I don't think he would contest it. I think he would just smile and say, "I see your point".

I'm sure he never thought of humans as being 'artificial' in the first place.

We do tend to say that man-made things are 'artificial', versus naturally made thing.

I'm not sure if tossing crabs back qualifies as being 'artificial' selection though.

That kind of implies that everything humans do is 'artificial'.

If we fall in love, get married and procreate, is that 'artificial' too?

Don't mind me Bogie, I'm just poking fun at the whole idea that everything humans do is considered to be 'artificial'.

I never meant that to be a direct challenge to your personal views.

Evolution: How much change is required to become a new species?

Answer: A species is defined currently (artificial definition, for an artificially conceptualized term) as a life form that can reproduce biologically reproductive offspring.

Thus:

Wolf and Dogs and Horses and Azzes can and often do produce offspring, but their babies can't have babies when they grow up.

How much change is required? By definition, exactly as much change as would make it impossible for a normal mating pair, one from the old species, one from the new, to bring about offspring that can't bring offsrping about, or one from the old, species, one from the new, whose consummation results in no offspring whatsoever.

How long does this take to develop? The question is unanswerable. Sometimes one single mutation will create an unbridgeable and irreconcilible biological rift. And that one single mutation happens in a flash, most likely.

In other times, the phyical separation of groups of the species and their adaptive selection will produce new species only in one-hundred thousand years, with a number of mutational changes occurring in the sex of the separated groups.

However, ultimately, each species gets formed in one single mutation, over a time that's not longer than it takes to boil an egg, as there is only One Mutation before which the two groups were one species, and after which they are two species, if we agree with the definition of what makes a species a new one forming from the old one.

An interesting fact is that a St. Bernard male and a Chihuahua female are biolgoically capable to bring about offspring. But there are difficulties with the insemination procedure. The male member of the St. B. is thicher and longer than the entire female Chihuahua's body. Therefore if a pregnancy results by immaculate concpetion (that is, semen gets in the vaginal canal of the Chihuahua without penetration and without breaking the kanine hymen), then the only humane thing to do is to perform abortion on the chihuahua, or else smash its brains out by swinging it hard by hand agains the curb on the sidewalk.

Evolution takes millions of years right? HIV hit the scene in 1981 (some say before, but let's say 1981). We have a virus that for every year, it evolves 1 million years worth for a higher animal. So that's 30 million years worth of mutations for the HIV population, each population living in a different host. Why is HIV still a virus?

most of the time an onion with big ears, but every once in awhile you get a piece of azz that can bring you to tears

... or a democrat with bad breath!

no. humans originated in africa about 200,000 years ago and several evolutionary changes have occured in skin pigmentation, size, etc.

It's a moving goal post. When Evolutionists want, they say Evolution is very fast (Punctuated Equilibria) or it's very slow, whichever argument works best at that moment.

Regardless, HIV has experienced 30 million years of evolution, why is it still a virus? No rational person is going to argue against micro-evolution, the evidence is all around us. There just isn't any empirical evidence of macro evolution, it's long past time for Evolutionists to admit that.

well, my having no clue what an evolutionist even is i'll not comment on their goal post. but my guess on the hiv virus surviving as is for thirty million years would be similar to a guess i might make about insects surviving unchanged for millions of years; they survive and florish quite well as they are so why change. if it ain't broke don't fix it right?

According to Merriam-Webster, an Evolutionist is "a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution ". It wasn't that hard to look up.


Are you suggesting that mutations only happen when the species wants to mutate? Are you saying that mutation only happens when an unfilled niche exists in the food chain?

Well, if that's the definition of an "Evolutionist", then most of the people you've been talking with in this thread aren't "Evolutionists", They aren't students or adherents to a theory of evolution.

Instead they are just people who are attempting to explain the actual evidence that is already known about evolution. No "theory" required.

I saw an interesting Nova episode recently. It was about dogs. Both wolves and foxes bred for docility will start to show doglike fur qualities and mannerisms in only three generations. The "dog gene" apparently acts by preventing the animal from fully maturing and showing it's vicious nature. A dog is apparently a puppy forever. The related genes also seem to be connected to different fur colors.

no. never suggested that. if i wanted to suggest that, i'd use similar wording.

oh yeah, now that i know the definition of "evolutionist" i indeed ain't one.

I see the term "evolutionist" used mostly by religious people who might label themselves "creationists."

It is similar to a conservative labeling someone "liberal" if they seem to have ideas opposite of theirs.

It is simply labeling opposites.

Christians vs pagans

Believers vs non-believers

"they survive and florish quite well as they are so why change. if it ain't broke don't fix it right? "

I guess you confused me with the quote above.

That's called selection pressure. When a species develops a feature or trait that allows it to survive over another. So the Samurai face was a selection pressure for the other crabs. It is part of Darwin's theory of evolution "survival of the fittest."

There is a similar story of two moth species in pre-industrial England.
There were white moths and black moths before industrialization in England. As industry developed and grew so did the amount of soot deposits on trees and buildings. The white moths stood out against the sooty background but the black moths blended in and were harder to see. Predators naturally ate more white than black moths and so white moths where less likely to survive to procreate (pass on the white moth genes) so black moths soon predominated. How long it takes depends on how fast a species procreates and the level of selection pressure applied, along with the initial population.

Exactly.

They use that term in the hopes of falsely reducing everything we know about evolution to merely be a 'theory' which they claim is nothing more than "a guess".

But that's totally wrong.

Evolution is a process. (it may or may not actually occur)

The theory of evolution is simply a collection of explanations that attempt to explain how the process works.

The "theory" of evolution has grown tremendously since Darwin first proposed it. Today biologists and geneticists have explained how the process of evolution actually works. So now they have a working theory, that no only explains how evolution works, but it also shows them how to manipulate DNA to produce specific changes in organisms that we would like to see. Hopeful for reasons of better health.

It has no been confirmed the DNA is indeed the blueprint of an organism and geneticists show clearly how changes in the DNA blueprint can occur thus explaining how the process of evolution actually works.

There exists much evidence for the process of evolution.

Fossil records are quite profound evidence. But more recently the DNA evidence has been overwhelming. The Human Genome Project has shown how the process of evolution works in detail. If that process were not occurring we would not see the things we do in the DNA record of humanity.

So for all intents and purposes the process of evolution has indeed been confirmed. Whilst the theory of evolution (the actual explanations of this process) continue to be refined.

So dismissing the process of evolution as nothing more than a mere 'theory' is indeed just a ploy used by religious zealots who refuse to recognized and acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that the process of evolution is indeed very real.

The Peppered Moth experiment has been debunked for years. Peppered Moths are nocturnal and sleep on the bottoms of leaves or branches, so color played no role in survival. It's also important to note that the experiment has never been duplicated and not for lack of trying.

not sure why this story is considered debunked. It is a classic example used in basic college biology courses.

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html