DaveScriv wrote:
Mainly because mass underground train/metro systems, full of people, and hence blood, didn't exist before the London system was constructed, so these mosquitos have evolved to exploit this wholly new environment, hence it must be a new species.

questioner121 wrote:I'd like to see a dog evolve into a cat or vice versa over any length of time that can observed by successive generations of humans.

Calilasseia wrote:Oh dear, it's time for the Big Speciation ExpositionTM.

questioner121 wrote:The evidence we have is either fossils or DNA. With with either of these it's not possible to determine if species populations are able to interbreed or not. So the point still stands that it's an assumption that those populations evolved into separate species. They could have been created just as they were as separate species living side by side or maybe they were all able to interbreed meaning that they were still part of one species.

questioner121 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Oh dear, it's time for the Big Speciation ExpositionTM.

...interesting. So how do you determine if the living organism of one population is incapable of reproducing with one from another population? For example one living organism may be capable physiology wise but may just not fancy doing it behaviourally. Are there any papers where atheists evolutionists have tried it on with a chimp to see if they're part of the same species?

questioner121 wrote:
...interesting. So how do you determine if the living organism of one population is incapable of reproducing with one from another population? For example one living organism may be capable physiology wise but may just not fancy doing it behaviourally.

Are there any papers where atheists evolutionists have tried it on with a chimp to see if they're part of the same species?

questioner121 wrote:

DaveScriv wrote:
Mainly because mass underground train/metro systems, full of people, and hence blood, didn't exist before the London system was constructed, so these mosquitos have evolved to exploit this wholly new environment, hence it must be a new species.

Sorry I don't think you understand the definition of species. If the new population of mosquitos can breed with a different population then it's not a new species. How you can determine whether these new mosquitos are capable of breeding with other populations isn't easy to determine.

DaveScriv wrote:
Apparently they can't (usually) breed with other mosquitos - about as much speciation as anyone could expect in only a century.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Oh dear, it's time for the Big Speciation ExpositionTM.

...interesting. So how do you determine if the living organism of one population is incapable of reproducing with one from another population? For example one living organism may be capable physiology wise but may just not fancy doing it behaviourally. Are there any papers where atheists evolutionists have tried it on with a chimp to see if they're part of the same species?

So you're just going to continue to pretend the link I provided earlier doesn't exist?
Thank you for demonstrating you haven't the slightest inclination to discuss this topic rationally or honestly.

questioner121 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Oh dear, it's time for the Big Speciation ExpositionTM.

...interesting. So how do you determine if the living organism of one population is incapable of reproducing with one from another population? For example one living organism may be capable physiology wise but may just not fancy doing it behaviourally. Are there any papers where atheists evolutionists have tried it on with a chimp to see if they're part of the same species?

So you're just going to continue to pretend the link I provided earlier doesn't exist?
Thank you for demonstrating you haven't the slightest inclination to discuss this topic rationally or honestly.

What paper?

questioner121 wrote:

DaveScriv wrote:
Apparently they can't (usually) breed with other mosquitos - about as much speciation as anyone could expect in only a century.

Usually is not good enough. If some can still breed with others then they are still part of the same species. It could be down to behaviour that the majority of the mosquitos don't breed with others from a different population. If the mosquitos have the physiological capability then I would say they are still part of the same species. I'm sure Calilasseia will be able to confirm this.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

questioner121 wrote:


...interesting. So how do you determine if the living organism of one population is incapable of reproducing with one from another population? For example one living organism may be capable physiology wise but may just not fancy doing it behaviourally. Are there any papers where atheists evolutionists have tried it on with a chimp to see if they're part of the same species?

So you're just going to continue to pretend the link I provided earlier doesn't exist?
Thank you for demonstrating you haven't the slightest inclination to discuss this topic rationally or honestly.

What paper?

I'm talking about the link to a list of observed and documented cases of speciation, a.k.a. macroevolution.
Your red herrings are not going to get you anywhere.

questioner121 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
So you're just going to continue to pretend the link I provided earlier doesn't exist?
Thank you for demonstrating you haven't the slightest inclination to discuss this topic rationally or honestly.

What paper?

I'm talking about the link to a list of observed and documented cases of speciation, a.k.a. macroevolution.
Your red herrings are not going to get you anywhere.

Read this to get a better idea about the creationist view of macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

bert wrote:

questioner121 wrote:The evidence we have is either fossils or DNA. With with either of these it's not possible to determine if species populations are able to interbreed or not. So the point still stands that it's an assumption that those populations evolved into separate species. They could have been created just as they were as separate species living side by side or maybe they were all able to interbreed meaning that they were still part of one species.

Do you know the vitamin C evidence? You have to eat it because (in contrast to the dogs and cats (and cows and pigs)) your body can't make it.
Why can't it do that? Because your parents couldn't do it either. Why? Because, as it happens, humans do have the gene necessary to synthesize it but a big chunk is missing from it. Why would a creator give us a broken gene?

Oh, and why did he give chimps and gorilla's the same broken gene? That is, with the same chunk missing from the gene? Hm, you're sure your deity didn't use evolution to magic everything the way it is now? No hubris, OK?

There is a rodent that also can't make vitamin C (I keep forgetting which one it is; sorry. Guinea pig or something). Why did it get a *different* broken gene when your deity was doling out broken genes?

Bert

Fenrir wrote:

questioner121 wrote:

Speciation requires reproductive isolation.

bert wrote:
There has been research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

questioner121 wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Oh dear, it's time for the Big Speciation ExpositionTM.

...interesting. So how do you determine if the living organism of one population is incapable of reproducing with one from another population? For example one living organism may be capable physiology wise but may just not fancy doing it behaviourally. Are there any papers where atheists evolutionists have tried it on with a chimp to see if they're part of the same species?

questioner121 wrote:

bert wrote:
There has been research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee

Just as a matter of interest, would any atheist/evolutionist try it on with a chimp (without the artificial insemination and in the name of science of course)? If no is that because you've evolved to not find chimps attractive? Maybe there's a gene somewhere which scientists can extract to make the chimps attractive again...just thinking.

questioner121 wrote:Read this to get a better idea about the creationist view of macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html