4 ms·

There is lots of evidence in chromosome number changes, mostly duplications. Many grasses that we use as crops, such as wheat, have multiple genome copies and t

There is lots of evidence in chromosome number changes, mostly duplications. Many grasses that we use as crops, such as wheat, have multiple genome copies and thus a much higher number of chromosomes.

jdthedisciple 2y ago
Same challenge to you: Can you name a single animal species whose speciation-by-random-mutation we have witnessed?
- LegibleCrimson3 2y ago
  Depends on how pedantic you want to be about "speciation". Humans have tons of adaptation just across ethnicities that likely originate in random mutations, sickle-cell anemia being an obvious one. If you're asking for full species change in a laboratory environment (ignoring the fact that what constitutes a "species" is somewhat arbitrary), there have been many studies on that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_experiments_of_speciation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_experiments_of_sp... Claiming that the science is bad because the time scales are large is to discount any hypotheses on large time scales. That blows away nearly all of astronomy and huge potions of geology. That's ridiculous. We can clearly learn about things that have happened in the past by piecing together the mountains of evidence that are available.
  - jdthedisciple 2y ago
    The problem with hypotheses on large time scales is that they are not falsifiable. The even bigger problem is to, despite that, make them into de-facto doctrinal tenants such that any critic is automatically labelled a pseudo-scientific nutcase. The additional problem with the hypothesis at hand (speciation-by-random-mutation) is that it has never been observed and thus confirmed. Now what I just stated are simple objective facts that nobody who understands reasoning from first principles AND is academically honest should have any qualms with.
    - sethammons 2y ago
      By the same reasoning, have you talked yourself out of plate tectonics?
      - jdthedisciple 2y ago
        What makes you assume I had talked myself into it before, or even have a stance on it at all? I hope you don't think that was some kind of genius gotcha question on your part ...
        FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        It was completely the same. The same reasoning against Evolution, can be used for Plate Tectonics. So the question is valid, why do you believe one and not the other? Many in this thread are creationist that believe the world was created 6000 years ago. The argument that at that time god kicked off Evolution and Plate Tectonics at same time. The arguments are valid for both. But of course at the point you are using mysticism to just make up creation myths, of course you could reason about anything.
    - zamadatix 2y ago
      Falsifiable != directly observable. E.g. if a hypothesis makes a claim the Indian subcontinent came from being pushed out of the earth at the Himalayas instead of rammed up into it one can make measurements today showing the opposite movement, the wrong types of rock at the top of the mountains, the wrong types of behaviors in the sea floor of the Indian Ocean, and so on that this theory predicts the opposite of. All this despite the process occurring over millions of years and is lacking a time machine. A good hypothesis has to be falsifiable and make new testable predictions but does not have to be directly observed in its entirety to be replaced or supported by new evidence. Taking plate tectonics again as an example it's relatively new but predicted all sorts of testable things in regards to earthquakes, deposits, volcanos, and current movement that have all matched better than any other proposed explanation predicts. If a set of new predictions by an alternate theory is found that predicts not only these findings but different ones plate tectonics does not then plate tectonics would be falsified and thrown to the side.
- bena 2y ago
  Any ring species. Ring species are an excellent way to show how speciation occurs. It’s not a cow giving birth to a chicken. It’s a series of biologically compatible sub-species where the start and end are no longer compatible. You want the impossible so you never have to confront the fact that you’re wrong. It’s a wholly incurious attitude and really should be a hard line on a site that purports to be about intellectual curiosity.
  - jdthedisciple 2y ago
    I understand what I demand has been an impossible feat thus far. Which is precisely why we can't accept it as a fact. > ... incurious attitude and really should be a hard line on [HN] Weak. You can't answer the question. Just like nobody can tell me how speciation-by-random-mutation is supposedly a valid, falsifiable hypothesis. But the intellectual that you are , you don't say "hmm interesting points you raise there", but rather demand censoring the critic. Weak way to intellectually throw in the towel. --- Reg. ring species: Wikipedia tells you why they don't qualify: > However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested. ... > Many examples have been documented in nature. Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely.
    - bena 2y ago
      You are trying to force the definition of evolution to be "speciation-by-random-mutation" and not a single credible person will tell you that's how it works. Because it's not. It would be like me asking you to show me a leprechaun to prove Ireland exists. I don't say "hmmm interesting points you raise there" because you don't raise any interesting points. Instead you retread the same tired arguments Creationists trot out despite being answered years ago. Why does the lack of gene flow from end to end disqualify them. Just because genes from A can never make it to F, doesn't mean anything. And your second quote is filled with weasel words. Not to mention, the following statements are pretty much "and here's a list of them".
      - 2y ago

jdthedisciple 2y ago

Same challenge to you: Can you name a single animal species whose speciation-by-random-mutation we have witnessed?

LegibleCrimson3 2y ago
Depends on how pedantic you want to be about "speciation". Humans have tons of adaptation just across ethnicities that likely originate in random mutations, sickle-cell anemia being an obvious one. If you're asking for full species change in a laboratory environment (ignoring the fact that what constitutes a "species" is somewhat arbitrary), there have been many studies on that: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_experiments_of_speciation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_experiments_of_sp... Claiming that the science is bad because the time scales are large is to discount any hypotheses on large time scales. That blows away nearly all of astronomy and huge potions of geology. That's ridiculous. We can clearly learn about things that have happened in the past by piecing together the mountains of evidence that are available.
- jdthedisciple 2y ago
  The problem with hypotheses on large time scales is that they are not falsifiable. The even bigger problem is to, despite that, make them into de-facto doctrinal tenants such that any critic is automatically labelled a pseudo-scientific nutcase. The additional problem with the hypothesis at hand (speciation-by-random-mutation) is that it has never been observed and thus confirmed. Now what I just stated are simple objective facts that nobody who understands reasoning from first principles AND is academically honest should have any qualms with.
  - sethammons 2y ago
    By the same reasoning, have you talked yourself out of plate tectonics?
    - jdthedisciple 2y ago
      What makes you assume I had talked myself into it before, or even have a stance on it at all? I hope you don't think that was some kind of genius gotcha question on your part ...
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        It was completely the same. The same reasoning against Evolution, can be used for Plate Tectonics. So the question is valid, why do you believe one and not the other? Many in this thread are creationist that believe the world was created 6000 years ago. The argument that at that time god kicked off Evolution and Plate Tectonics at same time. The arguments are valid for both. But of course at the point you are using mysticism to just make up creation myths, of course you could reason about anything.
  - zamadatix 2y ago
    Falsifiable != directly observable. E.g. if a hypothesis makes a claim the Indian subcontinent came from being pushed out of the earth at the Himalayas instead of rammed up into it one can make measurements today showing the opposite movement, the wrong types of rock at the top of the mountains, the wrong types of behaviors in the sea floor of the Indian Ocean, and so on that this theory predicts the opposite of. All this despite the process occurring over millions of years and is lacking a time machine. A good hypothesis has to be falsifiable and make new testable predictions but does not have to be directly observed in its entirety to be replaced or supported by new evidence. Taking plate tectonics again as an example it's relatively new but predicted all sorts of testable things in regards to earthquakes, deposits, volcanos, and current movement that have all matched better than any other proposed explanation predicts. If a set of new predictions by an alternate theory is found that predicts not only these findings but different ones plate tectonics does not then plate tectonics would be falsified and thrown to the side.
bena 2y ago
Any ring species. Ring species are an excellent way to show how speciation occurs. It’s not a cow giving birth to a chicken. It’s a series of biologically compatible sub-species where the start and end are no longer compatible. You want the impossible so you never have to confront the fact that you’re wrong. It’s a wholly incurious attitude and really should be a hard line on a site that purports to be about intellectual curiosity.
- jdthedisciple 2y ago
  I understand what I demand has been an impossible feat thus far. Which is precisely why we can't accept it as a fact. > ... incurious attitude and really should be a hard line on [HN] Weak. You can't answer the question. Just like nobody can tell me how speciation-by-random-mutation is supposedly a valid, falsifiable hypothesis. But the intellectual that you are , you don't say "hmm interesting points you raise there", but rather demand censoring the critic. Weak way to intellectually throw in the towel. --- Reg. ring species: Wikipedia tells you why they don't qualify: > However, it is unclear whether any of the examples of ring species cited by scientists actually permit gene flow from end to end, with many being debated and contested. ... > Many examples have been documented in nature. Debate exists concerning much of the research, with some authors citing evidence against their existence entirely.
  - bena 2y ago
    You are trying to force the definition of evolution to be "speciation-by-random-mutation" and not a single credible person will tell you that's how it works. Because it's not. It would be like me asking you to show me a leprechaun to prove Ireland exists. I don't say "hmmm interesting points you raise there" because you don't raise any interesting points. Instead you retread the same tired arguments Creationists trot out despite being answered years ago. Why does the lack of gene flow from end to end disqualify them. Just because genes from A can never make it to F, doesn't mean anything. And your second quote is filled with weasel words. Not to mention, the following statements are pretty much "and here's a list of them".
    - 2y ago