Notaness
I think I must be a 'science advocate', although the loaded language you employ makes me cringe .
Please give definitive examples that by evolution, a species has changed into something else.
Okay, here you go - and all this involves species alive today, by the way. This material is 1st year evolutionary biology so I am a little surprised you don't know it.
Putting yourself forward (as you are doing) as an informed non-science advocate (loaded language is a two edged sword ) I would think being adequately informed about what science actually does advocate as rather important... unless of course you have learnt about science from non-science advocates, in which your science education lacking rigour, detail or reliability is no surprise. This is nothing personal; we have a revolving door fitted to this forum specifically for Creationists et. al., as we have such a high through-put of the poor dears, and they have unfortunately saddled you with a stereotype based upon their behaviour and knowledge. Sorry if you don't fit the 'profile'; I will be delighted when/if you prove otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
That gives three examples; the Lesser-Black backed/Herring Gull ring, one concerning Salamanders, and another concerning Warblers.
More on ring species here;
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
... and here;
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VA1BioSpeciesConcept.shtml
This should fulfil your specified standards of evidence; at least two separate scientists, photographic evidence, no hominid skulls. Please be very clear about what reasons you dismiss this evidence for when you reply.
On a this point (hominid skulls), may I ask you how many years study of the biological sciences have lead you to concluded that you and a political-religious lobby group centred in the American mid-West are right, and the rest of science are wrong? You sound very... what were the words you used... 'so sure of' 'your beliefs, I was wondering on what basis you were so sure.
Do you actually believe scientists are that stupid? Or do you credit the 'evolution theory under crisis' bullshit put forth by the Creationist/IDiots lobby? Or is there some seminal paper by a non-science avocado-ate you would like to bring to the discussion and clue us in on why you can dismiss evidence so casually?
Ring species are where an organism has spread geographically, often so two directions of dispersal end up meeting after travelling round a geographical feature in separate directions, or even the entire globe. The original species has been subjected to variation in its geographical spread, to the extent that when it meets itself again it cannot hybridise, being a different species.
Yet if you take examples from locales quite close to each other, they can hybridise.
It's like;
Europe Asia N America Europe
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
The species started as 1 in Europe, and has spread round the world to Europe from the opposite direction, but has become 20 at that point. A 1 could interbreed with a 4 or 5, a 4 or 5 with a 10, etc., but 1 and 20 cannot interbreed and are two separate species. Ring species show evolutionary transition between species based upon geographical separation, a good illustration of the chronological transition normally causing speciation.
I'm not saying you won't have examples, we just want you to walk the talk. Support your claims. You're so sure of the science and evolution. Now bring it.
"we just want?"? Is that a royal we, have you got MPD , or are you typing for a larger group of people?
I love this kind of discussion so much. Sadly, although the examples I am give are rock-solid, experience tells me that bronze-age allegory advocates tend to move the goalposts. Having typically not been aware that speciation is easily demonstrable, when they find out it is, they will simply carry on believing what they already believed in by changing their standards of disproof rather than examining what they believe in the face of clear evidence they are wrong. I will be truly happy if Notaness proves me wrong.
Notaness, could you answer four questions for me? I've responded to you, I hope you'll return the courtesy.
- Why do you limit the power of Almighty God by insisting a creative myth invented by a bronze-age goatherd is true, and denying that god has the ability to make the world come about as we see it by any variety of methods including evolution? You say you believe in evolution to an extent, but obviously not to the extent of believing in speciation, yet that's like saying you believe in internal combustion to an extent, but don't believe petroleum vapour is flammable. Is it becaue you believe the Bible is literal?
- If the speculation by scientists about extinct forms being related to each other on account of the signs of forms transitioning from one to another in the fossil record is so massively wrong, how come when genetic techniques were developed to study the inter-relatedness of organisms, the 'mistaken' scientific claims regarding the relatedness of extinct forms based on claudistics (study of bones) turned out to be verified by genetics most of the time?
- What role does random mutation play in evolution? This is a trick question, as most often Creationists et. al. are spectacularly wrong in their understanding of it. Please use your own words.
- In the above example of ring species, say the Herring Gull one, please tell me where the transitional species are, and how distinguishable they are from the species they ransform from and too. Answering this may well reveal to you how much rubbish you have been mislead by, as 'there are no transitional species' is such a popular Creationist/IDot rallying cry it is seldom given scrutiny by those using it.
Please realise I am replying to you in the same spirited and confident tone you used yourself. Time for you to walk the talk (origins).
