain dishonest as well as very
revealing about them.

can you describe the experiment?

was time held as a control variable? if not, then when time changes your
conclusion can change

if time was held as a control variable what correlation between the
independent and dependent variables was there? 6-sigma? anything less
than 100% means something else is a factor

have you considered that the illogical exists and illogical things can
happen? I don't know this myself, but, what I do know, science is often
boastful about not studying empiricism of spiritual source

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existi=

ng

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know=

=

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale
that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outsid=

e =

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale
the
lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life =

=

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale
from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
In brief, Lenski directly observed the evolution of a new species of=

E.

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by MarkA
coli, under laboratory conditions.

He's not interested in an answer - his question about something that
is nothing to do with atheism, is meant to be a silver bullet.
But...
http://scottcgruber.hubpages.com/hub/The-London-Underground-Mosquito
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito
Evidence for this mosquito being a different species from C.
pipiens comes from research by Kate Byrne and Richard Nichols. Th=

e

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee
species have very different behaviours,[1] are extremely difficul=

t

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee
to mate,[2] and with different allele frequencies consistent with=
genetic drift during a founder event.[4] More specifically, this
mosquito, C. p. f. molestus, breeds all-year round, is cold
intolerant, and bites rats, mice, and humans, in contrast to the
above-ground species, which is cold tolerant, hibernates in the
winter, and bites only birds. When the two varieties were
cross-bred, the eggs were infertile, suggesting reproductive
isolation.
He could have Googled "observed instances of speciation" and he would=
have got plenty.
Given his (and many of the other creationists and IDiots we get here)=
regular presence on talk.origins, I wouldn't be surprised if he has
had this asked and answered over there, and is now repeating it here
as if it hadn't been.
So I checked - he posted it there yesterday.
He imagines we're ignorant of such things, but while we're not the
experts over there, we usually give the same answers although in less=
detail.
Having been answered (or refuted) there, the creationists and IDiots
come here as if they hadn't, expecting to pull the wool over our eyes=

.

Post by Dale

Post by Christopher A. Lee
This is a practice I find just plain dishonest as well as very
revealing about them.

can you describe the experiment?
was time held as a control variable? if not, then when time changes yo=

ur =

Post by Dale
conclusion can change
if time was held as a control variable what correlation between the =
independent and dependent variables was there? 6-sigma? anything less =

=

Post by Dale
than 100% means something else is a factor
have you considered that the illogical exists and illogical things can=

=

Post by Dale
happen? I don't know this myself, but, what I do know, science is ofte=

n =

Post by Dale
boastful about not studying empiricism of spiritual source

what do YOU consider illogical, that we should believe the people thumpi=
ng =

2000 year old books about an invisible all-knowing sky daddy creating li=
fe =

or that we should believe that DNA arose from a highly complex physical =
=

process over millions of years as the collected evidence seems to point =
=

toward?

-- =

Loading Image...

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

Loading Image...

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: header=
s =

containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to =

yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints=
=

to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful =

information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you =

downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try=
: =

Loading Image...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority =E2=
=80=94 as =

it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjec=
ts =

or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it =

presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, =

Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homewor=
k =

before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason =

many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating =

opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you=
, =

look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassi=
ng =

bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-to=
ed =

boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks, =

Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)
=

[Dale]

On 10/21/2015 07:14 PM, "Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907
Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907

Post by "Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117
what do YOU consider illogical, that we should believe the people
thumping 2000 year old books about an invisible all-knowing sky daddy
creating life or that we should believe that DNA arose from a highly
complex physical process over millions of years as the collected
evidence seems to point toward?

so you are using the preponderance of evidence assertion

what about the reasonable doubt assertion?

when you can come back with a statistically designed experiment with
time held as a control variable, then you can debate the sun will rise
tomorrow as it did today, empirically

reasonable doubt to me would say that spirituality and its
psychological/sociological/psychiatric, being around since the dawn of
writing in Sumeria/Hammurabi, has benefits beyond a reasonable doubt,
even if they are metaphors/parables, science as an institution may be
new, but the process is the basis of spirituality too

Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

On 10/21/2015 07:14 PM, "Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 =
Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 =

=

Post by "Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117
what do YOU consider illogical, that we should believe the people
thumping 2000 year old books about an invisible all-knowing sky daddy=
creating life or that we should believe that DNA arose from a highly
complex physical process over millions of years as the collected
evidence seems to point toward?

so you are using the preponderance of evidence assertion
what about the reasonable doubt assertion?

even in a "reasonable doubt" legal sense, it is still the onus of the =

person(s) claiming reasonable doubt to prove it.

so prove it.

when you can come back with a statistically designed experiment with =
time held as a control variable, then you can debate the sun will rise=

=

tomorrow as it did today, empirically
reasonable doubt to me would say that spirituality and its =
psychological/sociological/psychiatric, being around since the dawn of=

=

writing in Sumeria/Hammurabi, has benefits beyond a reasonable doubt, =

=

even if they are metaphors/parables, science as an institution may be =

=

new, but the process is the basis of spirituality too
Dale
http://www.dalekelly.org

-- =

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: header=
s =

containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to =

yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints=
=

to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful =

information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you =

downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try=
: =

http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority =E2=
=80=94 as =

it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjec=
ts =

or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it =

presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, =

Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homewor=
k =

before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason =

many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating =

opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you=
, =

look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassi=
ng =

bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-to=
ed =

boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks, =

Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)
=

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale
when you can come back with a statistically designed experiment with
time held as a control variable, then you can debate the sun will rise
tomorrow as it did today, empirically

This isn't "empiricism", it is inductive reasoning. You have equated inductive reasoning with experimental design. Which means at this point you are moving the goalposts to a point where you think you can ignore the data or we can't falsify your original claim that no one has ever observed a new species evolve.

First: define "time as a control variable"

Second, "empirical" is "originating in or based on observation or experience" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical

So, the sun rose the day before yesterday is an observation. The sun rose yesterday is an observation. The sun rose today is an observation.

"the sun will rise tomorrow " is and INDUCTIVE CONCLUSION.

Inductive reasoning argues from the specific to the general. Based on the specific observations over, well, the course of human history, of the sun rising each day, then the general conclusion is that the sun will rise EVERY day, including tomorrow.

So, this is NOT an "experiment". Instead it is inductive reasoning based on empirical observations. No statistics involved since we are not comparing 2 (statistical) populations.

Inductive reasoning seems to work. Do you drive a car? WHY do you rely on your brakes to stop you? Inductive reasoning. Pressing the brake pedal has stopped your car countless times in past, therefore you think pressing the brake pedal will stop the car the next time.

Do you fly on airplanes? That is inductive reasoning of Bernoulli's Principle (what allows an airplane to fly). Bernoulli's Principle has worked for millions of airplane flights since 1903, so the Principle will work on the flight you are on.

Not all experiments need to be "statistically designed". Physics is deterministic, not probabilistic, so it does not involve statistics. F = ma without any statistics.

Your original question was:
"just talking about this in real life

have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years? "

We can turn that into a statement: "No new species have been found in the last 2,000 years"

This is tested DEDUCTIVELY. Deductive logic can FALSIFY statements. In this case, if ANY new species has been observed in the last 2,000 years, then the statement is false. And we have been showing you examples of "new species found" both in the lab and the wild.

And we don't need statistics. ONE new species is sufficient. However, there are many, many more than one.

Sorry, new species by evolution have been seen.

Post by Dale
reasonable doubt to me would say that spirituality and its
psychological/sociological/psychiatric, being around since the dawn of
writing in Sumeria/Hammurabi, has benefits beyond a reasonable doubt,
even if they are metaphors/parables,

What does this have to do with finding new species? Now you are arguing for "spirituality". Actually, you seem to be arguing for theism and the existence of a deity. Why do you think that any of my examples of speciation somehow argue against the existence of a deity?

The ONLY way I can see this happening is if YOU insist the deity had to make all the species by miracle in their present form. Another way to put that is that YOU insist that evolution and the existence of deity cannot coexist. If evolution happened, then YOU insist deity did not.

That's a very illogical position.

Post by Dale
science as an institution may be
new, but the process is the basis of spirituality too

Please explain this. Since you admit that spirituality has been around for 5,000 years or more, how can science be a basis? "basis" is "the principle component" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/basis.

How can science by the "foundation" or "principal component" of spirituality when science is new and spirituality precedes it? You need the basis FIRST, not later.

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale
can you describe the experiment?
was time held as a control variable? if not, then when time changes your
conclusion can change
if time was held as a control variable what correlation between the
independent and dependent variables was there? 6-sigma? anything less
than 100% means something else is a factor

Now you are just throwing out jargon) that you think makes you sound erudite. But in reality they are meaningless.

All speciation experiments are looking at the evolution of a new species from an existing species. After all, that is what speciation IS.

Since speciation takes place over time, then the experiments look at t = 0 (start of the experiment) and t = x (end of the experiment). However, all of the experiments have involved allopatric or sympatric (I too can use jargon, but you can look them up) speciation. So there is always a CONTROL population to compare at t = x.

The experiment is simply designed to say "new species or not new species?", so "correlation" has no place. Since the biological species concept is being used, there are standard assays to detect whether the populations are 2 separate species. No sigma.

Post by Dale
have you considered that the illogical exists and illogical things can
happen? I don't know this myself, but, what I do know, science is often
boastful about not studying empiricism of spiritual source.

Have you ever looked at quantum mechanics? VERY "illogical". Ever seen an object be in 2 places at the same time? Very illogical, isn't it? Yet that has been seen in experiments. Or how about current flowing BOTH ways around a circuit. Also illogical. Also seen.

As for illogical things happening, hey, human beings do all sorts of illogical things. YOU are a prime example. How logical is it to ask about observed speciation and then insist that if the evidence is not in Wikipedia, then the evidence does not exist? Yet you did that.

I'd like to see some examples of "science is often boastful about not studying empiricism". It is difficult to me to imagine SCIENCE being "boastful". I can easily see some militant atheists boasting that science does not "study empiricism of spiritual source".

Science is AGNOSTIC. It CANNOT study the "spiritual source" (by which you mean God, right?). It's a limitation of science call Methodological Naturalism (or Materialism). Of course, there are lots of other things science cannot study:

"It is important to recognize that not all "facts" are susceptible to scientific investigation, simply because some observations and experiences are entirely personal. I cannot prove that someone loves his or her child. The emotions that any individual claims to have are not susceptible to scientific documentation, because they cannot be independently verified by other observers. In other words, science seeks to explain only objective knowledge, knowledge that can be acquired independently by different investigators if they follow a prescribed course of observation or experiment. Many human experiences and concerns are not objective, and so do not fall within the realms of science." Douglas Futuyma, Science on Trial, the Case for Evolution, 1995, p 167.

[Dale]

Post by Dale
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

Sounds like the hail mary play of the creationists, don't it?
His position is that if man creates life in a laboratory it is created
life and therefore abiogenesis has not taken place. Ignoring the fact
that it may well prove that abiogenesis is possible.
Well that is a point in favor of creationists I suppose. But if
favorable conditions for life are created and life does start that would
not be an argument in favor of creationism, since it would prove that
life does start when favorable conditions exist.
That would be a much harder proof, since scientists just don't live the
millions of years the experiment may take.
But in the last analysis that is still no proof of gods - since Dale
still can't prove there was a creator, all he may prove is that science
hasn't proven abiogenesis yet.
The simple mind confronting a complex question.... invent a god and say
he is responsible.

devoting less time, Occam's Razor would say the complex hypotheses are
less likely, and your spending more time even if religion uses its time
with metaphors and parables

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale
devoting less time, Occam's Razor would say the complex hypotheses are
less likely, and your spending more time even if religion uses its time
with metaphors and parables

Other people have told you to search on "observed speciation". Yes, new species from existing ones have been observed both in the lab and in the wild. I have more than 100 references to such observations in the scientific literature.

You have stated the common misconception of Occam's Razor (it actually comes from Newton, but we can discuss that later). It is wrong. The ONLY thing that decides whether hypotheses are correct or not is DATA. "less likely" does not count. What matters is what IS. Not "less likely".

Ironically, William of Ockham argued AGAINST the type of statement you said. Scientists of his time were arguing that, in reflection, the angle of incidence = the angle of reflection. Well, the next "simplest" would be that the angle of incidence = 2x the angle of refraction. Ockham argued against this type of logic because he said it put too many limits on God. Humans were dictating how God had to do things.

The original statement by William of Ockham was that descriptions of phenomenon should be as simple as possible. The example in his day was "an object moves because of an impetus". Ockham said that movement was change in position over time. Therefore, what should be stated is "an object moves". Tacking on the (hypothesis of) "because of an impetus" was wrong.

[Dale]

Post by lucaspa
The ONLY thing that decides whether hypotheses are correct or not is DATA.

I have little complaint with less

1) you can't hold time as a control variable easily
2) statistical relevance seems to be lacking

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale

Post by lucaspa
The ONLY thing that decides whether hypotheses are correct or not is DATA.

I have little complaint with less
1) you can't hold time as a control variable easily
2) statistical relevance seems to be lacking

1) Sure you can hold time as a control. We do it all the time. Take a look at "longitudinal studies". Say you want to test a new cholesterol controlling drug. You take 50 individuals with high cholesterol. 25 you put on the drug and 25 get a placebo. You take their blood at t = 0 (day before they get the first dose) and then every week afterward for 10 weeks. Each person is their own control and you compare the cholesterol to t = 0. You compare the change in cholesterol level of the drug group to the placebo group.

THEN, you switch groups. You've controlled for time.

2) If you look at the Kilias et al. paper you see that at the end of 5 years 12 virgin males and females from each population were put in mating chambers and mating observed.  Fitness measurements were number of eggs, number hatched, F1 and F2 hybrid fitness to live in the various environments.  EACH OF THESE OUTCOMES have standard deviations and statistical analyses.

So what exactly do you think is lacking in "statistical relevance"

BTW, in this study time was controlled. 5 years. They gave the populations on the lower temperature 5 years to diverge enough from the parent population and the control population to be a new species.

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale

Post by lucaspa
The ONLY thing that decides whether hypotheses are correct or not is DATA.

I have little complaint with less

Good to hear, because originally you were invoking Occam's Razor to decide to between hypotheses. Glad to see you've given that up.

[Dale]

Post by lucaspa
The ONLY thing that decides whether hypotheses are correct or not is DATA.

I have little complaint with less

1) you can't hold time as a control variable easily
2) statistical relevance seems to be lacking

[Dale]

Dale and the other morons have their own dishonest redefinition of
abiogenesis.
All the word means, is "life from non-life".
Which clearly happened, because at one point in time there wasn't
life, and later there was.

how do you know that

1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

[raven1]

Post by Dale

Dale and the other morons have their own dishonest redefinition of
abiogenesis.
All the word means, is "life from non-life".
Which clearly happened, because at one point in time there wasn't
life, and later there was.

how do you know that
1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

It's more than a bit unclear as to what you're trying to say here. Can
you rephrase it?

[Dale]

Post by raven1

Post by Dale

Dale and the other morons have their own dishonest redefinition of
abiogenesis.
All the word means, is "life from non-life".
Which clearly happened, because at one point in time there wasn't
life, and later there was.

how do you know that
1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

It's more than a bit unclear as to what you're trying to say here. Can
you rephrase it?

don't think I can

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale
how do you know that
1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

Time IS FINITE. Both in science and religion time is finite. "in the beginning" sets a finite limit on time. The Big Bang does so in science.

Also in both religion and science there was a time on earth where there was no life. In Genesis 1 there are 2 days with no living things; God doesn't create life until the 3rd day.

In science we can go back and look in sedimentary rocks. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest evidence of life is 3.8 billion years old.

The issue about abiogenesis is whether God had to make a miracle to get the first life. OR, will chemical reactions and physical processes produce the first life. The data is clear that chemistry and physics can produce life from non-living chemicals. Other people have done this on other threads. But you can start here and we can discuss at length:
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

[Dale]

Post by lucaspa

Post by Dale
how do you know that
1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

Time IS FINITE. Both in science and religion time is finite. "in the beginning" sets a finite limit on time. The Big Bang does so in science.
Also in both religion and science there was a time on earth where there was no life. In Genesis 1 there are 2 days with no living things; God doesn't create life until the 3rd day.
In science we can go back and look in sedimentary rocks. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest evidence of life is 3.8 billion years old.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

[Dale]

Post by lucaspa

Post by Dale
how do you know that
1) time is not finite, but a continuum and life has not existed forever
2) time is not finite but cyclical and life pops up first

Time IS FINITE. Both in science and religion time is finite. "in the beginning" sets a finite limit on time. The Big Bang does so in science.
Also in both religion and science there was a time on earth where there was no life. In Genesis 1 there are 2 days with no living things; God doesn't create life until the 3rd day.
In science we can go back and look in sedimentary rocks. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. The earliest evidence of life is 3.8 billion years old.
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/fox.html

and something like the big crunch or big freeze would be the end? then
there is nothing? was there nothing before the big bang? even vacuum
fluctuations require space

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale
and something like the big crunch or big freeze would be the end? then
there is nothing? was there nothing before the big bang? even vacuum
fluctuations require space

There will be no "big crunch". Data this century shows that the expansion of the universe is getting faster. There is no way to stop it to turn it around and have the universe collapse into a "big crunch".

Not sure what you mean by a "big freeze". As the universe expands, eventually entropy will reach a maximum. This, however, does not correspond to a "freeze".

Post by Dale
then there is nothing? was there nothing before the big bang? even vacuum
fluctuations require space

"Nothing" in this context has a special meaning: no space, no time, no matter, no energy. And no, the universe will eventually reach a state of maximum entropy (no work in the physics sense can be done) but spacetime and matter/energy will still be there.

Yes, vacuum fluctuations we observe occur in spacetime. There is the possibility that that spacetime itself may be a quantum fluctuation.

[Dale]

Post by Dale
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

2000 years? You're an idiot.

okay, since written records of Sumeria/Hammurabi/etc.

[MarkA]

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

2000 years? You're an idiot.

okay, since written records of Sumeria/Hammurabi/etc.

Plenty of species have been *discovered*. However, without knowing in
advance every species that currently exists, there's no way to tell if a
previously unknown species has recently come into existence, or was just
undiscovered. In the lab, Lenski has observed the formation of a new
species of E coli, and has been able to directly observe the changes in
the genome that led up to the new species.

There is another "natural experiment", where lizards introduced onto a
small island that previously had no lizards, have evolved unexpectedly
rapidly into several new species:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-
evolution.html

[Dale]

Post by MarkA
However, without knowing in
advance every species that currently exists, there's no way to tell if a
previously unknown species has recently come into existence, or was just
undiscovered.

thank you

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale

Post by MarkA
However, without knowing in
advance every species that currently exists, there's no way to tell if a
previously unknown species has recently come into existence, or was just
undiscovered.

thank you

Mark is not correct. In 2 of the experiments I told you about, the speciation was done in the lab, and everyone knew that such a species did not exist before. After all, all they had to do was look around the lab.

In the sunflower experiment, the researchers recreated how H. anomalus came to be.

For many cases in the wild, the area had been observed previously and the new species did not exist. In one experiment, people have been tracking the spawning of introduced salmon in a particular river for 40 years. Now is 2 species.

Here is a Wikipedia article for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_mosquito

We know this isn't an "undiscovered" species because the subways are man made.

Another example is the apple maggot fly. It was found by settlers in North America on Hawthorne trees. However, the settles brought apple trees with them. Now there is a new species that lives only on the imported apple trees and not on hawthornes. There is still the original species still living on the hawthornes. And hey, look! Another Wikipedia article!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_maggot

[Ron Dean]

Post by MarkA

Post by Dale

Post by Dale
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?

2000 years? You're an idiot.

okay, since written records of Sumeria/Hammurabi/etc.

Plenty of species have been *discovered*. However, without knowing in
advance every species that currently exists, there's no way to tell if a
previously unknown species has recently come into existence, or was just
undiscovered. In the lab, Lenski has observed the formation of a new
species of E coli, and has been able to directly observe the changes in
the genome that led up to the new species.
There is another "natural experiment", where lizards introduced onto a
small island that previously had no lizards, have evolved unexpectedly
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-
evolution.html

What is a species? If you look at dogs, there is a huge difference in size
body form, shaped etc yet they are the same species. If there were
sequences of "finely graduated" fossil species, as Darwin hoped for,
there would be no way to know whether or not they could have mated
and produced offspring capable of reproduction.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Ron Dean
What is a species? If you look at dogs, there is a huge difference in size
body form, shaped etc yet they are the same species. If there were
sequences of "finely graduated" fossil species, as Darwin hoped for,
there would be no way to know whether or not they could have mated
and produced offspring capable of reproduction.

The psycho troll who reopened a thread from 2015 knows perfectly well
we know why dogs are all variations on the same species - they can all
reproduce together, and if this happens indiscriminately they revert
to the typical mongrel after a few generations and these are hardier
than the individual breeds.

But in any case, DNA has confirmed thihs.

The psycho troll, like pretty well every other creationist/IDiot is
hung up on fossils, even though he knows perfectly well that DNA
analysis provides better and more complete evidence for ancestry than
fossils do - and that it has corrected mistakes made when comparative
morphology was the only method available,

[lucaspa]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?

Because the speciation has been OBSERVED in real time! Let me give you a few examples other haven't:

Perhaps my favorite is this one:
G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos.&nbsp; A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980.

LOOK AT THE DATE. 1980! And yet you ask. These guys captured Drosophila (fruit flies) in the wild and brought them back to the lab. They then split the flies into 2 populations. Group A was housed at the same temperature as wild flies lived in. Group B they housed in colder (10° C less) temperatures. After 5 years (2500 generations) they compared the populations (and to fresh-caught wild flies) to see if they were the same species. They did this by seeing if the flies would interbreed and if the offspring were viable and fertile. The answer was that flies kept at the same temperature as the wild (Group A) were the same species as the wild flies. However, the Group B kept at colder temperatures were different species from wild flies and flies kept at warmer temperature. They would not interbreed much and, if they did, the offspring were not fertile. They also looked at 20 or so proteins to see how similar they were. They found that the proteins of cold temp flies (Group B) differed by 3% from the proteins of the other 2 groups. It is interesting that humans and chimps differ by < 1% in the same proteins.

The next one is also interesting:
D Dodd. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43(6): 1308-1311, 1989. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0014-3820(198909)43%3A6%3C1308%3ARIAACO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K Got new species on different diets: starch vs maltose. 52 generations.

This one is great because they started out with FRUIT flies -- Drosophila. Some creationists look at the first paper and say "they were still fruit flies". These flies, however, were no longer fruit flies. One new species are POTATO flies and the other are MALT flies, because that is what they eat. They no longer eat fruit.

Someone else posted this one on new species of Anolis lizards:
1. Case, TJ, Natural selection out on a limb. Nature, 387: 15-16, May 1, 1997. Original paper in the same issue, pp. 70-73 (below). Discusses natural selection in the wild where lizards were introduced to various islands in the Bahamas.&nbsp; Length of limbs varied according to the plant life present on the islands.
JB Losos, KI Warheit, TW Schoener, Adaptive differentiation following experimental island colonization in Anolis lizards. Nature, 387: 70-73,1997 (May 1)
1a. JB Losos, Evolution: a lizard's tale. Scientific American 284: 64-69,March 2001. Phenotypic plasticity and evolution of Anolis lizards.

Basically, the Anolis lizards lived on ONE island in the Caribbean. The researchers took small populations from that one island and put them on several other islands. Now, 20 years later, those different populations are now different species. Again, OBSERVED. But this time in a lab not the wild.

My final example comes from plants. It involves 3 species of sunflowers -- 2 original species and a hybrid species. Because pollen from one species can land on other plants and fertilize that plant (hybridize), plants can speciate by hybridization.

Speciation in action Science 272:700-701, 1996
1. L. Rieseberg, B. Sinervo, C. Linder, M. Ulngerer, D. Arias, Science 272, 741 (1996).

What happened was that the researchers produced in the greenhouse the genetic changes leading to the formation of a naturally occurring species of sunflower. The species is Helianthus anomalus and molecular evidence suggested it was formed by recombinational speciation of H.annuus and H. petiolarus. This is a process in which two species hybridize, and the mixed genome of the hybrid becomes a third species that is reproductively isolated from its ancestors.

So what the researchers did was hybridize H. annuus and H. petiolarus and produced 3 independent hybrid lines undergoing different regimes of mating to siblings and backcrossing to H. annuus. After 5 generations the DNA was analyzed for comparison to the wild type and to see which ancestral genes persisted in the hybrids. The lab hybrid species matched with the wild type. So this tells us how Helianthus anomalus evolved to begin with.

[Sylvia Else]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

You're really asking for evidence of absence.

Conclusive proof of absence is never going to be forthcoming.

However, species appear and disappear in the fossil record.

If that doesn't correspond to the species coming into existence, and
then ceasing to exist, one would have to wonder why.

One might posit that the fossil record reflects abundance of a species
rather than its existence, but it would then one would expect some
species to appear in the fossil record multiple times, but with
significant gaps.

One could explain away the absence of such gaps by the difficulty of
recognising them in a fossil record that is sometimes sparse.

And so on.

Essentially, if you want a formal proof, you're not going to get it.

If you take the absence of a formal proof as evidence (or worse, proof)
of some other proposition that you prefer, then you're either deluding
yourself, or being intellectually dishonest.

Sylvia.

[Dale]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

You're really asking for evidence of absence.
Conclusive proof of absence is never going to be forthcoming.
However, species appear and disappear in the fossil record.
If that doesn't correspond to the species coming into existence, and
then ceasing to exist, one would have to wonder why.
One might posit that the fossil record reflects abundance of a species
rather than its existence, but it would then one would expect some
species to appear in the fossil record multiple times, but with
significant gaps.
One could explain away the absence of such gaps by the difficulty of
recognising them in a fossil record that is sometimes sparse.
And so on.
Essentially, if you want a formal proof, you're not going to get it.
If you take the absence of a formal proof as evidence (or worse, proof)
of some other proposition that you prefer, then you're either deluding
yourself, or being intellectually dishonest.
Sylvia.

USENET is better than television ...

["Fakey's" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117]

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existin=

g

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know =

=

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside=

=

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
the
lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life f=

rom

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

You're really asking for evidence of absence.
Conclusive proof of absence is never going to be forthcoming.
However, species appear and disappear in the fossil record.
If that doesn't correspond to the species coming into existence, and
then ceasing to exist, one would have to wonder why.
One might posit that the fossil record reflects abundance of a specie=

s

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else
rather than its existence, but it would then one would expect some
species to appear in the fossil record multiple times, but with
significant gaps.
One could explain away the absence of such gaps by the difficulty of
recognising them in a fossil record that is sometimes sparse.
And so on.
Essentially, if you want a formal proof, you're not going to get it.
If you take the absence of a formal proof as evidence (or worse, proo=

f)

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else
of some other proposition that you prefer, then you're either deludin=

g

Post by Dale

Post by Sylvia Else
yourself, or being intellectually dishonest.
Sylvia.

USENET is better than television ...

seems it's also better than a few college-level courses in discrete math=
=

and logic, according to you.

when you make a claim such as you have, it's up to you to gather evidenc=
e =

to prove your hypothesis, not anybody else. does that part make you =

angry, or were you just not aware of how scientific method works?

-- =

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: header=
s =

containing "***@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to =

yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints=
=

to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful =

information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public. :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you =

downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try=
: =

http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority =E2=
=80=94 as =

it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjec=
ts =

or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it =

presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written, =

Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homewor=
k =

before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason =

many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating =

opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

Coming soon! To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot> I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you=
, =

look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassi=
ng =

bile from behind an anonymous dizum account? <snicker>
You> Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot> Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-to=
ed =

boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks, =

Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot> Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot> Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)
=

[Smiler]

Post by Sylvia Else

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know
that this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed
outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

You're really asking for evidence of absence.
Conclusive proof of absence is never going to be forthcoming.
However, species appear and disappear in the fossil record.
If that doesn't correspond to the species coming into existence, and
then ceasing to exist, one would have to wonder why.
One might posit that the fossil record reflects abundance of a species
rather than its existence, but it would then one would expect some
species to appear in the fossil record multiple times, but with
significant gaps.
One could explain away the absence of such gaps by the difficulty of
recognising them in a fossil record that is sometimes sparse.
And so on.
Essentially, if you want a formal proof, you're not going to get it.
If you take the absence of a formal proof as evidence (or worse, proof)
of some other proposition that you prefer, then you're either deluding
yourself, or being intellectually dishonest.

Or both.

[The BORG]

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

[The BORG]

Depends on God doesn't it.

Only atheists ponder this kind of thing.

Post by Dale
just talking about this in real life
have there been ANY new species found in the last 2000years?
if so, how do you know they are not species found before?
I think I have read posts that say new life can be made from existing
life to have better traits in the environment used, how do you know that
this life doesn't already exist? has any of this be observed outside the lab
besides maybe extinction we might have all the same life
and even if lab work goes on, we still have "life from life", life from
living lab workers, any proof of abiogenesis

[lucaspa]

Post by The BORG
Depends on God doesn't it.

How do you think speciation depends on God?

Post by The BORG
Only atheists ponder this kind of thing.

Heaven forbid, NO! When Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he was a THEIST. He became an agnostic later (and never was an atheist).

Look in the Historical Sketch in the 6th edition. You will find a number of theists had pondered that new specie arose from existing species (speciation). Some of them had even realized natural selection!

Besides, DALE is pondering "this kind of thing", and HE is a theist!

[R. Dean]

Post by lucaspa

Post by The BORG
Depends on God doesn't it.

How do you think speciation depends on God?

Post by The BORG
Only atheists ponder this kind of thing.

Heaven forbid, NO! When Darwin wrote Origin of Species, he was a THEIST. He became an agnostic later (and never was an atheist).
Look in the Historical Sketch in the 6th edition. You will find a number of theists had pondered that new specie arose from existing species (speciation). Some of them had even realized natural selection!
Besides, DALE is pondering "this kind of thing", and HE is a theist!

You seem to have a problem with theists. Most Americans are theists, so
if this is true, you have a problem with most Americans.

[lucaspa]

Post by R. Dean

Post by lucaspa

Post by The BORG
Depends on God doesn't it.

How do you think speciation depends on God?

Post by The BORG
Only atheists ponder this kind of thing.

Heaven forbid, NO!

You seem to have a problem with theists. Most Americans are theists, so
if this is true, you have a problem with most Americans.

How did you reach the conclusion I have a problem with theists? Do you not realize I was DEFENDING theists by pointing out that theists -- not just atheists as Borg claimed -- also pondered speciation?

I mentioned some pretty high powered scientists who were also theists.

The Borg has the opinion of many creationists that ONLY atheists accept evolution. That is totally false. Evolution is not the atheist side of the atheism vs theism debate. Science (including evolution) has been looked on by MOST Judeo-Christians as simply the HOW that God created. Historically, Christians accepted evolution and natural selection before scientists reached a consensus:

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

"When my Father [Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury] announced and defended his acceptance of evolution in his Brough Lectures in 1884 it provoked no serious amount of criticism ... The particular battle over evolution was already won by 1884." F.A. Iremonger, William Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, His Life and Letters, Oxford Univ. Press, 1948, pg. 491.

"It seems something more majestic, more befitting him to whom a thousand years are as one day, thus to impress his will once for all on his creation, and provide for all the countless varieties by this one original impress, than by special acts of creation to be perpetually modifying what he had previously made.'' http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/White/creation/final-effort.html

[lucaspa]

Post by R. Dean
You seem to have a problem with theists. Most Americans are theists, so
if this is true, you have a problem with most Americans.

The Borg claimed that speciation "depends on God". I asked him "How do you think speciation depends on God?" I did this because I wanted to see if he knew anything about CHRISTIAN theology and thinking. The answer is:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

If you want the Biblical verses, they are:
Neh 9:6 , Psalm 36:6, Jer 51:16, Col 1:16-17, Heb 1:3, 2 Pet 3:11

I do have problems with Biblical literalists and creationists. However, I don't see them as "theists". Why not? Because they are worshipping a false idol of human invention: a human literal interpretation of the Bible. The technical name is "Bibliolatry". So my dislike is not because Biblical literalist/creationists ARE theists, but because they are NOT theists.
FYI, you might find this interesting:
http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm

[Mr. B1ack]

Post by The BORG
Depends on God doesn't it.
Only atheists ponder this kind of thing.

Well SOMEONE has to ... since the rest
are incompetent.

[lucaspa]

Post by Mr. B1ack

Post by The BORG
Depends on God doesn't it.
Only atheists ponder this kind of thing.

Well SOMEONE has to ... since the rest
are incompetent.

Really? You are going to try and tell us that only atheists are competent? That no theist or agnostic is, or has ever been, competent? Not only is the comment super egotistical, it is demonstrably wrong. You NEED to read this paper:
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments Justin Kruger and David Dunning
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/</A>psp7761121.html